All Episodes
Previous Next
Feb. 7, 2006 - Rush Limbaugh Program
36:23
February 7, 2006, Tuesday, Hour #1
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Welcome to today's edition of the Rush 24-7 podcast.
Hey, Brian, did I tell you to turn the DittoCam on and camp?
Yeah, good.
Okay, DittoCam's on.
It'll be on for the whole program today.
Greetings.
My friends, a welcome.
A heartfelt glad you're here on the Excellence in Broadcasting Network.
I am America's anchorman, Rush Limbaugh, coming to you today from deep in the heart of the Limbaugh Institute for Advanced Conservative Studies.
If you want to be on the program today, telephone number 800-282-2882 and the email address rush at EIBnet.com.
Well, two interesting things, well, there's more than two interesting things, but the media has come out in full-fledged defense of Hillary Clinton, George Bush's guest sister-in-law, after the attack, if you will, by Ken Melman, the attack, in which Melman says, she's sort of angry.
I don't think the American people like angry candidates.
And then Senator McCain sends this sarcastic letter to Senator Obama.
And, you know, McCain, I hope he learns a lesson.
Well, I don't hope.
We'll see if he learns a lesson here.
When he goes out and attacks Republicans, that's when the media loves him.
But they're not happy with this letter he sent to Obama because Obama is the future of the Democratic Party.
And you don't diss the future of the Democratic Party like Senator McCain did.
We have audio soundbites of all of these coming up.
In addition, ABC News via their investigative reporter, Brian Ross, and I can attest personally that Brian Ross gets it wrong, has got this story, is the CIA leak probe a witch hunt.
Now, because it's Brian Ross, I cannot attest to the accuracy of the report.
This is a guy who just recently on Nightline did this whole distortion of Justice Scalia showing up to teach a course for a legal society, which the respondents, the participants, had paid months in advance to attend this thing.
It was portrayed by ABC News as a junket.
And because it occurred on the day that Chief Justice Roberts was sworn in, ABC's investigative unit decided to smear Scalia by suggesting he was dissing the Chief Justice by not showing up at his swearing in and instead going out and playing tennis at this legal junket.
And they tried to raise questions about the fact that this legal junket might have violated ethics because what's he doing taking money to go out and play tennis and hang around a bunch of conservative lawyers when in fact he was teaching one of these ongoing accreditation courses.
You know, lawyers, despite the fact that they think they know everything, still have to go prove it to another board of other lawyers every now and then to maintain their law licenses and what I think was that kind of course that Scalia had been asked to teach.
So they totally distorted this.
And when they were shown proof that they were wrong, they still stuck with the original story and did not modify it or moderate it at all.
It was a smear and a hit piece from the get-go and our old buddy Brian Ross right in the middle of it.
Brian Ross has reported inaccuracies about me and I therefore know what I'm talking about.
Brian Ross now has an exclusive here is the CIA leak probe, a witch hunt.
Let's, for the sake of this, as I'm going to share with you some of the details, let's assume that this is one of those rare moments when Brian Ross gets it right.
The director of the CIA has launched a major internal probe into media leaks about covert operations in an agency, agency-wide email, Porter Goss, blamed a very small number of people for leaks about secret CIA operations that, in his words, do damage to the credibility of the agency.
According to people familiar with the Goss email sent in late January and classified secret, the CIA director warned that any CIA officer deemed suspect by the agency's Office of Security and its counterintelligence center could be subjected to an unscheduled lie detector test.
CIA personnel are subjected to polygraphs at regular intervals in their careers.
One former intelligence officer called the new warning a witch hunt.
Others said that Goss's email was narrowly focused and did not suggest agency-wide random lie detector tests.
One person who knew about the email said it would make no sense at all to give everyone here a lie detector test.
Goss told CIA employees there were ways other than talking to the news media to resolve any issues that they had with classified CIA operations.
Okay, so here we have a witch hunt.
The CIA trying to find out who's leaking, and this is against the law to do this, leaking these secrets.
And ABC News is onto it.
It's a witch hunt.
Now, I wonder if the estimable Brian Ross and his co-reporter here, Richard Esposito, took this same position in the Fitzgerald investigation, the Valerie Plain case.
And how would you like to be Scooter Libby today?
Here is Scooter Libby sitting there watching all of these leak cases from the NSA spy scandal, domestic spying, as it's incorrectly said, or termed, and now this CIA leak thing.
And in one case where somebody actually leaks damaging information to national security, the media says, wait a minute, what about these attempts to capture these people?
This is a witch hunt.
We're the media.
We're entitled to secrets that compromise national security.
That's why we're here.
We are here to compromise national security because we are working with the Democratic Party and the American left, and our objective is to compromise national security.
And so these great patriots that are helping us compromise national security, why, they're being sought after by the bigwigs in the CIA.
Well, this is a witch hunt.
Meanwhile, here's Scooter Libby, who never did anything to anybody, facing perjury and obstruction of justice charges in a case where it can't even be said by the prosecutor that he leaked the identity of a covert operative.
So when you are accused of leaking something, and by the way, not charged, when you are accused even around the margins and around the edges of leaking something that's not even damaging to anything regarding national security, well, we're going to come get you and we're going to put you in leg irons and we're going to make you spend $10 million with a bunch of blood-sucking lawyers to defend yourself against a process charge that you lied during the investigation, which turned up nothing illegal on your part.
Then, after all that, Scooter Libby has to sit around and watch as genuine leakers who have compromised national security get defended by the very media that couldn't wait to put him in the dock, along with Vice President Cheney, and along with hopefully President Bush and Karl Rove and Rumsfeld and Rice and whoever else the Libs think they want to get their hands on.
It is, it's just, it's got to be mind-boggling to the poor guy.
Scooter Libby to watch all of this.
Mr. Snerdley, I haven't a chance to go through your whole stack here.
Is there a story out there?
Because I've got an email alluding to this, but I haven't seen it myself.
Is there a story anywhere in the mainstream media alluding to the fact that, quote, over 5,000 Americans' phone conversations have been monitored in this NSA program?
I haven't seen it.
Somebody's sending me an email about it, and I haven't found that.
Did it come out in the hearings?
Did somebody assert in the hearings that 5,000 Americans' phone conversations were monitored?
Do a search on it.
I just got this right before the program started.
I was busy organizing things.
See if you could find something about that.
Because if that's true, if somebody has said that, there's a huge story that nobody's glommed on to.
A quick timeout here, folks.
Let's be patient as the rest of the program will unfold before your very eyes and ears magically in mere moments.
Okay, we found it.
It's in the Washington Post.
Who wrote the story, Mr. Snerdley?
Do you recognize the reporter's name?
Never heard of him, doesn't matter.
So was it information that was revealed during the hearings yesterday?
It's Sunday.
Okay, so it's Sunday before the hearing started.
Okay, so apparently, Washington Post story on Sunday.
Who read the paper on Sunday?
It's Super Bowl Sunday.
That's my excuse.
I wouldn't read the Washington Post anyway.
So this email, you know, you people, let me just, so that we don't have to go in and research.
We're fully capable and qualified and capable of researching this, but I'm sure Mr. Snerdley in his tasks as official program observer was not able to observe while he was digging this up.
The Washington Post reports something that two credible sources, is that what it says?
Two credible sources say that over 5,000 Americans' phone conversations were monitored as a result of the president's foreign surveillance NSA program.
Now, my reaction to that is, you know, the media, I guess, the Washington Post story, I haven't seen the story yet.
My guess is that the take of this story is, wow, what an invasion of privacy.
Why this program is over the top?
Why this program is dangerous?
Why over 5,000 American phone conversations have been monitored?
But there's another way to look at that based on what this program is.
And that is this.
Suspected terrorists may have called over 5,000 people in the country.
Suspected terrorists.
That's the point of it.
Instead of focusing on, oh my God, look at the violation of privacy.
Why this program is over there?
5,000.
Well, look at the point of the program.
The program only monitors phone calls in or out of the country with a suspected terrorist on one end of the conversation.
So 5,000 Americans have had phone conversations and phone calls from terrorists since the program started?
That seems to me the it's either that or there's some giant al-Qaeda telemarketing plan going on to sell Danish flags in this country.
Rick in Los Angeles, welcome to the EIB Network.
Nice to have you with us.
Thanks for taking my call, Rush.
You bet.
I couldn't help but giggle a little bit when you were reading that serious Brian Ross story.
Yeah.
Because although in the story, Porter Goff is warning people about the importance of not leaking, and you're going to be subject to lie detector tests.
The email itself and what you read was classified.
It was classified secret.
So it's classified secret being warned not to disclose classified secret information, and yet you're reading a story about this classified secret information.
Right.
I got it.
Here's the sentence.
Doesn't it matter?
Doesn't classified information matter anymore?
No, apparently not.
Apparently, it's a very patriotic thing to do now.
It's not a patriotic thing to leak something that is irrelevant, like Scooter Libby supposedly did.
But boy, when you leak stuff that can damage U.S. national security, the U.S. media, the Democratic Party, are going to love you.
And in this case, here's the Brian Ross sentence.
According to people familiar with Porter Gossel's email, sent in late January and classified secret.
The CIA director warned that any officer deemed suspect could be subjected to an unscheduled lie detector test.
So not only is the program inside the CIA to find out who's leaking now known, but so is the email warning CIA operatives not to leak anything now been leaked.
So, yeah, it's good pickup on your part, Rick.
I appreciate it.
David in Cincinnati, hello, sir.
Welcome to the EIB Network.
Hey, Rush, how's it going?
Just fine, sir.
Thanks much.
Hey, do you see 24 last night?
Yeah, I watched 24.
Of course, I watched 24 last night.
Absolutely.
I watched 24 last night.
Did you catch them doing what the Democrats fear most?
Yes, yes, yes, yes.
I knew.
Keep in mind, though, this episode was probably, I'm guessing this episode was finished, was written back last September, October, probably finished in October or November.
Right.
Well, that doesn't surprise me, but it just goes to show that the public isn't going to be too scared to see the federal government doing this kind of thing.
Well, just to make sure we're talking about the same thing, in last night's episode of 24, and keep in mind it's a television show here, but you're right.
If libs watch this, they'd be panicked and pointing and say, thee, fee, fee.
What happened is that via voice print analysis, the anti-terrorists, the counter-terrorists at 24, were able to, via satellite, intercept or some technology, intercept a phone call between a separatist terrorist and some former Berkeley professor who was going to help him essentially set off the nerve gas canisters in America.
And they were able to identify the voice print, and that told them where the former Berkeley professor was.
And they were able to go there and stop.
So they were monitoring the phone call live as it took place on the basis of voice print analysis.
So I just think it's an example of how cutting edge the program is.
But nevertheless, it is just that.
A television show.
Mike in Grand Rapids, Michigan.
Hello, sir.
Rush, what sent the flags up for me when you're citing this is the Washington Post using the term credible sources.
We've already been treated to so many examples of them not being credible.
That term credible sources is so ambiguous to me that I think that they're pushing the anti-Bush agenda.
You could say anything by just citing credible sources.
Well, yeah, but look, for the sake of the discussion, it's still fun.
We're just going to assume that they're credible sources.
The whole thing could be a lie because obviously it's the mainstream media.
I'm not disputing that.
I'm just saying, if this is true, if what is it, 5,000 Americans' phone conversations were monitored.
That's what the story says.
It's either going to be 5,000 calls or 5,000 people.
But regardless, the focus of this is that there are terrorists making this many phone calls to a certain number of Americans, either some number less than 5,000 or 5,000, and nobody's focusing on that.
That's, you know, I think the interesting aspect of this is that there is no focus on that.
Because, of course, the program is illegitimate.
The program is not going to work.
The program's not useful.
And so any detail oriented along that line is going to be ignored.
The action line of the story, and I've told you several times how to follow the mainstream media.
There's an action line, and there's only certain things in the action line are going to move the story forward.
On the National Security Agency story, the action line is Bush spied domestically, illegally, without warrants on the American people.
So anything that advances that aspect will get reported.
There is no action line on whether the program is good, whether the program is helping, and whether the program is working.
There is no action line on that.
And so they can report 5,000 phone calls, Americans, whatever the number is, were monitored, which means that some number of people in this country, at least 5,000 times, have been talking to a suspected terrorist outside the country.
But that doesn't move the story forward because that's not what this program is.
This story is moved forward by the basis of the action line of domestic spying.
So they just, they totally are uninterested in the salient points.
And as Lindsey Graham, Vice President Graham yesterday said at the hearing, saying, look, I don't agree with the legal analysis of everything the Attorney General had to say here at our hearing today.
I don't really, but I do believe that it is sound and honest.
I may not agree with all of it.
He said that if any Democrat really is so incensed about the NSA program or thinks the president broke the law, then they should have the courage of their convictions and either introduce legislation to end the program or take action against the president.
But that's not what these hearings are about, folks.
Do you know how I know that?
If these senators, both parties, if they are, as they claim, driven by genuine concern for our security and the law, then I have one question for you.
All of you senators, if you really, really mean it when you say that you are driven by a genuine concern for our security and the law, why are you wearing makeup?
Why is this allegedly sensitive hearing on television?
Why are you delivering self-serving statements one after another?
Why aren't you in executive session behind closed doors getting to the bottom of this if you're really concerned about it?
And whatever you learn would be denied our enemies that way.
The fact this is a TV show means that the exact opposite is true.
They're not that concerned.
I found something else about these 5,000 Americans and their phone conversations.
It's in the Wichita Eagle.
And it's their editorial today, in fact.
And I just read a paragraph about here.
It's not reassuring that, according to the Washington Post, the NSA program has been sweeping in scope.
See, it's not reassuring.
It has been sweeping in scope.
In the past four years, as many as 5,000 Americans may have had phone conversations taped or emails read by intelligence agents without their knowledge and say, insiders, this surveillance has yielded only a handful of real suspects each year.
Would such a broad surveillance net with such a high washout rate pass Fourth Amendment muster?
See, no focus on, hey, all of these phone calls, potential suspects.
Thomas Sowell has a great piece on this today.
He said, terrorists and terrorist governments are giving us almost daily evidence of their fanatical hatred and violent sadism as the clock ticks away toward their gaining possession of nuclear weapons.
They not only hold a harmless young woman hostage in Iraq, they parade her parents or parade her in tears on television, just as they have paraded not only the terrorizing, but even the beheading of others on TV.
Moreover, there's a large and gleeful audience in the Arab world for these gross brutalities, just as there was glee and cheering among the Palestinians when the televised destruction of the World Trade Center was broadcast in the Middle East.
Yet, what are we preoccupied with or outraged about?
Whether the American government should intercept the phone calls of these cutthroats to people in the United States.
That question has been sanitized in the mainstream media by asking whether the government should be engaged in domestic wiretapping, just as the terrorists themselves have been sanitized into militants or insurgents.
The way the question is posed by many in the media and in politics, you would think our intelligence agencies were listening in on you talking on the phone to your Aunt Mabel.
Come on, let's be serious.
There are more than a quarter of a billion people in this country.
Intelligence agencies have neither the manpower, the time, the money, nor the interest to listen in on you and your Aunt Mabel and your dull, boring life.
Lawyers may differ.
I added that.
Saul didn't write that.
I'm editorializing as I go here.
I can do that because I'm host and I know Dr. Saul and he permits me.
Lawyers may differ on fine legal points about the constitutional powers of the commander-in-chief during wartime versus the oversight powers of the courts, but a Supreme Court justice once pointed out that the Constitution of the United States is not a suicide pact.
The Constitution was meant for us to live under, not be paralyzed by in the face of death.
Back in the 1930s, some people were amused by Hitler, whose ideas were indeed ridiculous, but by no means funny.
Now, this was not the first threat against a Western country for exercising their freedom in a way that the Islamic fanatics didn't like.
Osama bin Laden threatened the U.S. on the eve of our 2004 elections if we didn't vote the way he wanted.
When he has nuclear weapons, such threats can't be ignored when the choice is between knuckling under or seeing American cities blasted off the face of the earth.
That is the point of no return, and we're drifting towards it, chattering away about legalisms and politics.
Thank you, Dr. Soule.
Here is Chris in Chattanooga, Tennessee.
You're up next, sir, on the EIB network.
Kiddos from Chattanooga, Russia.
Honor.
Thank you, sir.
My statement is only we have 5,000 Americans listening in on.
How do we know those 5,000 people are Americans?
They're just American telephone lines.
The 19 hijackers did not by any means constitute Americans from the continental United States.
That's a good point.
I can't, you know, that.
Well, look, there's a lot unknown about this because you do have to consider the original source.
It's the Washington Post and their credible sources.
Okay.
Washington Post, dubious source for me.
Washington Post's credible sources, even more dubious.
And then you.
Okay.
Oh, it was.
Oh, okay.
Okay.
The five back in December 16th?
All right.
So the 5,000, this makes it even more doubtful.
The 5,000 figure was originally in the New York Times' first story on all this back on December 16th of 2005, nine days before Christmas for those of you in Rio Linda.
And so We have this number that's being bandied about out there now, but we really don't know anything about it.
5,000 Americans, as the guy points out, as Chris points out, could be 5,000 people.
It may not necessarily be Americans.
I still maintain, look, we can talk about this around the edges all day long.
I still maintain, folks, don't lose focus here.
The purpose of the program is not to listen in on all of our dull and boring lives.
It's not about finding out what movies we are renting or buying in my case.
Although, I don't care.
It's not about, it's not about, you know, whatever.
Johnny Walker Lynn, Johnny Ben Walker, was an American, and so is Jose Padilla.
Jose Padilla was an American, is an American, was whatever.
I don't know what their status is anymore.
The Democratic Party, they're super patriots, is all you need to know.
The American left.
But still, you've got the program is designed to find out the modern current equivalents of the 19 hijackers of the 9-11 disaster.
And nobody's focusing on the fact that there were 5,000 calls worthy of suspicion because the action line of the story is: Bush is spying on your dull and boring life for whatever reason.
And in all of this, not one person with any official clout, an elected official anywhere, has suggested the program be disbanded.
The latest from Senator Specter, get this.
The latest from Senator Specter is to just let the FISA court once and for all determine whether the program is legal or not.
The FISA court does not trump the Constitution.
The FISA court does not trump Article II and the president's powers as commander-in-chief.
This is Dr. Sowell is right.
This is just patently absurd.
And it's a joke.
And the more it progresses like this, as I said yesterday, the more it's going to backfire on these people who are trying to miscast this as something that it is not.
Isaac in Newark and New Jersey, you're next, sir.
Welcome to the program.
Thank you.
My name is, like I said, is Isaac Atabre.
I'm from Ghana, West.
Okay.
I think after 9-11, the Democrats must wake up and smell the coffee.
Both Democrats and the Republicans must rally behind Bush, the president, and fight the enemies who are trying to kill Americans.
Well, they think Bush is the enemy, not trying to kill Americans.
They think Bush is the enemy.
Rush, the Democrats should know that Bush is not their enemy.
Their enemies are those who are trying to kill Americans.
There aren't anybody trying to do it.
No, no, no, no.
There's nobody trying to kill Americans.
Those are insurgents.
Those are freedom fighters.
They're fighting against our imperialism.
That's what the Democrats say.
The Democrats don't look at this as terrorists trying to kill America.
If they did, they wouldn't be doing any of the things they're doing when it comes to national security.
They don't look at these people as our enemy.
That's one of the frustrating things.
He hung up.
Hung up.
Well, was he on a cell phone?
Probably was.
But the bottom line is the Democrats better wake up and smell the coffee.
They couldn't smell the coffee if you took them into every Starbucks in Seattle.
They are not capable.
They're not interested in smelling that coffee.
Mike, look at this violence sweeping the world over these cartoons.
Look at the fact that the Israeli Navy offered the help in the search and the rescue of the people that were on board that cruise ship that went down last week.
I mean, there's, I mean, you want to see multiculturalism run amok.
We are looking at it.
I mean, this is plain as a nose on my face.
Multiculturalism, you know, from one country to the next, fine.
Multiculturalism within a country, you got deep doo-doo.
You got big, because multicultural means multicultural.
There used to be one distinct American culture, and that culture is now under assault.
And because some of those people conducting that assault happen to vote Democrats, the Democratic Party will be glad to join them in the assault, or at least encourage them.
I got a quick time out here, folks.
We'll be back.
I'm going to get into the Hillary Clinton audio soundbites.
Maybe, no, I'm going to do McCain first.
McCain and Obama, because that's kind of cool.
Back in just a second.
Stay with us.
I could have sworn I just saw the Hutch in the choir.
Greetings, folks.
Welcome back.
Sit here watching the funeral for Coretta Scott King that is being broadcast on television right now.
The L.A. Times has a story today that some people within the civil rights community are not happy today.
The church where her funeral is being held is not the historic inner city church where her husband preached.
Now, this is a suburban Walmart-like church.
It's a mega church headed by a controversial pastor who subscribes to the prosperity gospel, the idea that the godly will be rewarded with earthly riches.
They can't have that in the civil rights community.
You've got to be committed to a lifetime of poverty because you have no way out.
You are a victim.
Now you've got this guy down there, oh, no, the world's riches are yours.
The prosperity gospel.
It seats 10,000 people.
This is the new birth missionary Baptist Church, well-suited to host today's service.
The long list of mourners includes President Bush, his younger brother Bill Clinton.
By the way, did you see them arriving?
Do you see George Bush and his younger brother getting off Air Force One?
You know what that's going to do to him out in Kooksville.
And Clinton had his wife there, Hillary, and they got off the plane and they're yucking it up and they're laughing and having a good brothers who love each other.
You know what that's going to do to the Kooksville blogosphere when they look at this?
What are the Clintons doing airplay with Hitler?
I can just see it.
I can read it now in my mind.
Stevie Wonder also there along with Maya Angelou of The River, the Rock, and whatever the poem she wrote.
But some here are concerned that the message of the new birth pastor, Bishop Eddie Long, does not mesh well with the precepts of the late Dr. King, who was a champion for poor and disenfranchised blacks.
So what are we supposed to believe?
Dr. King wanted them to stay poor?
He wanted them to stay disenfranchised?
I mean, you look at the modern civil rights movement, and anybody who breaks out of the poor, disenfranchised motif is not looked upon favorably.
You want some names?
Larence Thomas, Condoleezza Rice, Ken Blackwell in Ohio, Lynn Swan in Pennsylvania, Michael Steele in Maryland.
There's any number of people that have escaped the so-called poor and disenfranchised circumstances, and they are not looked upon favorably.
Now, Bishop Eddie Long is a fitness buff, got an energetic style, has emerged as one of the nation's most influential black pastors.
He also, by the way, has angered other pastors with his support of the president's faith-based initiatives and his opposition to gay marriage.
And that's why they're all, why is this funeral taking place in there?
I mean, a guy doesn't like gay marriage.
He believes in prosperity and a faith-based initiative.
Who is this guy?
How did this happen?
They're all scratching their heads.
And then there are some people outside who didn't get in.
And they're saying that there is a tinge of elitism going on inside at the funeral.
The poor and the disenfranchised have been cast aside, cast out, just like Cynthia McKinney and Jesse Jackson Jr. were cast out from front row seats at the State of the Union speech.
And now you've got, well, I don't know who was telling me poor and disenfranchised they couldn't get in, but whoever is running this place like a plantation.
But there's one shining star or at least mitigating circumstance, and that is that the New Birth Church does boast an important tie to the King family, Bernice King, Coretta and Martin's youngest daughter, is a minister there.
All right, audio soundbite time.
And this, folks, is funny.
Bill Schneider, CNN, the rest of the media have just figured out that something's not quite right with Senator McCain.
They're beside themselves over his seething and sarcastic letter to the bright hope of the Democratic Party, Barack Obama.
Schneider says that the letter is alarming.
You got a question today from Phil-In Host this morning.
Why is Senator McCain so ticked off here, Bill?
Little surprising tone in this letter.
A little bit harsh, don't you think?
I'd say this letter is an alarming amount of seething sarcasm towards Senator Obama.
The bottom line is Senator McCain felt betrayed by Senator Obama, and he felt that Senator Obama was pursuing a partisan path.
And he wrote this letter with really scathing criticism and sarcasm.
Senator McCain feels deeply betrayed and his criticism of Senator Obama is extremely harsh.
Now, this is interesting.
I knew this was going to happen at some point.
I thought it wouldn't happen until the presidential campaign.
But, you know, as long as McCain's out there attacking Republicans, oh, the media will just love this guy, and they will praise his.
When he starts being cynical and sarcastic to a Democrat, you know they're going to choose sides with the Democrat.
This is priceless.
The next question to Bill Schneider.
McCain's popular with the Democrats.
Is a letter like this going to hurt his reputation among them?
What his letter to Obama does is really endanger his esteem, his respect among Democrats, because Barack Obama is a star among Democrats.
He's seen as the future of the Democratic Party.
And for McCain to write a letter with these words and this tone, accusing him of a personal betrayal, I think the result is going to be that a lot of Democrats are going to say, how dare he write a letter like that to one of our most esteemed colleagues.
So a lot of this is kind of puzzling.
And again, we don't know what went on privately between McCain and Obama, but something clearly set off Senator McCain into a very, very bitter response.
Now, I kid you not.
No, the letter was sarcastic.
But it was uncharacteristic of McCain.
You've got to understand the media, Jay.
The media is living in a bubble.
And McCain is a God.
McCain's angelic.
McCain only does this to Bush.
McCain only does this to other Republicans.
Now he's turned on a Democrat.
It doesn't compute.
It's like the system has crashed and they've got to reboot themselves.
So When Schneider here talks about, and this, you don't know how to read between the lines or listen to between the lines of these people, when he says, Democrats are going to say, how dare he write a letter, Democrats are going to, what it means is all of the media and the Democrats, how dare he do this?
What is he up to?
What's he doing attacking the future star of the Democratic Party, Barack Obama?
It's a lightweight anyway.
There's no substance there.
But it doesn't matter.
This is just take a break, folks.
I'm just thinking of McCain.
The only people in the world who are surprised by this are these people in the media live in a bubble.
It's just, I can't.
I just asked somebody, is the Coretta Scott King funeral going to go on law all day like the Rosa Parks funeral did?
And it looks like it has taken 10 minutes here to sing the Lord's Prayer.
▲
Export Selection