Rush Limbaugh Program - August 30, 2006, Wednesday, Hour #3

All Episodes

Previous Next

Aug. 30, 2006 - Rush Limbaugh Program

36:22

August 30, 2006, Wednesday, Hour #3

Large

Audio Only |

Scroll

Time	Text
	And greetings through your thrill seekers, uh, music lovers, conversationalists all across the fruited playing the award-winning thrill-packed, ever exciting Rush Limbaugh program here on the cutting edge of societal evolution.
	The telephone number if you would uh like to be on the program is 800-282-2882, and the email address is rush at EIBNet.com.
	Mike, go to audio soundbites uh number 11 and 12.
	I've got the transcript here of these things.
	Blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah.
	Okay, it's not what I thought it was going to be.
	Uh the um airplane crash in Kentucky.
	Uh officially Reagan and Bush's fault.
	I kid you not.
	There was an op-ed in the New York Times.
	I think it was yesterday, and I thought that's what these sound bites would be bouncing off of, and I'm still not sure that they are.
	I don't think they are, but let's do the soundbites first to some CNN.
	This morning, the uh Miles O'Brien show there, and he's talking to former FAA chief Michael Goldfarb.
	And O'Brien says, let's go back a few years now, 1981, the PATCO controller strike.
	Ronald Reagan, one of the first acts of his presidency, fired those PATCO controllers.
	A lot of people would suggest the air traffic control system has never really recovered from that.
	What who would say that?
	Miles?
	Oh, what is it?
	A lot of people would say who name them.
	What is a lot of people?
	I use the air traffic control system all the time, and I think it's, you know, I mean it's not the best in the wood.
	It could be, but it's it's it's it's one of the it's a pretty damn well-functioning government agency, if you ask me.
	Uh I think people realize how really hard this is.
	But for crying out loud to say that a lot of people, it's never been the same since.
	Yeah, Goldfarb says uh answers the question would you go along with that premise?
	Yes.
	Uh I think there's been a promise of automation uh that would come along.
	It's been years in the making.
	The cockpit today has more technology than they have on the ground.
	The FAA has been unable to move to satellite-based navigation.
	And the theory was back in 81 miles, as you remember, is that automation would take the place of more people.
	Well, we haven't seen that happen.
	Wait a second, Mr. Goldfarb.
	Now, come on.
	I was alive in 81, paying a lot of attention to this.
	Automation was not the reason these people got fired.
	They got fired because they broke the law.
	They went on strike.
	The PATCO workers were not allowed to go on strike.
	They broke the law.
	And Ronald Reagan's break the law, then hell with it.
	And he fired them all.
	It wasn't about automation.
	I mean, it might have been one of the issues that caused them to go out on strike, but that's not why they got fired.
	I don't know how automated you want to make the system anyway.
	But the bottom line, it's everything.
	Reagan and Bush's fault, ladies and gentlemen.
	Reagan's fault that this crash happened in Kentucky.
	Next question.
	Are the airlines hard-pressed after all this is a bankrupt airline?
	Are they cutting corners on safety as well?
	I can tell you that with the pressures on the flight attendance unions, with the cutbacks in pilots, with the cutbacks of the people who staff Maine and uh maintain and run our system, it's certainly a question that needs to be looked at.
	FAA has a new slogan.
	It's called Let's Act Like a Business.
	I'm not sure that's the right philosophy.
	I think we need to act like a government here and make sure that people who fly are safe and the resources are provided to those that provide it.
	Oh, that sends a shutter up my spine.
	I gotta tell you if we're gonna act like a government.
	My gosh, folks.
	Can somebody point to which part of the government they're supposed to emulate?
	FEMA.
	Let's act like FEMA.
	Let's act like the uh the the parts of the bureaucracy that minister the welfare program, all the fraud that come on, this Goldfarb guy obviously just bent out of shape.
	He's no longer there.
	Obviously a lib, obviously a Democrat.
	It's Reagan's fault.
	It's Bush's fault.
	I saw a piece of the New York Times.
	And the days are jumbling together.
	This is Wednesday, right?
	This had to be.
	So I don't know, it was probably Tuesday's paper and reading it Monday night.
	Uh and the uh there was an op-ed piece from some guy who went on and on and on and on and on about how Bill Clinton started this tremendous new program in 1997.
	It was going to give pilots and air traffic controllers all kinds of tools that would uh uh eliminate accidents like this that happened in Kentucky.
	And it involved interviews with thousands of pilots and air traffic control centers, and then that data would be input into a computer, and somehow by magic uh all of these complaints and problems would be codified and put it in some sort of database and solutions to them would be forthcoming.
	And then don't you know, damn it, just when the pro just when it was ready to take off, and we were never going to lose another life in the air traffic control, Bush came into office and canceled it.
	Yeah, you just knew that had to be.
	So I thought uh for a moment that's what this uh comment here was going to be uh about, but it's not.
	This is just the the Patco strike, the Padco strike.
	Can you imagine?
	How many did the PATCO strike have anything to do with the with the 9-11 in 2001?
	It's just ripping things out of the uh out of clean air.
	At any rate, I think I read that one of the problems was that they had uh changed taxiways, and this was a flight crew that had never been in there at this particular airport where the taxiways have been changed.
	I mean, the obvious question is what are the people in the tower doing?
	I don't care whether the PATCO strike or not, if you see a jet go into the wrong runway, and you've got a flight crew that uh is unfamiliar with the new taxi routes, what are you doing?
	What are you watching?
	You know, it's it's sort of like this thing that happened on CNN yesterday.
	Did you hear about this?
	This happened about 10 minutes till one year, 1250.
	It was during Bush's speech in uh in the days in Mississippi or New Orleans, and he's talking about Hurricane Katrina relief.
	And I know exactly what happened here.
	The uh the the anchor babe, the info babe that's supposed to take over at one o'clock, is named Kira Phillips.
	And Kira had probably just come out of makeup or was either just came out of makeup and had her wireless mic on.
	Attached.
	The wireless mic was attached, the IFB of the ear and all that.
	These infobabes and anchor guys wear wireless mics, you know, these uh lavaliers that are attached to an art of clothing or what have you, and she went in the bathroom to uh do the restroom break before her shift begins, anchoring the news on the CNN.
	She's in there with another woman.
	And what were they talking about?
	Men.
	Kira Phillips, uh, first word out of her mouth that anybody heard and and and somebody turned her mic on.
	Her mic was live while she's in the bathroom.
	And Bush's speech is still live.
	Now, this is the same network that flashed an X over Cheney when he's making a speech, and they still haven't been able to figure out how it happened.
	Just some sort of glitch in the uh Chiron machine, whatever they call it.
	Character generator.
	So uh the first word out of Kira's mouth, I can't say on the radio, but talking about men, blank holes.
	And then she starts praising her husband.
	Oh, he's handsome, he's compassionate.
	I really lucked out.
	This is the greatest guy.
	So you can find she's talking to the woman in there.
	You can find him.
	Apparently, this other girl, uh, whoever was in there had just gotten a new boyfriend and was telling Kira that her mother really likes the new boyfriend.
	And that he was coming in to an uh to Atlanta for an extended visit.
	And this is what prompted Kira to start talking about what a great, great husband she's got.
	Then it switched to uh, I guess this other girl started talking about this uh boyfriend's brother or whatever, and Kira said, Well, you know, brothers, they're awfully protective, except in my case, I have to be protective of my brother because his wife is just a control freak.
	Now, this is all going out on the air while Bush is speaking about the uh Hurricane Katrina cleanup.
	And then somebody pops in the the uh that went on for an hour, a minute and a half, 90 seconds.
	Uh in a circumstance like this, that's forever.
	And then somebody funny popped in the bathroom, because you could hear zippers, you could hear the faucet, uh, and it was a little echoey, so you could you could hear uh a cookie played for this, uh, play this for me after the program yesterday, because she monitoring CNN heard this.
	Uh, and and somebody popped in and said, uh, Kira, uh, your mic's live, you're going out.
	So, can you imagine how Ciara Phillips felt?
	She's just trashed her sister in law here on CNN.
	Praised her husband, that'll help.
	Just trashed her brother's wife.
	But you know what amazes me about this?
	What was the techie at the CNN control booth doing for 90 seconds?
	It's obvious they weren't listening to the Bush speech.
	It's obvious that nobody at CNN was listening to this.
	Somebody caught I I I think I think um the anchor that was on, Darren was on, and she finally uh when when this conversation started getting into sisters and brothers and you know, control freaks and so forth, uh, while Bush was speaking, and you're listening to President Bush uh who is talking from work and that was and then apparently Kira came back, she's gonna take over one o'clock.
	She goes to the, she's Darren's still sitting there, and she comes back and and uh uh her mic is still live uh when when she approaches the set because she says um uh well I'm here, I'm ready, and that went out.
	Now it got me to thinking, does somebody there not like Ciara Phillips?
	I mean, how does this just happen?
	How in the world can audio and video go out when nobody intends for it to?
	Uh but then when it does, you can you can I mean you look, I know broadcasting and broadcasting is me.
	And these accidents can happen.
	Somebody can bump into a switch or something, but what for 90 seconds nobody knew it in the control booth at CNN, which means they weren't listening to what was on their own quote unquote air, which was a Bush speech.
	That is just um, you know, I mean, Ciara Phillips is innocent of this.
	I mean, she just had her whole personal conversation in a bathroom broadcast all over cable news yesterday afternoon for an hour and a half.
	At uh any rate, we gotta take a brief uh time out, ladies and gentlemen.
	We will be back and continue after this.
	Stay with us.
	Ha.
	How are you?
	Rush Linboa, America's actual and real anchor man, a living legend high atop the EIB building in Midtown Manhattan.
	Mark Warner, a uh potential 2008 presidential candidate for the Democrats, uh, voiced growing concern yesterday with his party's electoral strategy, arguing that Democrats' willingness to write off sections of the country could make it nearly impossible to win the White House.
	Yeah, I got pretty frustrated after 2004, he said, we're making a mistake if we put up candidates that are only competitive in 16 states, then we roll the dice and hope we can win Ohio or Florida.
	In an interview with the AP, Warner insisted he wasn't being critical of John Kerry, whom he called a very strong candidate.
	But Warner said Democrats must stop conceding entire regions of the uh country.
	We we gotta have candidates who can campaign out there, not only in Ames, but at NASCAR races.
	Candidates who can campaign in the barrio and changing communities.
	We got to have a message that's more focused on solutions than simply focused on criticism.
	Uh you know, Mr. Warner, this is a nice trial.
	I keep hearing this.
	The Democrats, every week we're gonna get a story.
	We do get a story about what the Democrats have to do to win.
	It's either gonna come from the drive-by media itself or it's gonna come from a Democrat.
	And now it's the same old thing.
	Well, you know, we we we've got to appeal to the values voters.
	We gotta go out there, we've got to find a way to appeal to the Southern voters.
	We've got to go out there, gotta find a way to appeal those in the barrio and yada yada yada yada yada.
	And of course, they make the divide geographical.
	Uh Democrats are convinced, because this is old line politics, this is politics 101, uh, that uh uh Democrats can't win unless they have a Southern candidate.
	Uh it just not is not possible.
	And Northeastern Democrats never gonna win all these sorts of things, but the divide isn't geographical so much.
	I mean, it still exists, but it's an ideological divide, uh, Governor Warner.
	Uh but I you see your your problem is you say you can go out there and you gotta have a candidate who can appeal to the NASCAR crowd, and then you've got to have a candidate who can appeal to the to the to the uh the religious values crowd, then you gotta have a candidate who can go into the barrios.
	What's missing here is that you're gonna find it very difficult to win votes or even be competitive getting votes from people when you hate their values and mock their worldview.
	Not Mark Warner himself, but as a party.
	The liberals in this country mock certain groups, hate their values, resent the hell out, and but somehow they got to find a candidate who can go in there and get past this.
	What once again, what they're what they're saying, what Warner is saying here is that we we can't we gotta have a candidate who can fool groups of people and make those groups think I am one of you.
	So he basically says we need a broader Democrat strategy, okay, a broader Democrat strategy.
	Try this next story.
	Democratic Senator Daniel in no way said Tuesday that he is supporting Ned Lament over Senator Lieberman because Lieberman uh contended that the Democratic Party doesn't stand for mainstream America.
	In no way, who uh campaigned in Connecticut for Lieberman prior to the August 8th primary, issued a statement endorsing Lament and citing Lieberman's recent criticism of the party.
	Lament upset Lieberman, as you know.
	After the primary, Senator in no way was most disappointed and unhappy with Senator Lieberman when he remarked that the Democratic Party no longer represented the mainstream of America and that the Democratic Party had lost its values.
	This is a statement that Senator in no way uh put out.
	So Senator in no way is the last uh latest prominent Democrat to rally behind the lament, a political uh newcomer.
	So um really this is uh the part of the broader Democrat strategy be tolerant of these different views and then throw Lieberman overboard again.
	Got to love these people.
	By the way, a correction.
	I got a note from uh Kem Priestep uh who is uh runs a blog called Whiz Bang Blog, and when I read to you from what I thought was a KTV U piece, my printer did not print out the uh identifier of the website, Kim, and that's why I couldn't remember where I got it.
	Um I think you read from my blog post at about 148 when you were discussing Omid Aziz Popal's murder rampage in San Francisco, but you attributed the information to KTVU.
	Uh it actually came from my blog, WizBangblog.com.
	Happy to note the correction.
	Mary in Indianapolis.
	I'm glad you waited.
	Welcome to the EIB network.
	Hi, Raj.
	I'm calling in regards to a um story that you talked about, I think it was last week or so, regarding the members of CARE getting a VIP treatment uh tour uh by Homeland Security behind the scenes of uh O'Hare's airport security, exposing that, uh, showing them that.
	Well, I did some more research into that, and I came across um on the internet some photos that were taken at that meeting, and they're sitting there, you know, as I'm looking at these pictures of our members of Homeland Security sitting with, you know, airport officials and members of care, and we all know the you know connections with care where you know three other members are now currently sitting in jail, and um as far as their connections to Hamas and that sort of thing.
	So this kind of worried me because I'm thinking, what if something happened in my community that I noticed and I wanted to report it to the police, and then the police say, well, this is you know pretty significant, it's worthy of further uh discussion, which you know, I'd like you to meet with online security members.
	I would hesitate because I'm not sure where they're coming from when I see them meeting with groups like this.
	And I would wonder am I exposing myself to, you know.
	Putting myself under a microscope in front of people that I'm not sure I have my best interest at heart, even though I'm trying to do the right thing and thwart something that I see happening in my area.
	Um I think there is a chilling effect that is descending from all of this.
	Uh there have been radio hosts fired for making comments.
	There have been uh other people that have suffered uh uh similar sanctions for for uh being accused of uh malicious statements, basically racial discrimination type statements and so forth.
	And I think this is the desire.
	When you talk about the meeting at O'Hare, uh what brought it about was a complaint From the uh from the Muslim group that uh arriving Muslims at O'Hare were being unfairly treated as suspects just because they were Muslims.
	And uh the uh effort was made.
	No, no, no.
	No, you you have to understand our systems.
	So they were taken behind the curtain, if you will, and shown uh what the systems are and how they work and why uh to illustrate that there was no profiling and no discrimination uh going on.
	Uh th this your your your fear is uh I think a legitimate one, and it's uh something that your instincts will tell you at the time if something like that were to happen.
	I don't know that you can actually plan for it.
	But I'm just gonna tell you what at some point this is gonna reach the tipping point, as all things do, and I don't know how close we are to it.
	But uh at some point we're gonna put our foot down and say, okay, enough pussyfooting around.
	We know what's going on, what is as is, and we're gonna deal with what is, but we're not there yet.
	And we stay with the phones before we get to this uh panicked New York Times story today by Linda Greenhouse.
	She's their Supreme Court expert.
	Women suddenly scarce among justices clerks.
	There's panic at the Supreme Court.
	Well, there's panic at the New York Times.
	Uh details coming up.
	Jay in Clinton, New Jersey.
	Welcome, sir.
	Great to have you with us.
	Uh Russia's an honor to speak to you.
	Thank you.
	Um I was telling, just as you were saying about Mark Warner talking about his battle plan for what Democrats need to do.
	That plan may have worked 20 years ago before talk radio, even before, you know, 24-hour news cycles when you could watch, I could sit here in New Jersey and watch a candidate speaking at a picnic in Iowa and then over in the barrios, and that uh you can't say, you know, it may have worked twenty years ago when you could go to the barrios and say whatever, and then go to NASCAR and say what they want to hear, and then go up there.
	But nowadays, I mean, give us a little credit that that the electorate can tell the difference and can spot that you're just appealing to the crowd you're at.
	Well, yeah, that's that's not actually not a bad point, but I think what Warner is talking about is the kind of candidate they need.
	He's the Democrats.
	You remember in the uh in the 2004 race, there was a uh period of time where John Kerry said, We don't need the South.
	We can win without the South.
	I don't need any then he picked Edwards.
	Uh or maybe Dean said we don't need it.
	I for there was some Democrats that we don't need to do, they this wrote it off.
	Uh it's it's like the Republicans write off California.
	And the Republicans write off New York, the Republicans write off uh Massachusetts and Vermont and uh some of these uh Pennsylvania Northeastern states.
	Theoretically write them off.
	What Warner is saying is we we can't win if we're gonna write off sixteen states, if we're just gonna assume we got no chance there.
	So we gotta have a candidate who can go in there and have a chance there.
	Now, what you're saying is he can't go in there in a vacuum and say whatever he has to say to those people uh and get their support where nobody else will hear what he says.
	The theory requires that this candidate would go into these sixteen states and say things totally opposite what he really believes, just to pander.
	And that's probably the case, which is why I said it's an ideological divide.
	It's not a geographical divide so much.
	If there are sixteen states that the Democrats think they can't win, there's a reason.
	And it has to do with issues, and it has to do with values.
	It's not because the states are where they are.
	They don't lose the South because the South is in the South.
	They lose the South because they have nothing in common with the people there, and they especially make fun of, mock, impune, and laugh at them.
	Uh and they and their willing accomplices in the entertainment business do the same thing.
	And they're gonna go they they've tried the NASCAR dad routine.
	So until they figure out how to bridge the values, and they can't.
	They liberals are who they are.
	And and and uh liberals are are just uh it's it's gonna be very problematic for them, especially you're right, given a new media, where they can't run around and say things in a vacuum where nobody hears what's being said like it was possible as recently as twenty years ago.
	There is uh there's no question about it.
	Good call, Jay.
	Here's Ed in Columbus, Nebraska.
	You're next, sir.
	Nice to have you with us.
	Boy, am I enjoying listening to you today?
	Thank you.
	Even more fun talking to you, Ditto, sir.
	Appreciate it.
	And I am the best I can be at two things.
	I called about the Valerie Flameout case.
	Um I have about uh two six-hour tapes of Wilson and Rove, impeachment, special prosecutor in Libby, and I got five and one half minutes Monday on the truth about the CIA League case.
	Not one minute of Matthews eating crow or anything else.
	I'm just wondering, do you think Isakoff could have uh rolled that story out Monday, knowing it was gonna get rolled under by Katrina this weekend.
	No, no, they're trying to sell books.
	The liberals are liberals first.
	They like money as like as much as everybody else.
	Well, they rolled it out on a terrible week, and I haven't even seen corn out at all.
	Well, he's been out there.
	You have to read certain things.
	They're they're they're uh the the the the problem is not Katrina.
	The problem is that this sweeps away the foundation of everybody's theory.
	You know, there's a there's a there's a blog site out there called the Huffington Post.
	And the Huffington Post, that's uh some people call it the Puffington Post.
	I don't pay enough attention to it to even give it a trick name, but it is practically lived on posts from wackos who were convinced that Rolfe was going to be indicted and it rove and Chady and Scooter Libby and maybe even Bush were gonna be indicted, Bush impeached, and so forth.
	Now it's Armitage and it's just the whole thing has done a flame out.
	The reason you're not hearing about it is because it didn't go where all these leftists had pinned their hopes.
	It's just the latest in a long line of lies that they have told themselves.
	Matthews hasn't done anything on it because uh uh, Katrina is an opportunity to beat up Bush, uh, but B, there's nothing here to do.
	Here's here are the questions for you about this.
	The questions about this are where are the media dogging Richard Armitage?
	Turn this around.
	Turn this around and let's say, I mean, look at how long they hung around Rove's house.
	They were dog and rove, they're following Rove all over the place.
	Media hordes around Scooter Libby whenever he left the White House.
	Now we know it's Armitage.
	Have you seen one reporter?
	Sidle up to Armitage and say, Why didn't you say anything sooner, sir?
	Why didn't poke a microphone in his face?
	Have you seen it?
	Have you seen anybody stake out Colin Powell?
	Secretary Powell, you knew this much sooner than we knew you knew it.
	You knew this much sooner than anybody else knew it.
	Why did you remain silent?
	Have you seen any of that?
	You haven't.
	And you won't.
	You won't see any of that.
	You'll n because this is there is there is uh disappointment.
	There is uh there's the air has been let out of the tire here, so to speak.
	But there's not there's no anger at Armitage because see the thing worked.
	As far as Matthews and the boys are concerned, there worked.
	I cited the polling data that's been going on, ABC News, Washington Post, uh Pew Center for people in the press.
	Sixty-eight to seventy-two percent of the American people think that Bush did something unethical, that they were attacking Joe Wilson's wife and Joe Wilson himself, and it was all to get even with them because they had tried to sabotage or criticize Bush's war policy.
	So as far as the Matthewses of the world are concerned, and these it worked.
	Bush's poll numbers were driven down, it's considered unethical.
	Bush, Cheney, and Rove are considered to be uh conspirators and mean spirited, and they try to destroy their political enemies.
	The Bush administration considered to be at least at the very least unethical.
	So as far as they're concerned, it worked.
	So they're not gonna go poke a microphone in Armitage's face or stake out Colin Powell and demand to know why they didn't come clean sooner.
	Why did you mislead us?
	Why did you allow us to go down the like they did after John Mark Carr?
	They're all over this prosecutor out in Boulder, and they're all mad at John Mark Carr, and they want somebody indicted for creating a media frenzy.
	They created their own media frenzy, allowed Joe Wilson to do it, but where's the anger at Joe Wilson?
	Joe Wilson, a palpable liar.
	Where's the anger at him?
	There isn't any because it worked.
	For the time they got out of it, it worked.
	They were allowed to construct in the minds of way too many Americans an image of the Bush White House as a bunch of Nixonian thugs trying to take out their political enemies and destroy their lives and their fortunes and their living, as in the case of Valerie Play and Wilson.
	So it worked, as far as they're concerned.
	It's a scandal.
	It's an abject scandal.
	If you expect Matthews or anybody else to go on television and even cry about it, or say, gosh, we got this wrong.
	You They didn't get it wrong.
	They got exactly because they knew it too.
	This had to be the worst kept secret in Washington, except it didn't leak.
	As I said yesterday, Andrea Mitchell, State Department Pentagon, had to know.
	All these people that make it their business to know, and Armitage is a uh a gossip.
	Uh supposedly just to be lovable.
	Teddy Bear, he's no, it just likes Gots.
	Why?
	No intention of hurting in it, which he didn't.
	He had zero intention to hurt you, but that's what's so so frustrating about this to me.
	The frustrating thing is that there was no crime until the investigation started.
	And there shouldn't have been an investigation.
	Justice Department knew this.
	There's something really, really, really fishy about this.
	And I think the attorney general needs to get in gear.
	I think the attorney general needs to get in gear real fast, find out what happened.
	The president needs to pardon Scooter Libby and end this, because it's frankly absurd what went on.
	This was a, I don't even know how calculated it was, but I'm just going to tell you, two guys that have no love for this administration whatsoever, Richard Armitage and Colin Powell, they're the ones that stirred this all up and willing accomplices in the press were more than happy to follow their lead.
	And what every time I say this, I just literally dumbfound myself.
	Every time I say this, there was no crime until the investigation, and the people doing the investigation knew that early on.
	And yet they continued.
	And the investigation led to the creation of a process crime.
	Anyway, brief time out here, my friends, mucho broadcast excellence remaining, stay where you are.
	Can we review what the left was saying, ladies and gentlemen, about whoever it was that outed Valerie Plain?
	That person was a traitor.
	If you remember, if you visited some of these left-wing sites, such as the Puffington Post, I mean, these people were mad.
	Insane, mad.
	Armitage.
	Turns out Armitage is an anti-war traitor for outing Plame.
	That's what they said about Rolfe.
	This was treason.
	This was an act of treason outing a CIAA.
	First time in my life I can recall the left ever caring about anything in the CIA being protected and it's kept secret.
	But that notwithstanding, where are these calls now for Armitage as an anti-war traitor?
	Their point was that whoever it was that outed Valerie Plame should go to jail as an act of treason.
	Well, Armitage outed her.
	Isn't he a traitor?
	And this is where these people end, this is where they put themselves.
	This is the nature of their extremism and their kookism and their and their their insanity.
	And so now you don't, you're not going to hear a word about this.
	You will not hear a word about anybody.
	In fact, you probably won't be able to find much at all on any of these posts that lived on this story.
	You won't find much, because it worked, folks.
	It worked.
	Now, this is this is an interesting separation between the drive-by's and the kook fringe blogosphere.
	Because the drive-by's in the cook fringe blogosphere have a little bit different agenda.
	Uh at least a different route to accomplishing the agenda.
	The Kook fringe blogosphere actually wanted blood.
	They wanted somebody indicted.
	They wanted Rove indicted, they want him frog-marched out, and they wanted him in jail, and they wanted him on trial for treason.
	Drive-bys, they're not thinking that's gonna happen.
	They're just content to use the story as a daily opportunity to pummel the administration and build up their buds in the D.C. establishment circles of the American left and the Democratic Party.
	If Rove would have happened to have been indicted, well, yeah, that'd be in fact, some of these wacko sites were actually reporting that Rove had been indicted.
	It was just sealed, and it was going to be announced soon that Fitzgerald had gone to Rove's lawyer's office as yep, it's indicted.
	And they stood by the story and stood by the story, and these drive-by journalists would call Rove's lawyer and say, you know, my editor really is making me do this.
	I really don't want to do this.
	But I mean, we're we're reading on this blog side, a blog that might have three visitors.
	We're reading on his blog site that uh your client's been indicted.
	You have any comment?
	I really don't want to be asking you about this.
	So they were hoping, they were prayer, but they were not going to carry the water on it.
	Um they were going to lead to the fact that it might be possible, but the the blogosphere really went way overboard the Kook fringe out there in Cookville, and they believed it.
	They really thought it was going to happen.
	They believed these asinine lunatics that populate the left-wing blogosphere that Rove had already been indicted.
	It was treason and so forth.
	So they they go over the cliff and they've got no way to get back.
	And the reason they're not posting much on this is because they're on the other side of the cliff and they're dazed and there's nothing to say.
	Because they can't say indict Armitage.
	Well, they could, but they won't.
	They won't say Armitage is a traitor, Arminese needs to go to jail, Arminese needs to be trace Armitage is on their team.
	You know, Armitage.
	Powell and all these guys.
	They hate Bush too.
	So the lecture blog is fair.
	Once again, ladies and gentlemen, just we need to keep a sharp eye on these people.
	I don't know how many of these serious emotional letdowns they can handle.
	And they set themselves up for this uh consistently.
	All right, I got to get this in here before we go.
	Everybody knows that with the retirement of Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, the number of female Supreme Court justices fell by half.
	Yeah, from two to one.
	The talk of the court this summer with the arrival of new crop of law curts's uh clerks is that the number of female clerks has fallen even more sharply.
	Just under 50% of new law school graduates in 2005 were women, yet women account for only seven of the 37 law clerkshops for the new term.
	The first time the number has been in a single digit since 1994 when there were 4,000 fewer women among the country's new law school graduates than there are today.
	Uh anyway, he goes on to lament this uh these numbers.
	Sudden drop was a hot topic this summer at various law-related blogs.
	Who cares what's going on in the blogs?
	Word of the justices' individual hiring decision spread quickly among those for whom the comings and goings of law clerks are more riveting than any offering on reality television.
	Some speculated that Justice Scalia, who hired only two women among 28 law clerks during the last seven years, who will have none this year, could not find enough conservative women to meet his test of ideological purity.
	Justice Thomas will also have no female clerks this year, but over the preceding six has hired, six years has hired eleven women.
	Uh damn conservative judges.
	They're dechicifying the Supreme Court, ladies and gentlemen.
	There's a dechication going on among clerks at the U.S. Supreme Court.
	Can I ask a question?
	Are not these judges allowed to hire whoever they are?
	We're supposed to have affirmative action now on clerks.
	Justices are supposed to hire people that don't fit in their office.
	Is Scalia wrong?
	If he has a list of requirements that he wants his clerks to be.
	How does she know that it's ideological purity?
	Some speculated that Justice Anton and Scalia blah blah.
	Some speculated, but how did they not know?
	It's the blogs.
	Whoop-y-do!
	The blog.
	Do you know how it is to get a blog?
	Send an email.
	You're a blogger.
	Arrogant.
	Anyway.
	It's a good thing, ladies and gentlemen.
	There's too much chickification going on, too much chickenfication of the news, too much chickification in teaching.
	Well, the feminization of the culture.
	You know, would you know what women come out of law school believe?
	What they've been imagine the professors Catherine McKinnon.
	All sex in marriage is rape.
	Even if you agree to it.
	I'll tell you what, some women are being taught.
	Uh I imagine is is pretty stunning to some of the justices as they're conducting the interviews for these clerks.
	But uh, guess the New York Times.
	We should put them in charge of hiring clerks for Clarence Thomas and Justice Scalia, right?
	Yeah, that that would the New York Times should run the Supreme Court and run the rest of the country and the economy and everything else.
	This is what happens when you don't win the presidency, New York Times.
	Uh you get to make these kind of decisions, and the reaction that we all have to you is.
	All right, my friends, another exciting three-hour excursion into broadcast excellence in the can on the way over to the Limbaugh housing future museum artifacts.

▲