All Episodes
Previous Next
April 12, 2006 - Rush Limbaugh Program
36:25
April 12, 2006, Wednesday, Hour #1
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Welcome to today's edition of the Rush 24-7 podcast.
And good afternoon, folks.
Great it's morning where some of you are good.
Hello, greetings.
Uh it's why I never specify a time of day, because this program is heard live in all time zones, including those time zones that haven't been discovered yet.
The Rush Limbaugh program on the one and only excellence in broadcasting network.
Well, we have today the tale of two prosecutors, Patrick Fitzgerald and this guy Naifong down in uh in Durham, North Carolina.
We've got Club Gitmo News.
We have um we have Dubai news, not necessarily port deal news, but we've got uh we've got Dubai news, we've got Oprah Winfrena News, we have immigration news, we have Donald Rumsfeld telling a reporter where to go from his briefing yesterday.
It's a fabulous bite coming up.
We got a we've got tremendous bites.
Apparently there was a elite media, drive-by media people got together at uh the Bob Schiefer School of Uh Journalism at Texas Christian uh University for a uh uh panel discussion about changes in news and communication.
Of course, I uh was discussed prominently.
We have they're upset about me calling them the drive-by media.
Uh no, I've got come on, I've got I've got I've got things in order.
The first thing I want to tell you about is you know, yesterday there was another special election for Duke Cunningham's seat uh in California, California 50.
By the way, welcome to those of you watching on the Ditto Cam and the uh uh phone number.
I'm sure all of you know it, but we give it out daily anyway, for those new to the broadcast, 800-282-2882.
Now, uh i the the the Democratic standard bearer, the great hope for the Democrats at California 50 is a woman named Francine Busby.
And she ran against Duke Cunningham a couple years ago.
Last time the uh election was the seat was uh uh up for up for grabs, and she got 36% of the vote against uh against Duke Cunningham.
So the Democrats are looking at this seat and at this race, and they're saying, This this is gonna show the title wave.
This this election, California 50.
That's that's gonna be where we're gonna find out that we're gonna sweep the Congress.
Well, it it didn't happen.
Uh Francine Busby got 44% of the vote, and again, the Democrats are out there calling this a moral victory.
Rom Emanuel, who runs a Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee, says this is a dramatic win.
He said it shows that Democratic independent and Republican voters simply want change not so fast.
The fact is that Francine Busby underperformed John Carey in this in this district.
Uh uh the the uh Democratic candidate received 45 point or candidates received 45.2 percent of the vote in yesterday's election.
53.3% went to the Republican vote.
There were 14 Republican candidates on this ballot, and I think two Democrats, two or three, with Francine Busby getting the lion's share of the Democratic vote.
So the uh uh Richard Cohen, who uh writes the Almanar Albanac of American politics is written in the spring of 94.
The GOP actually won the two longtime Democrat held seats.
These uh were more than moral victories the uh the the Republicans had.
So what's gonna happen now is that Francine Busby will face off against uh Representative Brian Billbray, the Republican, in a June 6th runoff.
And uh uh the the if the Republicans in this district total 53 percent of the vote, and the Democrats got uh got 45.3 whatever forty-six whatever it was, uh 45.4% of the vote.
I uh here we go again.
The point is that this is not uh shaping up to be anything other than another celebrated loss for the Democrats.
Hell, folks, we didn't even talk about this race on this show on purpose.
I wanted to see what was gonna happen without the influence of the nation's leading radio talk show.
I'm sure local people out in San Diego talked about it all over the place, not slighting anybody here.
We're gonna zero in on this as the um as the uh uh runoff on June 6th approaches.
Uh former President Slick Willie uh is in the news.
Uh former President Clinton said Tuesday that one of his greats regrets was failing to Do more to bridge the economic and social gaps between white and black people in the United States.
Amazing.
This guy runs around apologizing for all the things he didn't do, and yet he's considered one of the greatest presidents ever.
He was speaking to a black think tank.
And uh, listen to this as an AP.
The former president offered a sombre, sorrowful reflection on the end of his time in the White House and his failed effort to spark a national debate about race relations.
He's still looking for a legacy out there, ladies and gentlemen, and uh basically I worked hard and all these different things, and and I I I really I try to say I never worked hard in my life, especially on that race thing.
You remember Sister Solskjaer moment, I went out there.
I risked everything uh for that.
But uh I worked so hard trying to fix these different things, and I just regret the country couldn't fix itself uh while I was trying to do it too.
The country didn't help me at all, but I gave it my best shot, but I'm sorry I failed.
And of course they love him.
They absolutely love him.
I guess Clinton just figured out that there are blacks in the country.
Notice all these things after he leaves office.
He laments.
He just figured out last year that there's aids, and he just figured out that some countries are wealthier than other countries, and that we've got to do something about that.
All of this stuff that he's doing post-presidency, he um admits doing nothing about because he was busy partying and keeping the approval rate up.
Rather than offending anybody.
And Mrs. Clinton's back in the news again, talking down the economy.
Too much happy talk on the economy.
Mrs. Clinton's so impressive calls for socialism in the face of an economic boom.
She was in Chicago, she called Tuesday for a new national economic strategy that combines fiscal discipline with broad health care reforms, a rebuilding of the nation's public works, and innovation in such fields as energy research to foster success for the middle class.
So she wants to turn our economy into France's economy.
No growth, high inflation, unlimited immigration, high unemployment, and she wants to run it all.
Because she wants to be president.
And of course, she's the smartest woman in the world, of course, Mrs. Clinton, very well qualified.
What what what are the what are the businesses that uh that that she's she's no, she hasn't run any, sorry.
Well, she was on the board of directors at Walmart, but I mean, obviously didn't learn much.
She was on the board at Walmart, Walmart, Walmart news today.
We got Iran Nuke news today.
Oh, you will not believe this.
I am so loaded today.
There's a there's an uh uh David Ignatius piece in the New York Times about about Iran, he and he quotes as his source authority of all people, Zabigniev Brzezinski.
Zebig.
Now, who was in charge of our ill-fated Iran policy, which led to where we are with that country today?
Brezzinski, he was a national security advisor to Jimmy Carter, so the New York Times goes, So what do I tell you?
Fail and your stature rises to the upper echelon of the liberal democratic movement, Mr. By the way, I want you people to think about something.
That old Mahmood, uh Abadini Jar, these guys had the weirdest celebration yesterday announcing that they've uh enriched uranium to three and a half percent.
They had they had dancers on stage, flamingo-type dancers with with what look to be vials of uranium that they're juggling around, they're all happy they're thanking God for this.
Uh folks, do you think that the constant badgering of this administration and its foreign policy by the drive-by media in this country, the Democratic Party and the fringe kook left, might have contributed to Iran's uh confidence and arrogance in thinking that they could do this with us already?
We're all we're just across the border, we're in Iraq.
The U.S. military is in Iraq, and the Iranians are fearless.
They don't even care.
Do you think if all of this that's gone on the last five years had not gone on, if we had been united in this country in our in our effort to um defeat militant Islam?
Do you think the Iranians would have quite the arrogance and braggadocio to do this right in front of our face and right under our nose?
They know or they think, they suspect that we have been rendered impotent because of all of the anti war protests by the political party, the Democratic Party, and ex presidents who are running around the world, even to that region, ripping that very policy.
Do you think maybe they have been invigorated and made confident in their operation to pursue a nuclear technology, be it weapons or uh or the creation of power?
You think they've been um energized by the American left?
I think it's certainly worth uh considering.
Um we're trying to think Mrs. Clint has not run a business.
She is uh simply uh uh boards of directors, several corporations, yet she go to the economic club of Chicago and say that she can run any and every industry in the nation.
She knows what to do about it, how to fix it, turn it into France.
Just uh absolutely uh absolutely brilliant woman.
Wait till you hear some of this stuff that Brzezinski says, and then uh went back and found an interesting passage from Brzezinski.
Let me just do it now.
What the hell?
I can knock this out inside of five seconds.
Where did I put here it is?
Washington Post column, David Ignatius, two paragraphs.
Zigniev Brzezinski, former National Security Advisor to President Carter, makes a similar argument about Iran.
I think of war with Iran as the ending of America's present role in the world, he told me this week.
Iraq may have been a preview of that, but it's still redeemable if we get out fast.
In a war with Iran, we'll get dragged down for 20 or 30 years.
The world will condemn us, we'll lose our position in the world.
Brzezinski urges President Bush to slow down.
Think carefully about his options, rather than rushing to stop Iran's nuclear program, which by most estimates is five to ten years away from building a bomb even after yesterday's announcement.
Yep, see, another guy more scared to death of Bush than what's happening inside Iran, and this is the guy whose policies, whose presidential policies led us to the current day Iran.
He said, time is on our side.
The mullahs aren't the future of Iran, they're the past.
As the United States carefully weighs its options, there is every likelihood that the strategic picture will improve.
Now, isn't that an interesting idea, folks?
Let's take foreign policy advice from Zabigniev Brzezinski, national security advisor to arguably the worst foreign policy president in modern times.
The Islamic resolution, a revolution which we are having to deal with now, began during Jimmy Carter's presidency.
It was during the Carter presidency that the Shah of Iran fell and that the Ayatollah Khomeini came to power.
Now, let's go to the appendix of Brzezinski's book, Power and Principle.
And he includes excerpts from weekly reports that he sent to President Carter, which may not have been such a good idea, friends.
I say that because here is what Ziebig wrote on February 2, 1979.
Keep in mind, he just told the New York Times today, ah, we don't have a problem over there.
They're ten years, five years, uh, the mullahs are the past.
I mean, the future of Iran is on our side.
We got our problem as Bush, blah, blah, blah.
Here's what he wrote on February 2, 1979 to Jimmy Carter on the topic of Islamic fundamentalism.
Quote, the conclusion from several studies done in the intelligence community is that we should be careful not to over-generalize from the Iranian case.
Islamic revivalist movements are not sweeping the Middle East.
They are not likely to be the wave of the future.
If we emphasize moral as well as material values, our support for diversity and a commitment to social justice, our dialogue with the Muslim world will be helped.
Well, here's a man who got it wrong as badly as it could have been gotten wrong.
He did not see the future wave of Islamic fundamentalism, militant Islamism.
He's advising Jimmy Carter, hey, let's do social justice.
Let's talk about diversity.
I guess it worked, didn't it?
Let's see, uh commitment to social justice, very effective in dealing with the Ayatollah Homeini, who considered America to be the uh the great Satan.
Here we are in America where the National Security Advisor to Jimmy Carter can now provide counsel on Iran, as though he sits atop Mount Olympus, and does so in the New York Times.
Quick timeout.
We'll be back after this.
Hang on, I'm not checking something out here.
Yeah, now here's Ignatius, the guy who wrote this piece in the New York Times, the Washington Post, I'm sorry, the Washington Post is where he writes.
He's on Fox right now, giving analysis on what we need to do in Iran after quoting Zabigniev Brzezinski.
And again, uh I want to read to you what Brzezinski wrote himself to President Carter.
Weekly reports, he put some excerpts in his book called Power and Principle.
And this is what he wrote February 2nd, 1979 on the topic of Islamic fundamentalism.
The conclusion from several studies done in the intelligence community is that we should be careful not to overgeneralize from the Iranian case.
Islamic revivalist movements are not sweeping the Middle East.
They're not likely to be the wave of the future.
If we emphasize moral as well as material values, our support for diversity and a commitment to social justice...
Our dialogue with the Muslim world will be held.
We are still cleaning up after the mess.
Thirty years after Jimmy Carter, we are still cleaning up the mess that that that administration made.
This is just it's fascinating.
You got to hear this, Rumsfeld yesterday, and this is a this is quite instructive too as to how the drive by media and many other journalists as well operate and how they think.
I mean, this almost is an explanation for Dan Rather.
And Mary Mapes and their National Guard forged document story.
Listen to this exchange.
Mr. Secretary, in November of 01, the president, according to several books that you haven't disputed, said start planning, and you think I'm going to stand around reading your books and disputing things in them or validating or not validating.
I've got a real daytime job.
I mean, you'd you do nothing else but that if you did that.
The fact that I haven't disputed something, I mean, if I disputed all the mythology that comes out of this group and the books of the world, I wouldn't have any time to do anything else.
Right on, right on, right on.
So here you have this arrogant, snot-nosed reporter who starts out, Mr. Secretary, in November of 01, the president, according to several books that you haven't disputed, said start planning and you so the fact that some jerk, some nobody writes a book that Rumsfeld probably doesn't read and couldn't care less about, and so doesn't dispute the claims.
Why?
It must mean he's guilty.
And this is exactly how the drive-by media thinks.
It's how they work.
It's the same thing.
Dan Rather still out there says his his Bill Burkett story was true.
Nobody has proved the story isn't true.
Nobody has any evidence the story isn't true.
All we have is evidence that the documents they use to assert their story are forgeries.
And he's still out there.
Well, until somebody disputes the facts of the story, we're still going to go with the story.
And this is um it in other words, they can assert anything.
Somebody can assert anything in a book, and if it's not denied or disputed, then the story stands.
Here is uh question.
Uh this is a panel discussion at the Bob Schiefer School of Journalism.
Uh it and it he does that it, I mean, it is an actual it is an actual name at Texas Christian University, and a elite media drive-by types gathered to bemoan the end of their monopoly.
Washington Post editor Lynn Downey uh responds to a question from a member of the audience.
It hasn't come out tonight as Rush Lindball.
They have assaulted the objectivity of newspapers, television, in the case of Limbaugh, I don't know, 15 years.
They label our industry as uh drive-by media with a hidden agenda, and yet there's really no response to that that I'm aware of, other than individuals like myself who continue to argue with good friends that what they're doing is like McCarthy did in the 50s.
Will this pass?
Are they doing incredible damage to our industry?
What's their future?
And how would that impact journalism?
I don't think they impact uh journalism very much at all.
They're building their own audiences and uh they're entertainers.
People who agree with them and like to hear that those things reinforced on the right or the left.
We'll pay attention to more.
We can say until we're blue in the face that uh Washington Post is not liberal, uh, the Washington Post is accurate, Washington Post is not what Russian block says it is.
But readers are gonna judge us by what we do.
We have to do our jobs well.
You know, the this this this whole sound bite is just ripe, is it not?
It's just rich from the question to the to the answer.
These guys apparently have no sensitivity for the people they destroy.
And you did you see, by the way, that you've the this controversy involving this gossip uh writer at uh page six New York Post page six Jared Paul Stern.
He actually admits that their job is to destroy people.
Something I have always maintained about journalists, that that's how they that's how they advance.
Go out and destroy somebody.
Some court of some sort of community-oriented profile or whatever.
Well, we'll we'll talk about this and all the rest of the exciting data in the stacks of stuff when we come right back.
And welcome back.
So much fun we are having today.
More fun than a human being should be allowed to have.
All right, let's listen to soundbite again.
Let's do a start-stop here on this uh on this now.
Well, one thing it's clear, uh, ladies and gentlemen, is that my characterization of the of the uh legacy media, the mainstream media as the drive-by media that has pierced them.
That's pierced them as much as Bush criticizing them as as offering propaganda opportunities for our Qaida enemies in Iraq.
I don't know who the audience member is.
Sounds like he himself is a member of the drive-by media, very hurt by it.
At the Bob Schiefer uh School of Journalism, Texas Christian University, Len Downey, editor of the Washington Post executive editor, answers the question.
Here's the bite again.
They have assaulted the objectivity of newspapers, television, in the case of limbo, I don't know, 15 years.
Okay, the topic has it come up tonight is Rush Limbaugh.
They've assaulted the objectivity of newspapers.
I see, I'm a they now.
The topic that hasn't come up is Rush Limbaugh.
They have assaulted the I am a they.
I'm talk radio.
I am I am a multiple-headed beast.
Uh ladies and gentlemen, they have assaulted the objectivity of newspapers, television in the case.
No, we haven't.
We've simply pointed out the lack of it.
And you guys have done the job for us.
The only difference is that there's a group of people now that has the ability to analyze what you do.
You guys used to have a monopoly where you got to set the agenda, you got to report what people didn't dispute that you had said thereby making it true.
Uh you had got to play all kinds of tricks on people.
We I mean, we can cite countless of you blew up trucks to make it look like they happened accidentally on NBC.
You did the Dan Radder story.
I mean, there the the litany of stories has been documented.
There is no the thing that you guys have gone wrong with is you pretend to be objective.
Just admit who you are, like we do, and you'd have far fewer problems.
Your audiences are dwindling, and your audiences are dwindling because you're not trusted anymore.
It is known that you now have an agenda.
Always have had.
We can look at what you're doing in Iraq and with Bush and see that you're trying to relive the glory days of Vietnam and Watergate.
You all are going back to your past to your glory days, trying to find reasons to convince yourself that those days can be again, but they can't.
They are over with.
Our industry has uh drive-by media uh with a hidden agenda, and yet there's really no response to that that I'm aware of, other than I, you know, I don't want to make this personal.
But I've been behind this microphone for uh 17 and a half, almost 18 years.
And for the vast majority of those years, you people in the drive-by media have made it personal.
I mean, I I don't want to go back and recite specific examples, but you people in the audience know that when this program is reported on or when I'm reported on, the last thing it is is objective or fair.
You you respond constantly.
You people analyze yourselves more than we do.
You people make everything about you in the drive-by media.
You have these shows on television where you analyze yourselves and you analyze the big media and how it's performing that week.
You respond to all This stuff constantly.
You have done your best to destroy talk radio.
You've done your best to destroy its credibility.
You've done your best to to characterize it as uh some loony fringe operation off on the on the wayside there and and uh and it's done just the we're the ones who have the growing audience.
We're the ones with the growing businesses.
You guys are laying people off, you're cutting back, you got fewer viewers, you got fewer listeners, you got fewer readers.
I mean, it's it's it's obvious what it is.
But to say that there hasn't been a response to it.
Talk to anybody in talk radio, and you and and you will find out that the response to talk radio's increased prominence in the drive-by media uh has been uh profound, and it's been one that's uh I think set out to destroy it in terms of uh credibility.
Individuals like myself who continue to argue with good friends that what they're doing is like McCarthy did in the 50s.
Stop the tape.
Uh you know, that we're redefining terms here all of a sudden.
Now we are McCarthy.
What did McCarthy do?
Well, it's still debatable.
Some people think McCarthy was telling the truth.
But the thing that that the the the the I guess the most accurate thing to say about McCarthyism and McCarthyism called uh McCarthy called people things they weren't.
He accused them being communist.
I would think a liberal would be proud to be a communist, but they didn't like it back then.
And so that that was it.
McCarthyism is to lie about people, is to is to brandish them with labels uh that are untrue.
What uh that's not what we do here.
We simply analyze your work.
We simply measure your work and we put it out there for people to see in the um in in in a different context.
But it's not McCarthyism.
I'm not sitting here telling anybody about the mainstream media as in these sound bites.
I'm I'm simply letting you people tell your own story.
We have some examples coming up here in just a moment.
Let's resume the tape.
Will this pass?
Are they doing incredible damage to our industry?
What's their future?
And how would that impact journalism?
Stop the tape, stop the tape.
Stop.
What's their future?
Uh are they doing incredible damage to our industry?
This is typical of liberals.
This is the Democratic Party probably sits and has private meetings at seminars asking the same questions.
Are these people is this gonna pass?
Is this limball thing gonna end?
Are you gonna be doing credible damage to our party, our industry?
The last people that they will examine are themselves.
If you're losing market share, losing dollars, losing business, whatever, you're losing voters, don't care what it is.
If you don't first ask yourself, are we responsible?
Are we doing something wrong?
For example, if I ever started a losing audience on this program, the first thing I would do is, okay, what's changed about this show that people don't like it?
The last thing I would do is start blaming the critics of this program for for driving the audience away.
The last and last thing I would I was they have yet to do that.
They have yet to analyze their own problem.
And this guy is in si he's panicked.
You can hear his voice.
Is it gonna pass?
What are they gonna do?
Is it gonna affect journalism?
Oh my God, Mr. Downey, what are we gonna do?
And here from atop the mountain of the Washington Post is the answer to these teeming questions.
I don't think they impact uh journalism very much at all.
They're building their own audiences and uh they're entertainers.
People who agree with them like that.
The tape.
Uh the common refrain, they're just entertainers, they're just establishing their own audiences.
I would uh I would suggest that they go back and look at the pew survey that we pointed out, you know.
We didn't even know existed.
Uh our editor at the Limbaugh Letter found this.
It's 2004 Pew survey.
We'll put it, we'll put it up on the website.
It's a PDF file, but it's page 28 uh in the report, page 30 in the PDF uh file, but it clearly indicates that of consumers of hard news.
This program is most often listened to by consumers of hard news.
Uh people that listen to this program, yeah, it's entertaining.
It's gotta be.
It's in the media.
There's a lot of noise out there.
You gotta stand out above it.
But it's also substantive.
And that they will not admit.
So we're just entertainers.
Uh they're building their own audiences.
I don't think they impact journalism very much at all.
Fine if they don't think that we'll just continue to sneak up on them.
We agree with them and like to hear that those things reinforced on the right or the left.
We'll pay attention to them more.
We can say till we're blue in the face that uh Washington Post is not liberal, uh, the Washington Post is accurate, Washington Post is not what Rush Lindbaugh says it is.
But readers are gonna judge us by what we do.
So we have to do our jobs well.
Now, okay, Washington Post is not liberal.
This is give it up.
Give it up.
You're beating your heads against the wall, and you're going to get bruised here pretty badly.
Cranial swelling is not long down the road for you people.
I mean, this this is ridiculous.
Didn't the Washington Post just start?
Yes, they did.
Within the past month, they started a conservative blog on the website and their readers, and the left-wing fringe threw a hissy fit.
And the liberal Washington Post buckled just as fast as a bunch of congressmen in front of an immigration protest.
And they concocted some phony excuse that the guy that they had hired was a plagiarist.
And that they didn't know it.
And so he was gone inside of two weeks.
Probably created more attention and hits to that blog at the Washington Post than any of their liberal bloggers, but they couldn't handle the heat from the left, and so they couldn't offend their audience, and so they had to get rid of the conservative blogger, and at the same time they had to put out a bunch of garbage to impugn his character and reputation at the same time.
Don't tell us you're not liberal.
That's where you're going to be.
What is so wrong with being liberal?
I thought being a progressive, being a liberal was something to be proud of.
I am proud to say I'm a conservative.
Flex my muscles, say, damn right I'm a conservative, and here's why.
And I don't have to have a meeting with myself to remind myself what conservatism is.
I mean, you I shouldn't get so exercised because it's actually good that they don't get it.
It's actually good that they continue to be so obstinate and stubborn about about their their jobs, their mission, who they are.
Here's another bite here before we have to go to the break.
This last night on C-SPAN, by the way, at the Bob Schiefer School of Journalism.
A panel discussion about changes in the news and communication.
Bob Schiefer, of course, since it was at the Bob Schiefer School of Journalism, moderated, and he added this after Downey just said what he said.
One of the reasons we have such partisanship in the country now is because we have so many different points of view.
Stop tape.
What he really means to say is too many.
Points of view, not so many.
It used to be that television was the one common experience that most Americans shared.
We all watch the same television.
Stop tape.
He's reminding us that he knows they had a monopoly.
There was one television, meaning there was three networks, and that was it.
And there probably was just one television in the house, as uh Bob's thinking about the glory days here, and the whole family sat around and watched what these people put out is news, and he's admitting, lamenting those days are Fayonara.
Now you can get the news any way you want it.
People tend to go to the places where they get it the way they like it.
But in the end, we're not all getting the same stuff.
Stop tape.
Why should we?
Why should we?
You still do the same stuff as ABC does or NBC does.
Or as the Washington Post and New York Times does.
Why should it be the same?
There's half a world, if not more, that you totally ignore.
There's over half a country that you ignore, if not more.
Why should it all be the same?
And so that makes it more difficult for the person that hears the news that comes from one point of view over here to understand what the other side of it is, because he's simply not getting it.
Yes, he is now.
They are, we're all getting all sides of it now, Bob, and that's what they he's just admitted here, whether he knows it or not, uh, that they they had their monopoly and that it is ended.
And is also, I don't know if he unwittingly admits this, but it clearly thinks audience is idiots.
There's so much news out there, you don't have the brains to figure it out.
Back in the old days, when the drive-by media was it, why they could tell you not only what the news was, they could ignore the news they didn't want you to know, and they can tell you what to think about what they showed you.
And they don't have that power anymore.
And all this is because of a bunch of entertainers who've come along and are destroying McCarthyism, McCarthyites on the talk radio side are destroying the credibility of once great journalists and their business.
So we don't have a monopoly anymore.
There's too many sources out there, uh, and the audience is too stupid to sort through it all.
And it all adds up to the fact that they still will not examine their own role.
In their continuing Dumas back with more in a moment.
You know, I'm thinking it's this this guy questioning uh Len Downey at the Bob Schiefer School of Journalism Forum last night on C-SPAN.
When is when is Rush Limbaugh going to be responded to?
What about the Time magazine cover?
In 1995, which was doctored, a photo of me doctored to show smoke coming out of my mouth in a churlish, devilish uh fashion.
And the headline was, Is Rush Limbaugh good for America?
And the following week they did a glowing cover story on Fidel Castro and his efforts to revitalize his his his lavish uh paradise.
A lion in winter.
Yeah, Fidel Castler saved a country that he destroyed.
Is Rush Limbaugh good for America?
Don't tell me you people in a drive-by media haven't responded.
Speaking of Castro, do you know what he's doing?
I actually love this.
Castro is going to drill for oil in the Gulf of Mexico 45 miles from the United States.
He doesn't want to depend on Hugo Chavez alone for oil, because the guy's unstable.
I mean, Castro, one unstable guy will recognize another unstable guy faster than anybody else will.
He's actually going to drill.
Now you get the Mexicans drilling for oil, and you've got Castro drilling 45 miles from from uh U.S. uh soil.
You've got American liberals that won't let us drill anywhere.
And Castro's just gonna drill it right up our you know what?
Fine and dandy.
Here's the Judy Woodruff now uh talking about the frustration of the drive-by media that their monopoly has vanished.
There is frustration on the part of the mainstream media that we haven't been able to come back so often and defend ourselves in a way.
As Bob said, their agenda is really an opinion agenda.
And the agenda of the mainstream media is, we hope and we believe to report the news.
Uh, and yet they have set upon Stop the tape.
It's BS.
Your agenda is to make news.
Your agenda is to create news.
You don't report the news.
That's what's wrong with what you people do anymore.
You don't the what what's the biggest news story on a given day at the latest poll?
And who does the poll?
You.
There's no reporting in a poll.
It's become lazy substitute.
this is such they don't they really it's so arrogant they don't get it on the mainstream media in many instances and made it seem as if we do have an agenda like theirs Except on the other end of the spectrum, and we are more dispersed.
There isn't like one division of of you know of all the newspapers and the New York Times, the Washington Post, and all the networks who come together and say, this is what we believe.
It doesn't work that way.
We compete with each other.
And so I agree there is some really that there there is not one division of all the newspapers, New York Times, Washington Post, and Networks comes together and oh yeah, let's go back just to last month, Judy.
The president does excel at fraternity-style teasing.
Like when he tells snapped reporter.
His attitude during the press conference was oddly upbeat, I thought.
And you know, the towel snapping.
He was in this jocular frat boy towel snapping mood.
Did his PR people warn the president when you go out and towel snap?
Now, that was from March the si in March of uh it's last month at a presidential press conference.
Now, the president did not towel snap a reporter, so how in the world did everybody in a drive-by media end up using the phrase?
Well, we know how it happens.
You hang out together, you go to lunch, you go to dinner, breakfast, whatever, and and you all sit around and talk.
Whoever comes up with the cutest catchphrase, everybody else just uses it.
Either that or there's some Oz behind a curtain that's assigning all these words and phrases like gravitas.
This is this is absurd.
You are all identically the same.
It doesn't matter what network people watch when they're watching the drive-by media, they're gonna get exactly the same thing.
We have documented this.
We're not telling people this.
We illustrate it with your own words.
This is this is too easy.
I'm towel snapping reporters myself here.
All right, the PDF file with the Pew report from 2004 showing consumers of hard news tuned to this program more than any other.
And the transcript of our announcing it that day is at the top of the homepage at Rush Limbaugh.com.
We've only just started, folks.
▲
Export Selection