All Episodes
Previous Next
June 30, 2006 - Rush Limbaugh Program
36:28
June 30, 2006, Friday, Hour #1
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Welcome to today's edition of the Rush 24-7 podcast.
You know, this Supreme Court case yesterday, the Hamdan v. Rumsfeld case, that's an even more outrageous decision than anybody knew.
Yesterday, this court, everybody's saying Bush overstepped.
This court threw out a 2005 act of Congress.
Just threw it out.
And they also cited international sources, international law in this room.
They made up their own law on this, folks.
They said nobody else has the smarts to do it.
It's Friday.
Let's hit the road.
Live from the Southern Command in sunny South Florida.
It's open line Friday.
Hang on.
I'll be right with you as soon as I get this cigar lit.
Here we go.
Okay, make sure it's lit.
Yep.
Amidst billowing clouds of fragrant aromatic first and secondhand premium cigar smoke, I am El Rushball, the all-knowing, all-caring, all-feeling, all concerned, all everything, Maha Rushi from the Limbaugh Institute for Advanced Conservative Studies.
All right.
It's open line Friday, and that means when we go to the phones, the show is all yours.
There are few, if any, controls over what you want to talk about on Friday.
That's not the case Monday through Thursday.
I still have on my medieval dictatorship hat here, folks, and I do never get rid of that.
But a lot more freedom and leeway granted to callers on Friday.
I was told today Dawn came in and said, you set a record for phone calls yesterday.
How many did I take?
20 calls.
See, 20 calls is roughly seven an hour.
And that is a record, a record number of phones.
Most hosts hope they get 20 calls and a half hour that they can take.
If they don't, they start panicking.
20 calls in one day, an all-time EIB record.
We'll see what shakes out today.
That's because for two reasons for that.
One, the calls were good yesterday.
And number two, Snerdley found them.
It's a combination of both things working in tandem.
Here is the telephone number, 800-282-2882, the email address, rush at EIBnet.com.
All right, I want to get some audio soundbites out of the way.
Cookie gave me some where my name comes up.
And of course, this is happening.
When is it not happening?
I mean, more and more frequently.
This is from C-SPAN's Washington Journal today.
Brian Lamb was talking to Boston Globe columnist Joan Venaki.
And I, you know, I've never heard her name pronounced, so I don't know how it's pronounced, Venaki or Vinoki.
And I'm not trying to mispronounce it.
I'm going to give myself every possibility of pronouncing it correctly.
The question, Brian Lamb asked, I'll call her Joan.
Have you been opposed to this war?
I was just one of those people from the very moment I saw those troops storming over the desert.
I just felt that it was the unraveling of the Bush administration.
The rationale was the search for weapons of mass destruction.
But the idea that we would just invade a country the way we did and then just expect to be able to impose democracy or get them to accept democracy seemed a little bit far-fetched.
I want a happy ending.
Unlike if you listen to Rush Limbaugh, which I do occasionally, they say the liberal left just wants everything to go badly so that our premise will be proven right.
But that's not true.
I mean, you certainly can't root for the other side to win.
You want the happy ending to evolve.
It just seems less and less likely.
It's more and more likely.
This is stunning.
We're losing the war, if anywhere, in this country.
On the pages of the drive-by media and on the airwaves of the drive-by media.
But we're not losing in Iraq where everything is actually on schedule there.
Everything is the timetable is happening.
And everything that was planned from way back is in the works, including step-downs of troop levels, drawdowns of troop levels.
Not a date certain pull-out, but what's happening with General Casey and his drawdown suggestions is what was originally in the cards.
We're not losing this over there.
The American military has performed professionally and amazingly in spite of the odds stacked against them with the anti-war crowd in this country doing everything they can to gin up anti-war support and fervor in this country.
I mean, for crying out loud, we've made cause celebs out of people like Michael Moore and Cindy Sheehan for crying out all for the drive-by media has built these people up all for the purposes of advancing their own desires.
Now, I don't know about Joan Venaki here, and take her at her word here, but I've heard many journalists say, well, we can't choose sides in this war.
Can't choose sides in any war.
Why do I compromise my objectivity as a journalist?
I can't help the United States win the war.
I can only report what I see.
Well, and we've all heard this before.
Brian Lamb, anyway, says, well, what do you think about Rush Limbaugh?
I listen to Rush Limbaugh when I'm driving around Boston for as long as I can take it.
And I think he's sometimes funny, usually entertaining.
It's clear the buttons that he's pushing.
He doesn't hold himself out as a journalist.
I think the definition of who a journalist is right now is a little bit blurry anyway.
He's preaching basically to the choir and to people who want to be entertained briefly before they switch off to NPR or country music, whatever their preference is.
This is a columnist at a major American newspaper, the Boston Globe.
This program, it'll be 18 years on August 1st, and they still have the same stereotypes and clichés and conventional wisdom that they associate with those of you who listen to this audience.
Ms. Venaki, go talk to Tom Daschell and ask him about preaching to the choir.
Ask Tom Daschell if that's what Democratic Party research found about who listens to this program.
Dashel went out there, so we have experts that tell us it's not just Republicans listening.
We were shocked.
We were, why do you think so many people are becoming conservatives out there?
They've got to be persuaded by somebody, someplace somehow.
And this is where it's happening.
Ladies and gentlemen, show prep for the rest of the media.
All right, one more of these.
Last night on CNN, David Ensor reporting on the, I guess, weapons of mass destruction found in Iraq.
Former CIA Iraq weapons hunter David Kay told the committee he always expected old shells to be found.
He said they did not prove Saddam Hussein had an active weapons program.
The hearing is unlikely to satisfy some, like talk show host Rush Limbaugh, who is angry that the 500 shells are being played down.
And not just by the media and Democrats.
It's very frustrating.
Why in the world is there such a reluctance?
Even on the part of some Republicans and some Republican conservative media members to downplay this.
But National Security Advisor Stephen Hadley said the shells are old material from before the Gulf War.
Clearly, the White House wants to move on.
Yeah, they do, and that's got everybody really puzzled.
Hookstra has written column after column questioning Negro Ponty and why there's so much reluctance to declassify the entire report.
As has been speculated, ladies and gentlemen, one of the reasons why they might want to move on is that these weapons are easily tagged.
There aren't that many people around the world can build high-class, high-quality weapons of mass destruction.
They're usually identifiable when you find them.
So if you find out that some of these weapons in Iraq came from France or Russia or China, three members of the Security Council, do you want to make a big deal out of that?
Or do you want to deal with it privately behind closed doors or maybe use it as a bargaining chip?
Just one of the possibilities.
Anyway, when we come back, I'm going to share with you some of the details.
The Supreme Court decision yesterday is even worse than we thought.
Do that right after this.
It's Open Line Friday, Rush Limboss, serving humanity behind a golden EIB microphone.
As usual, half my brain tied behind my back just to make it fair.
Let me get into the deeper analysis of the Supreme Court decision by first sharing with you the details of an all-AP story.
The Supreme Court's rebuff of the Bush administration's Guantanamo military tribunals knocks the issue into the halls of Congress, where GOP leaders are already trying to figure out how to give the president the options he wants for dealing with suspected terror detainees.
The way forward could be long and difficult.
Exactly right.
Why do you think one man was named commander-in-chief by the founding fathers in our Constitution?
That man being the president.
Because exactly of what is going to happen now, you're going to have, what, 435 congressmen and 100 senators getting in on this and trying to come up with a law that allows the commander-in-chief to do what he needs to do in order to prosecute a war, which is just absurd.
It is standing the Constitution on its head, which the Supreme Court did.
I've got two different analyses of this decision.
And I'll tell you, folks, it's a little scary when you go through it.
One of them is by John Armour.
John Armour is in North Carolina.
He practiced in the U.S. Supreme Court over 30 years.
He filed briefs in 18 cases.
He's an educator and a scholar.
And his piece is entitled The Gitmo Prisoner's Case, What the Supreme Court Really Did and How the Press Blew the Story.
Then the editors at National Review Online have also done a deep analysis of this decision.
Let me start with Armour first.
He says reading the actual decisions, and there were six of them, reveals a different and more dangerous result, meaning what took place in the court.
To begin with, there was a unanimous court decision in Requirin, R. E. Quirin, 1942, which upheld military trials and convictions, and in two case, executions of eight German saboteurs who had sneaked into the U.S. from German submarines with plans and preparation to bomb various facilities.
The majority opinion by Justice Stevens, joined by Justices Kennedy, Souter, Ginsburg, and Breyer, avoids the prior decision.
There is a 1942 Supreme Court decision unanimous that upheld the whole concept of military trials, military tribunals.
This court, the majority of this Supreme Court, is at hold with that.
Justice Breyer filed a concurrence, joined by Justices Kennedy, Souter, and Ginsburg.
And again, you have to call into play the absence of Chief Justice Roberts, who had to recuse himself of what it's called legally, but he couldn't participate in this because he was part of the D.C. Court of Appeals unanimous decision upholding military trials.
That three-judge decision had agreed unanimously that the Geneva Conventions did not apply to Hamden for reasons clearly stated in the exceptions to the convention.
They're fighters who don't wear uniforms or report to any military command structure.
They don't hide, or they do hide among the civilian population.
While the case was on appeal, Congress passed that while this case, after Hamden was routinely dealt a severe blow by the three-judge panel at the D.C. Circuit, in which one of the judges was the now Chief Justice Roberts, Congress, during the appeal, Congress passed a law in 2005 called the Detainee Treatment Act,
which expressly excluded the jurisdiction of federal courts over, quote, an application for a writ of habeas corpus filed by or on behalf of an alien detained by the Department of Defense at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba.
Now, on grounds of statutory construction, the majority of the Supreme Court yesterday decided that Congress didn't mean what it said in its 2005 law, and they refused to follow the withdrawal of jurisdiction and denied the government's motion to dismiss.
Now, you could say that they just threw this law out.
Technically, that's not what happened.
They just refused to give it retroactive effect, which is the same thing as throwing it out because all of these military commissions were started before the act was passed.
It would be funny if it weren't so outrageous here.
If you go to page 7 and 8 of the opinion from Justice Thomas in his dissent, you will find that he points out that the majority claims that the war started for legal purposes when the Congressional Act, the AUMF, was enacted on September 17th of 2001, meaning that according to the majority, Kennedy and Souter, Stevens, Ginsburg, and Breyer,
the 9-11 attacks are not part of the war on terror because the war on terror didn't start for these justices until September 17th of 2001.
That would mean that Somalia, the Cobar Towers, the embassy bombings, and the coal attack in UMen were also not part of the war on terror.
So it really is stunning when you learn what actually happened.
They just threw out an act of, well, they failed to make it retroactive to apply to the war on terror in its totality.
So in essence, they threw it out.
They just said it doesn't apply here.
An act of Congress.
Imagine just the majority looking at this act, the 2005 Detainee Treatment Act, which expressly excluded the jurisdiction of federal courts, of which the Supreme Court is one, over an application for a writ of habeas corpus filed by on, by or on behalf of an alien detained by the Department of Defense at Guantanamo.
They wrote a law specifically.
They've already done it.
Now they've got to go back and do it all over again to satisfy the demands of the court.
What the court's demanding Congress do, you could say essentially they already did in 2005, and they just threw it out.
They just threw it.
Well, I don't know how many people know this yet.
I don't know.
Snurdler says, where's Arlen Specter?
And I don't expect to hear from him anyway, but the media hasn't read.
The media's got a template.
Bush overstepped.
Bush lost, and they don't care what else is in this.
To them, it's just exciting that the court told Bush he can't do what he wants to do.
Nobody's looking at this in the, well, I guess nobody, but nobody in the drive-by media is looking at this in a direct analysis of the decision.
In addition to this, the Supreme Court repairs to international law to support its conclusions about the application of American law and the Constitution.
It said, finally, international sources confirm that the crime charged here is not a recognized violation of the law of war.
As observed above, none of the major treaties governing the law of war identifies conspiracy as a violation thereof.
Well, as the editors at National Review Online point out, this decision to impose by judicial fiat essentially a treaty that no politically accountable official would dare even propose is precisely what's happened here.
We now have a treaty with al-Qaeda.
The U.S. Supreme Court's established one.
We're working here on an al-Qaeda Bill of Rights.
Now, nothing's going to, Hamden doesn't get out of jail tomorrow.
They're not closing Gitmo.
We'll go through all that in due course.
I'm just strictly talking here about the over, if anybody overstepped, if anybody overreached here, it is the five justices of the U.S. Supreme Court who threw out.
Look, technically, that's not what happened, but it has the practical impact of being that, so I'm just going to stick with it.
They threw out the 2005, A2005 Act of Congress.
This underscores a conclusion also missed in most of the press coverage that a properly crafted statute passed by Congress can restore the authority of President Bush to order military tribunals for all future defendants, excepting Hamden, perhaps himself.
That's already been done too.
It's in the Constitution.
The president is the commander-in-chief, but now he needs a properly crafted statute passed by Congress to restore the authority of the president to order military tribunals, which the Supreme Court in 1942 unanimously said were okay.
They were used by FDR.
The dissents of Justice Scalia and Justice Thomas are especially powerful.
The majority of the court here, folks, has thumbed its nose at both the Constitution and the Congress by refusing to obey the 2005 law, withdrawing its jurisdiction, meaning the court's jurisdiction.
Congress wrote a law saying that federal courts have no say in these prisoners in Guantanamo, and the court just threw that out.
Said, oh, yes, we do.
The court is in effect saying, according to Mr. Armour, we own the law, and neither the Congress nor the Constitution should control the actions of the court.
That is a pretty good summation of what this decision ultimately meant yesterday, back in just a second.
You're guiding light through times of trouble, confusion, murkiness, tumult, chaos, despair, and even the good times.
At 800-282-2882, I tell you, drive-by media, they're really mad at me, folks.
Drive-by, but they're always mad at me.
And by the way, let me say something.
Of you people uh, send me emails expressing deep sympathy for the way the media is constantly attacking me or invading my privacy or whatever it is.
And and uh, let me give you my attitude on it so that you will not get so worked up about it.
It's what I expect.
I have been hammering these people and making fun of them for 18 years.
Uh, largely because of this program and the programs that this one spawned, the drive-by media no longer has its monopoly.
They should, by all that makes sense, hate my guts.
I mean I, it doesn't bother me, it's exactly what I.
I do not expect fairness from the drive-by media.
I do not expect objectivity.
I do not expect equal treatment or anything of the sort.
I mean, i'm walking around with a bullseye on my front and back when it comes to drive-by media.
I know this.
This is the, this is the territory i've carved out.
Uh, so I it's, it's and uh, I won't.
I'm not going to tell you.
It sometimes doesn't make me mad, but the minute I start getting mad about say, wait a minute, I deserve this, this is, this is.
I would fully expect them to respond the way they do.
This is the big leagues, you people.
And uh, you know they've, they've thought, they've had me in the crosshairs three or four times.
They've thought me head they've, they've thought they had me buried, and each time that's why I love all you people so much every time it happens, your support galvanizes, your loyalty deepens, program gets bigger, program becomes uh, even I mean every in a sense even more powerful, because every salvo that is launched here fails.
And so yeah, it is what it is uh, and it doesn't.
It doesn't upset me and I don't.
I appreciate it.
You get all bugged by it, but you have to understand it's human nature.
They ought to despise me, they ought to hate my guts.
I'm the one that came along and has challenged their moral authority.
Uh, gotten rid of their monopoly.
Busted up what they, you think of the power they used to have.
Three networks, two newspapers, a couple magazines, shaped and formed all of public opinion, and it's gone and, in many cases, no respect.
Look at this.
The NEW YORK Times is imploding.
They're making a fool of themselves.
A lot of the drive-by media are and, by the way, note what's happening here.
The drive-by media is circling the wagons around the NEW YORK Times, in fact, let me.
Let me find a couple sound soundbites about this because it's, it's funny, we and we can always, we can always count on Chris Matthews.
He illustrates this pretty well.
And i've got a, i've got a point to raise after we um, after we get the let's see baby yeah, it is cut.
Um yeah, cut nine.
Let's, let's look, let's do that.
Here's an exchange between uh, Chris Matthews on Hardbow last night and uh, White House advisor Nicole Wallace.
Why is the president going after dust in the New York Times?
It's the old trick.
Go after New York.
Go after big ethnic New York way up there in the Northeast that never votes Republicans.
Republican data.
Hold it.
Stop the tape.
Stop the tape.
Can I translate this for you?
They're going after the Times because Bush is anti-Semitic.
That's what this old Northeast, the trick here, the old trick, go after New York, big ethnic New York, way up there in the Northeast, never votes Republican, blaming everybody.
He's accusing a little bit of the administration of having a little bit, Greek you, this at the top of the bite, Mike, of being anti-Semitic.
That's the failed criticism here.
Is this ready to go from the top again?
All right, here we go.
New York.
Isn't that what the game here is being played?
We're well beyond tricks, and certainly I.
Well, why not the L.A. Times?
Why not the Wall Street Journal?
Why aren't you going after all three that ran this story within an hour of each other?
Why are you just saying that?
I think this is like the old Barry Goldwater trick of saying cut off the eastern seaboard, no have a better country.
It seems such a cheap political move, that part of it.
Why didn't we go after the LA Times and the Washington Post?
Because it was the New York Times that got the leak.
Now, the New York Times is saying, well, L.A. Times getting close.
They had competition was out there.
There may have been one paper more than the New York Times got the leak, but let's face it, they drive the agenda, the drive-by media.
They set the agenda for the nightly newscasts on the three networks.
But aside from all that, notice what's happening.
Poor Nicole Wallace, you know, she just got married a little over a year ago, used to, Nicole Devenish, used to watch Nicole, after the debates in the 2004 presidential campaign, just make mincemeat of the media, even female members of the media, anchorettes, infobabes.
You could just see them just seething cat fight claws about to come out.
Because here was a woman, an attractive woman, siding with that dunce Bush.
Anyway, she's now Nicole Wallace because she went out there and got married.
So she's set upon here by Matthew.
Why are you doing this?
Why are you doing this?
Mojo, any Semites.
The old Barry Goldwater trick.
Cut off the Northeast with a saw.
They're circling the wagons around the New York Times.
I have a question.
Wouldn't it be great just once, just once, to see the drive-by media circle the wagons around the country?
When the country's under assault, when a country's under attack, wouldn't you just love to see the drive-by media circle the wagons around the country?
Do you realize what goodwill they could gain for themselves were they to do this?
But they can't do it, can they?
Why not?
Because it would be showing favoritism, and they can't compromise their objectivity as sacred journalists.
Boy, when one of them circled the wagons around Dan Blatter, gave him a Peabody Prize.
Circle the wagons around all these dubious practitioners of the art.
But before we go to the phones, I just want to share with you the National Review Online brief, quick analysis of this Supreme Court decision yesterday.
To begin with, the court had no business deciding this case at all.
Not only did it target the president's commander-in-chief authority to determine what is militarily necessary in wartime, it also imperiously slapped down the U.S. Congress.
In last December's Detainee Treatment Act, Congress rescinded the unprecedented jurisdiction that the Supreme Court in the 2004 Rasul case had tried claimed over alien enemy combatants captured in wartime and held outside the U.S., that is outside the jurisdiction of U.S. courts.
This court, however, acknowledges no limits on its powers, whether imposed by Congress or by the English language, which it had to torture in order to construe the DTA's unambiguous limitation of its jurisdiction as an invitation to meddle.
Congress actually passes a law that takes all the federal courts out of this whole decision of military tribunals and other things for prisoners at Klubgittno.
And the Supreme Court playing games with the dating of the beginning of the war and the meaning of the statute essentially said this doesn't apply to us.
You've got a court that's out of control here.
You've got four libs and a moderate and a court that are out of control, not a president.
Pure and simple.
And let's just wait and see.
Outside of me, my compatriots, great minds like the editors at National Review Online and John Armour in North Carolina.
Let's see where else over the weekend you hear what you have just heard.
It's plain as day, writing the decision.
Anybody can read it and find it.
You have to not want to notice it.
You have to want to ignore it in order to miss it.
To the phones.
This is Adam, Galt, California, 15 years old, he says.
Nice to have you with us.
Thanks, Rush.
How are you doing?
Good.
Very good.
Good.
Actually, right now I'm traveling the Northeast, and then yesterday I went to D.C. and I wanted to tell you what brought me this question and look at the immortals.
Yesterday we were driving through New York and I remembered watching 9-11 and I just remember the unity that we have throughout the whole country and we all knew what had to be done.
We all knew we had to go to war and stop them from basically taking out Western World because attacking the Twin Towers was a symbol that that's what they want to do.
They want to get rid of free world trade.
And looking at the World War II Memorial, I remembered that Pearl Harbor president said we need to go to war and all the Americans were willing to do what he had said because they respected him as a leader.
And I just want to know why we can't have that unity and why we can't respect Bush as a leader also, even though you are liberal.
Well, I'll do my best here.
Brilliant questions.
Very observant of you.
Thank you.
Let me tackle your question of unity.
Why aren't we unified today?
By the way, did you ask me, Adam, why we aren't unified today as we were immediately after 9-11?
Yes.
Yeah, that's what I thought.
Wanted to make sure I understood you correctly.
I'm going to go out on a limb here.
I'm going to go out on a limb, and I'm not buying the conventional wisdom.
We were all unified after 9-11.
What I think happened was that people who today are opposing the effort only were saying what they thought they had to say at the time and do what they had to do at the time.
But I'm not sure that there was ever real unity on this.
But let's say I'm wrong.
Very rare for that to be the case.
But let's say I'm wrong.
Let's say there was unity.
Then what happened to it?
It was never destined to last long anyway because the Democrats hated George W. Bush because of the Florida aftermath.
They thought an election had been stolen from them.
And I don't care what anybody will tell to me.
Even after 9-11, the first thing they were doing after 9-11 was finding a way to make this a problem for Bush.
Now, they put forth the image of unity, but they saw a huge opportunity.
And then they got alarmed because they saw Bush come alive.
They saw Bush make an immediate transformation and become someone that they didn't think that he was.
And so they had to go along with the Efforts that he was mounting in order to take action against the perpetrators of this and to see to it that it didn't happen again.
Then I guess, Adam, the next thing that happened along these lines was Iraq.
And when the president started talking about Iraq, that's when the Democrats made their move.
Well, not at first.
Democrats are all for Iraq in 2002.
They couldn't wait to have another resolution.
But it's like Karl Rove says, when things don't go smoothly, Democrats will be there when the bullets start flying.
And when the going gets tough in a foxhole, they'll abandon you.
In this case, the unity fell apart, and hypothetically, assuming there was any unity, over the never-ending quest of Democrats to reacquire their power.
And they made a calculated decision that they would turn every event, including in the war on terror, into a political event, with the attempt being to be highly critical of Bush and his competence and so forth.
We've gotten to the point now where, and I know this is going to offend some people on the left, but there are people in this country elected and in the drive-by media who are actively seeking to sabotage our effort and ability to win against this enemy and even wage war against them.
Now, I know this offends some of you.
Are you challenging our patriotism?
Say whatever you want.
If you think it sounds like I'm challenging your patriotism, then yes.
I'm challenging your patriotism, challenging your judgment, everything else.
Well, we're not doing it.
Well, then, let me ask you a question: How would your actions be any different if you were trying to undermine our effort?
Tell me that, you on the left.
How in the world would your actions be any different than they are if you were trying to undermine?
Senator Kennedy, it's one thing to go out there and be critical of Abu Ghraib.
It's quite another to say it's worse under us than it was under Saddam.
Dick Durbin, to go out there and criticize what's going on at Club Gitano, okay, fine.
To compare it and analogize it to Soviet gulags and Paul Pot and others, that's not by accident.
That is not by accident.
And don't think that it doesn't create harm and don't think that it doesn't provide impetus and morale for the other side in this.
So the short answer is, Adam, I don't think there ever was unity.
I really don't, not on the left.
I think there was simply they had no choice but then to appear a certain way because everything about them is oriented toward reacquiring power.
It's not about winning the war.
It's not about anything of the sort.
And that's why every facet of this is examined as a political event in the drive-by media and, of course, by the Liberal and the Democratic Party.
Got a run.
Thank you much for the call.
We'll be back and continue after this.
Hi, welcome back.
Great to have you, Rush Limbo Open Line Friday.
Look, I know some of you people might be shocked and stunned at my comments in the previous segment.
I don't, about this, about unity.
Can we go back to September 11th itself, the day?
I mean, I distinctly remember respected voices, the drive-by media anchor trio questioning Bush's courage and his manhood for daring to stay away from Washington after the attacks.
I remember his particular anchor saying, some are just better at this than others.
Speaking of Bill Clinton versus George W. Bush.
I don't have this notion that there was unity from the get-go.
I think it's all a charade.
It's Open Line Friday, by the way, 800-282-2882.
Have you seen the video of Japanese Prime Minister Koizumi at Graceland?
This guy, It's unusual to see a head of state, i.e., a politician, getting down.
Guy's getting down and having fun.
He's moving around and shaking and doing all kinds of little dances there with Priscilla Presley and Lisa, what's her name, Marie?
Lisa Marie Presley, former Mrs. Michael Jackson.
What a memory that must be.
Brian, Kansas City, Missouri.
Welcome to the EIB Network.
Hey, thanks, Rosh.
How you doing?
Fine, sir.
Thank you.
Great.
Hey, I just quick comment.
I would be considered a Democrat.
I want that out, you know, flat out, but I consider myself a good Democrat.
Okay.
The comment you made a couple of days ago, and it was just a blanket statement that kind of bothered me, that you said, all Democrats are just not nice people.
They're just mean people.
And I thought that was kind of funny because I realized what you do, about 90% of it is satire, and I do pick up on that, and I do appreciate it for a lot.
But isn't that how you've made your career out of bashing Bill Clinton, his entire administration, and the six years he's been out?
With satire and parody and humor, yes.
And a lot of attacks on his policies as well.
But that's too rich a target.
I mean, the Lewinsky's, the Seaman-Stained blue dress, I mean, the lying, the pathological disconnects and so forth to be a target.
I wasn't talking about all Democrats, and the program is not 90% satire.
A good portion of it satire.
But no, I was talking to a specific bunch.
Democrats that appear on television, Democrats on the blogs, there's just...
That seems like a pretty big number, I mean.
Well, it is.
Okay, well, let me throw this out at you, too.
If you're going to say that, then let me get specific for a second.
All right, hang on.
I've got to take a break.
It'd be a while if you can hang on, but okay, good.
Stick in.
Because we're nice people on this program.
We're fair.
People are called.
▲
Export Selection