Welcome to today's edition of the Rush 24-7 podcast.
What did I tell you?
What did I tell you just yesterday?
Democrats call on Congress to investigate British petroleum shutdown of the oil pipeline up in Alaska.
Still haven't heard anybody call for an investigation of Reuters.
I knew, I told some people last night, I said, what's going to happen with this oil yesterday on the radio?
They're going to try to prove some kind of conspiracy to see to it that prices are increased on gasoline and so forth.
This oil, this oil thing, it didn't take but one day for my prediction to come true.
Greetings, ladies and gentlemen.
Nice to have you with us.
Here we are from high atop the EIB building in Midtown Manhattan here for a couple days of meetings and a staff farewell.
Well, Tracy's leaving.
Tracy from the website.
She's the art director.
Tracy's leaving.
She's going back to art school.
She wants to get her master's.
At least she's not going to New Orleans down there with Altamont, you know, to help fix the levees and so forth.
But she's been here six years and she wants to fly the coop, spread the wings, take what she's learned here at the EIB network and maximize it out there in the real world.
And we all, well, not all, but some of us wish her the best.
Anyway, the telephone number, 800-282-2882.
If you want to be on the program today, the email address, rush at EIBNet.com, and a hearty and sincere and special welcome to those of you watching the program today on the DittoCam at rushlimbaugh.com.
This is very timely.
This is really, really cool.
You wonder why I think, I don't think I know.
You wonder why I know that the drive-by media works in concert with the Democratic Party.
This is an AP story.
Report.
U.S. atrocities in Vietnam worse than thought.
Oh, how timely.
Oh, just what we need.
We're in the process of trying to persuade as many Americans that Iraq is the new Vietnam.
Now we're going to say Vietnam's even worse.
This sets up a future story that Iraq is even worse than Vietnam is.
Atrocities against civilians and prisoners by Army soldiers during the Vietnam War were more common than originally disclosed to the public, according to a Los Angeles Times review of recently unsealed government files.
You know who is making a beeline, probably on his wife's jet right now to take a look at these files is John Kerry, who served in Vietnam and about whom it is being said by certain Democrats, you know, his stature is rising.
He's putting himself back together.
He's a serious contender now.
Well, is this story not made to order for John Francois Carry?
Some 9,000 pages of records, the largest collection of documented war crimes in Vietnam, include sworn witness testimony, investigative files, status reports for top military brass that detail 320 wartime atrocities substantiated by the Army.
Still, few soldiers were held accountable for their war crimes, according to the newspaper's findings, which appeared in the Sunday edition of the Los Angeles Times.
I didn't see it in the Sunday edition of the Los Angeles Times.
I wouldn't have seen it if it was in today's edition of the Los Angeles Times because I have better things to do.
I knew that AP would find all of this.
See, what this is really all about, there's so many things.
It's about preparing us for the next story about how rotten the atrocities are in Iraq and how what this will all mean.
The military just stinks.
The U.S. military, there's something institutionally wrong with the military.
Rumsfeld has to go.
It's an attack on the military.
It's an attack on our ability to commit our forces for good.
It is an attempt to besmirch and impugn the mission of the United States military.
And it's brought to you in living color by the Democratic Party and the drive by media.
Be prepared, folks.
It's an election year, all-out war.
If you think the war has started electorally in this country, you haven't seen anything yet.
Bigday for moveon.org up in Connecticut, moveon.org has yet to really prove they can move voters to the polls.
They have proved that they can raise a bunch of money from some saps on their internet website, but they haven't proved they can move voters.
And the conventional wisdom has been that this primary election in Connecticut between Lieberman and what's his name?
I can never remember his name.
The guy, that's right, Ned Lamont, who, you know, I mean, this guy is, he just, he's just a whiner and a complainer, and that's who they are putting all their marbles behind.
And a lot of conventional wisdom is it's not going to be the runaway for Lamont that the polls indicated.
And just as recently as a week ago and yesterday, the last poll before the election showed Lieberman down six, but with the momentum headed his way.
And there is hand-wringing in the Democratic Party out there over whatever the outcome is will mean for the future of the HR just said, I thought Lanny was going to cry.
Lanny Davis, you mean, in the Wall Street Journal?
You know, that piece that Lanny Davis, I wasn't going to bring this up.
I wasn't going to bring this up until you mentioned this because I'm getting so many people.
Rush, rush, rush, rush.
Look what Lanny Davis wrote.
Look what Lenny Davis wrote.
This is incredible.
This is incredible.
I think, ladies and gentlemen, proof, sorry, poof in Lanny Davis's lingo, poof, that I am needed here to explain things to you is illustrated by your response to this Lanny Davis piece.
Everybody's focusing on the fact that Lanny Davis is criticizing the blogs and the participants on the blogs and a bunch of leftists for being a bunch of haters.
And he can't believe it.
He thought the haters were all on the right, like me and like Ann Coulter.
And he's now comparing this bunch of kook fringe lunatics with all of us who are in the mainstream of conservatism.
As a liberal, he thinks all of us are mean-spirited, racist, sexist, bigot, homophobic.
But liberals, they're such good people.
They have never been that.
Now, Lanny is worried.
What you people think is a great piece by Lanny Davis is one of the biggest insults to us that I have seen.
And I, frankly, am disappointed the journal ran the damn thing.
You know, why do we want to sit here and pump up and say, wow, a Democrat's criticizing a Democrat.
A Democrat just denigrated all of us in the process.
A Democrat just said that, my God, we're becoming what these conservatives are.
Hate mongers, bigots, blah, blah, blah.
I never thought I would see the day.
This is a sly little slime piece.
This piece is full of smears.
I wasn't going to say any of this because I'm sick and tired.
Lanny Davis is a political hack.
This is not serious analysis.
This is Lanny Davis trying to cover his own rear end and make sure people don't think of him the way they're thinking of the Democrat blogs, disguised as, oh, I hope it doesn't hurt our party.
Just a hack.
There is no substantive analysis in this of the conservative critics.
He compares all these people on the Democrat side.
He doesn't like to.
I just, and he gets credit as an analyst.
Goes on all these TV shows simply because he was a lawyer for Clinton, you know, to, you know, he had his job was like a McCurry's, to lie for a liar, cover up for a liar during the Monica thing and the impeachment thing.
And as a result, he's got this reputation as a great analyst, a reasonable liberal Democrat, and so forth and so on.
And he's ended up being credited.
So now when Lanny Davis comes out and criticizes Democrats, why he's given weight and credibility because of the image that has been granted him by appearing on all these conservative shows as a reasonable, non-partisan, well, partisan, but not mean-spirited, blah, blah, blah.
I think it's a cheap little whorish piece, if you want another case, designed to protect his own personal, precious little reputation and those of his friends.
At any rate, as I say, I had no intention of bringing this up.
We'll be back in just a second.
America's real anchor man, Doctor of Democracy, emitting vocal vibrations, dulcet tones reverberating coast to coast via the EIB network.
Well, Reuters has withdrawn all 920 photographs by the freelance Lebanese photographer Adnan Haj from its database on Monday after an urgent review of his work showed that he had altered two images from the conflict between Israel and the armed group Hezbollah.
Why can't you, this is a Reuters story?
Oh, I'm sorry, they can't call them terrorists.
It's in the style book at Reuters.
So it's just the armed group, Hezbollah.
Cute.
Global picture editor Tom Tom Sluzlu Slugove.
Tom looks, it's looked, what does his name look like?
Benadryl called the measure precautionary, but said the fact that two of the images by photographer Adnan Haj had been manipulated undermined trust in his entire body of work.
Not only his, Tom, yours.
And now it's not just Reuters, it's AP.
There's an expose that's been done.
Reuters had a story of the same building supposedly hit twice, about a week apart.
It was actually the same building, only hit once.
They ran a second picture five or six days after the first picture, claiming it was a brand new attack.
They got caught.
AP has been caught pretty much doing the same thing.
Must be all that competition they face out there in trying to get the news.
I'm going to tell you something.
In addition to all of the fake pictures, there's something about this that is, I think, far more important, far more newsworthy, and more interesting to investigate, and that is the staging of events.
I mean, the fake pictures are one thing, and we've now got a bead on it.
But the staging of these events is quite another thing, and that is happening routinely and regularly well in an attempt here to mobilize sympathy and compassion for Hezbollah.
And it's become obvious that you are silly to trust anything coming out of this region when it comes to photojournalism.
It would just be with what we have learned.
Like, when somebody lies to you in your personal life, somebody lies the first time.
I mean, you never forget it, and you always wonder after that.
You always wonder.
I would advise the same kind of scrutiny and doubt when purviewing any of these photos, still photos that come out of this out of this region from either Reuters or AP.
The blog Drinking from Home Notes a Reuters picture and an AP picture that both show the same woman whose home, which is an apartment according to Reuters, a house according to AP, Israel supposedly has just destroyed.
The Reuters photo dated July 22nd, the AP photo dated August 5th, two weeks apart.
We will put this at rushlimbaugh.com.
It's the Drinking for Home blog.
We'll put the link up.
Same woman, different poses, same place, two weeks apart, two different attacks, the structure misidentified or identified in different ways by the two news agencies.
Now, in addition to that, things are getting crucially important and interesting.
I want to read to you, this is a story from the French news agency.
And I want to read to you just the first paragraph, which is a very short sentence.
And as I'm reading it to you, I want you to be, as you listen, tell me what are the most chilling or not chilling, important eye-opening, flag-raising words in this paragraph.
Here we go.
Iran will supply Hezbollah with surface-to-air missile systems in the coming months, boosting the guerrillas' defenses against Israeli aircraft, according to a report by specialist magazine Jane's Defense Weekly last Friday, citing unnamed Western diplomatic sources.
When I read that, what struck me are the words in the coming months.
We're in the midst of talking ceasefire, aren't we?
The Bush administration and the French have a plan.
Some people think the plan's good.
Others think the plan is a mistake.
I happen to think that nobody will abide by the plan in the end, and so it's going to be irrelevant.
I do know that people are going to work very hard trying to make this thing, this new resolution, work and make it pass.
See to it that it passes at the UN Security Council.
The thing about the president is he's not going to require the Israelis to leave Lebanon until this magical, powerful international force is in place to make sure that the Hezbollahs behave.
Now, that's what I can't wait to see this international force.
I can't wait to see who's in it.
I can't wait to see how they operate.
I can't wait to see how long it takes to assemble this international force and how it's going to get there.
That as long as the Israelis don't leave, the Arabs involved here are not going to accept the deal.
I can't see that happening.
But even so, even we're talking about a ceasefire.
Oh, we got a great plan.
We are going to finally bring peace to the we are going to have a cessation of hostilities.
And yet, all buddies in Iran, Mahmoud Ahmadinezad, planning on supplying the Hezbollahs with SAMS, surface-to-air missiles in the coming months.
Even if there is a ceasefire, there is no question this will happen because that's what happens during all ceasefires.
And we know that Kofi Annan isn't going to really work hard to stop these shipments from getting into the Hezbo's.
We know this from history.
We know we've had all kinds of resolutions, the most recent being 1559, not even enforced, which is why the world is going through the motions here again.
So if Iran is going to supply surface-to-air missile systems in the coming months, it means that even if there is a ceasefire, they plan on using it as they always have to arm up, to rev up, to ramp up, and to come back with even more powerful weapons, including surface-to-air missiles.
In a meeting held last month, the Lebanese Shiite Muslim militia, that's the Hezboz, called on Tehran to accelerate and extend the scope of weapons shipments from Iran to the Islamic resistance, particularly advanced missiles against ground and era turkey.
So look at the Islamic resistance, the Lebanese Shiite Muslim militia, we're talking about terrorists, and they can't even refer to them accurately and honestly at the French news agency, at Reuters, or anywhere.
We're still getting, I've got audio sound bites in the stack here today from more attempts by CNN and others to humanize Hezbollah.
CNN goes inside Hezbollah country, back with Anderson Cooper taking a look there.
In MSNBC, they've got Scarborough country at MSNBC, but CNN has Hezbollah country.
So we'll have those coming up as the program unfolds here right before your eyes and ears.
Now, let me go another step farther.
In addition to Iran supplying Hezbollah's with service-to-air missiles in the coming months, anybody wonder where Iran's getting these things?
Well, from the UK Times Online.
The story behind the story in the Middle East today is the proxy war, as Israel on behalf of the U.S. takes on the Hezbollahs, which fights on behalf of Iran and Syria.
Indeed, one can widen it further and describe the participants as proxies for the West versus militant Islam.
This analysis of the conflict sometimes mentions in passing Russia's declining influence, but there is another player that has somehow received almost no coverage.
For decades, China has been building up influence in the Middle East.
It suits China's strategically well that coverage has been almost non-existent.
As Deng Xiaoping once put it, China must hide brightness and nourish obscurity to bide our time and build up our capabilities.
As China develops into the role of a global power, its influence on the region is no longer obscure.
It cannot now be ignored.
This story goes on to detail how China's secret deals are fueling the war.
In fact, how China is supplying arms, including missiles, to the Iranians.
And when you stop and think about this, do you ever hear any militant Islamic chatter railing against the Chinese?
You don't.
They don't have the guts to attack, detect the Chinese.
They don't have the guts to try to pull off terrorist acts inside China.
And ask yourself why.
Instead of me providing the answer, ask yourself why that is.
Not just that the Chinese are allied with them.
They wouldn't do it anyway.
Second thing is, do not mistake what this is really all about.
And I'm not trying to fear-monger here.
I'm just trying to help people honestly assess the situation.
It isn't just the Iranians.
It's who's helping them that also present problems for us in the form of the word enemy.
Already having more fun than a human being should be allowed to have here at the one and only EIB network, El Rushbo, highly trained, broadcast specialist showing everyone how it is and should be done.
800-282-2882.
Interesting question here.
Let's play a little game, hypothetical.
Let's say that Lieberman wins this thing today and shocks the world.
Shocks the Democratic Party.
Shocks moveon.org and the kook fringe of the Democrat base out there in the so-called blogosphere.
If that happens, if Lieberman pulls it out today, It will be interesting to see if these kooks, the moveon.org types, start crying about voter fraud.
Election voting machines that somehow were rigged.
Missing Chad's.
Maybe the ballot was a butterfly ballot.
Maybe it was confusing.
Maybe they will say it's a repeat of Catherine Harris and Ken Blackwell.
Maybe it is that the election was stolen from Ned Lamont.
I would just love that.
Because that's when they lose, and they haven't won anything since they got rid of.
I mean, their first big defeat was Howard Dean, and they've gone downhill after that.
They're going to go downhill with Cynthia McKinney.
You know, this looney bird, she's down by 12 or 14 points in the primary going in the polling in the primary today.
And one of the reasons is that the main street, mainstream, established black voters in her district are just tired of her act.
They're just tired of it.
She's not representative of them.
They are not communists, and they all have IQs higher than a pencil eraser.
And they want a representative in the House of Representatives that also has an IQ higher than a pencil eraser.
And she just doesn't fit the bill.
So it'll be interesting to see.
Her opponent is a black guy in the primary, but it looks like it may be up for her.
But, you know, these are pre-election polls.
And, you know, when the Democrats start voting, you do have to be concerned about the dead voting and the people voting twice and various other elements of voter fraud.
Let's go to some audio sound bites, though, to share with you some of the concerns that mainstream Democrats have over what's going on and over what might happen in Connecticut today.
Hannity and Colms last night, former Democrat pollster Pat Caddell is the guest, and Colmes said, hey, Pat, look, you know, people say, oh, the death of the Democratic Party if Lamont wins, it'll be the anti-war party.
What about that?
Joe Lieberman, who's not necessarily my favorite person, but my God, he has a certain amount of integrity.
Six years ago, he was, by acclamation, nominated to be the vice presidential candidate of the Democratic Party.
And tomorrow, a whole part of the party wants to purge him.
And that's just the beginning.
And we're 90 days away from a very critical election.
And the Democratic Party is going to start eating its own.
I mean, this is ludicrous.
When you say there can be no comedy in this country, that unless you hate enough, that you cannot participate, our political system is going to hell in a handbasket.
I've been wondering how long it would take for this to show up.
I have been amazed over all of these months that quote-unquote mainstream Democrats, and you have to admit, over the years, Cadell has been entirely reasonable more often than not about the fate of the Democratic Party and the direction that it's headed.
He's been bothered by it for a long time.
In fact, I think it's been bothering him as long as I've been on the air.
That's a good point.
I think it's been bothering Cadell ever since August 1st of 1988.
But the fact of the matter is that there aren't very many others piping up and expressing these fears.
Lanny Davis, in a very cowardly, misleading way, tries to do so today in the Wall Street Journal.
But still, they are making it plain, some of them are, that this blogosphere bunch is not good for them.
They don't dig it.
They don't like it.
Now, I want you to go back just two months ago, two weeks ago, any period of time in the recent past.
Don't you recall reports in the media, Democrats going to sweep big, Democrats win the House, Democrats win the Senate, Democrats on the way to the White House in 2008.
Why, just two weeks ago, three weeks ago, why Democrats were on cloud nine?
They were brimming with confidence.
Why, it was all over.
And now, look, As I have observed on countless other occasions, this is an ebb and flow thing, and it indicates they don't really feel all that confident.
That's just spin.
That's just PR advanced by themselves in league with their willing accomplices in the drive-by media.
Here's another one.
Hannity asked Caddell, how will the country view Joe Lieberman losing this primary tomorrow as one of the more moderate voices?
If he loses, you're going to empower what I call the real fringe of this party who are going to believe that they've been right all along, and they are going to start setting litmus tests for everybody.
A month ago, Kerry got nine votes for pulling out with a set timetable next year.
You know, the demand is going to be that position of the Democratic Party or else.
That's what we're looking at.
This is kind of madness.
The country's going to look at us and say, what are you doing?
Hey, madness.
Where have we heard that?
Well, I think we've heard it on this program via this microphone from this oral cavity.
I have said the last two or three days that blind rage and hatred leads to an early descent into madness.
And there's Cadell on the same page with El Rushbo.
Now let's go to this morning's Good Morning America on ABC, the anchorette Infobab Rahman Roberts talking to George Steffi Stephanopoulos.
Robin says, good to see you, George.
This is the day.
We're all talking in the morning meeting, trying to remember the last time a local race, if you will, had such national implications.
You have to go back to the Vietnam War to find this kind of an impact from a local from a senatorial primary.
And it's because so many of the political cross currents across the whole country now are running right through Connecticut.
It's about the war, as you said.
It's about the president and whether his party will control Congress and it's about the future of the Democratic Party.
It's all crystallized in this primary race into Connecticut right now.
Yeah, but he really summed it up when he talked about Vietnam.
You have to go back to the Vietnam War to find this kind of an impact.
They're all excited, man.
Lib excitement in this primary.
It's Vietnam all over again.
It's McGovern time.
It's time to prove that they can stop a war.
It's time to prove that they can sabotage the government in their attempt to achieve victory.
It's time to move public opinion.
And it's also time to see to it that the rest of the country will not trust us to be in charge during these times.
Robin Roberts, the ABC InfoBab, then says, well, you spent a lot of time there with the campaign.
You said it had kind of like a presidential feel.
Fuck.
Oh, my God.
I was surprised at it.
I was out there on Friday with both candidates, and it felt like a presidential primary, not a Senate primary.
I mean, the crowds weren't that big, but there were tons of press because everybody is trying to watch us and see what lessons can we draw from it.
And it will send political shockwaves through Washington and across the country if Lieberman loses today.
That's unbelievable.
Presidential primary.
Not that crowds weren't that big.
A lot of media.
A lot of media.
Crowds weren't that big.
I'll tell you what.
These people are just incests.
I didn't mean to say insects.
They are just, this is incestuous.
The more media, the bigger the event.
The fact that nobody shows up at the rallies doesn't mean anything.
A lot, a lot of media.
We had, yeah, a lot of media in the bagel shop, a lot of media in the bakery, a lot of media at the gas station, a lot of media.
They had to go to a deli, or not a deli, they had to go to some cafe or diner.
You know, the obligatory thing, presidential feel.
These people have lost it.
It's a Democrat senatorial primary, George.
It's nothing to do with the presidency.
And I'll tell you, if Lieberman loses, there's not going to be shockwaves in Washington, George.
Everybody's expecting that now because of the polls.
If Lieberman wins, it's going to send shockwaves, George.
If Lieberman wins, the moveon.org guys, you're going to have to follow him to the nearest cliff and try to hope they don't jump off.
And the same thing with the others in the Koop logosphere.
The big earth-shaking news will be if Lamont wins, or if Lamont loses, if Lieberman wins, that's going to shake up everything because nobody's expecting that because of the polls.
Last night, what was this, MSNBC hardball Chris Matthews said this about the Lamont Lieberman primary.
Everywhere in the world, tomorrow night, every country in the world will get the news of this local Democratic primary and how it goes.
And if it goes against Lieberman, you're going to be hearing the noise.
The front page in Rangoon is going to have this one.
You got to be kidding me.
This is, you see how important they think they are?
You see how important this election?
They think this is going to determine world history.
An election between somebody nobody ever heard of six weeks ago, Ned Lamont.
Most people still never heard of him.
And nice guy Joe Lieberman.
So I guess if the liberals have convinced themselves if Lamont does win this thing, the world's somehow going to stop.
Right there on its axis.
Sheesh, screeching halt.
Hold on to whatever you're sitting on because the world's going to come to screeching halt.
You don't want to get thrown off.
And then after the world stops, we're going to pack up.
And we're going to get out of Iraq tonight.
We'll start getting out of Iraq tonight.
That's what this means, folks.
We get out of Iraq to the troops start actually leaving the country tonight if Lamont wins.
August surprise, it's just one Kook winning one Democrat primary in a tiny little blue state.
Yep, yep, yep, yep.
Yahoo.
Well, I don't know what it means, ladies and gentlemen, but Joe Lieberman recently announced just moments ago that his website has been hacked by supporters for Ned Lamont, and his website is down.
It could be the difference, who knows?
When your website goes down on Election Day, of course, I don't know, people can't vote on your website.
But it just, I mean, poor Joe, I mean, just matter of minding his own business, trying to retain his seat in the Senate and stand by his principles and so forth.
And they put him on the Huffington Post in Blackface.
And now these Lamont Cretans have hacked his website.
It's really tough out there in life.
It's tough out there in politics.
It's not for the faint of heart, ladies and gentlemen.
His website's been hacking.
I mean, it's.
Let's go to the phones, Norwalk, Connecticut.
Sean, glad you called.
Glad you waited.
Welcome to our broadcast.
Hi, Rush.
Nice talking to you.
Thank you, sir.
I was looking on the American Conservative Union website regarding Joe Lieberman, since I do live in the state of Connecticut.
And his ratings are, in our aspect, poor.
They're as poor as Chuck Schumer, Chris Dodd.
He actually had a worse rating than Hillary Clinton.
I believe it was 2004.
Yeah, that's not.
Joe Lieberman is solid to the core liberal.
He just breaks from them on this one thing, the war on terror, the war in Iraq.
Yeah, I've seen these commercials on TV, and that's the one issue that they continue to hound him on, is the war in Iraq, war in Iraq.
What was your point, though?
What was your point about him having a low ACU rating?
That he's not President Bush's lapdog.
They make him out to be this, and he's not.
I mean, how do you know?
I know, but welcome to the Democratic Party.
Welcome to the blogs.
Welcome to Kooksville.
This is how they do things.
He's a lapdog.
He's this and that.
What I love about it is that they're just trying to denigrate their own guy.
Believe me, there are more people like Pat Cadell out there than are Stepping up right now.
I saw Chris Dodd on TV today.
I've been somewhat amazed that Dodd hasn't come to the defense of Lieberman.
If he has, I haven't seen it.
In fact, just the opposite of that with most Democrat senators are all saying if Lamont wins, they're going to support the nominee of their party.
That cannot be an honest assessment among these two guys who is the more qualified.
Does anybody really think that this Lamont guy look, we all have our opinions of politicians, folks, and let's get that on the table right now.
Many of those opinions are cliched, they're stereotypical, and they're filled with jokes.
But when you get right down to it, this job is like anything else, is like any other job.
It does require certain qualifications.
It does require, I mean, for it to be done well.
And then sometimes voters are fooled and the elect people have no clue what they're doing, particularly in the House, because there's so many more opportunities to do it.
There are more people there.
But it does take you have to have certain kinds of education training.
If you're going to do this job right, like any other job, it's got certain qualifications.
And then, of course, after you meet those, you get experience.
I know this conflicts with the old term limits argument, and I'm not trying to bring that up.
But just in contrast, if you're a Democrat, I don't care where you are on the Democrat spectrum, and there aren't too many degrees of liberal there, but I guess that's how we would subdivide them: far-left, medium-left, joke-left, what have you.
They're all liberals.
I understand that.
But there can be no comparison in terms of who between these two people is the more qualified and who has, as a Democrat, and who has the more experience.
One has demonstrated leadership characteristics.
The other so far has demonstrated he can complain and whine and moan and that he's a first-class hypocrite, ripping Walmart to shreds while owning $31,000 of Walmart stock.
He contributed to Lieberman's campaign as recently as 2005 before he was drafted by this kook fringe to take over simply because of his views on the right.
He's also filthy rich.
You might say he's the idle rich.
He is the antithesis of what Democrats say they are and what they represent.
And so in that sense, I would have to say that they're not even making rational decisions about this.
And they are still scared to death of this kook fringe blog base that is anti-war.
I know they're scared to death of it.
And I think privately a lot of Democrats would love for Lieberman to win this thing today just to slap these people down once and for all because these other Democrats don't have the courage to do it.
They don't have the courage to stand up and say, move on, you're hurting us.
Shut up.
Move on because Move On's raising a lot of money.
Money's the mother's milk of politics.
Who's next on this pro?
Where are we going next?
Rich in South Jersey.
You're next on the EIB network.
Hi.
Hey, Rush.
Hey.
About this Lieberman.
Turn the radio down out there.
Can you hear me?
I hear you.
Do you hear the radio?
I don't want you to hear the radio.
No, I'm okay.
I'm away from it.
All right.
On this Lieberman-Lamont thing, I think the media is excited about it because they created him.
Because, you know, I watched the debate.
Lamont's an idiot.
So if he makes it, the media created him.
They caused it.
Partially true.
I think the media likes it because it's a disaster.
It's a crisis.
It's a train wreck.
But the media also hates it because they hate Bush.
And they hope and pray that the most virulent hatred for Bush in a Democratic Party prevails.
And that virulent hatred is embodied in the candidacy of said Ned Lamont.
They're not happy with Lieberman because Lieberman's in the wrong position on the war.
Storyline, action line, Bush bad.
Bush dangerous.
Bush criminal.
Bush terrorist.
Bush impeached.
Bush got to go.
And Lieberman is not of that mindset, but this other guy, Lamont, represents people who are.
And that's the excitement in it for the media.
Not to mention, if you're right, they will think they're the ones that made it happen.