All Episodes
Previous Next
Aug. 31, 2006 - Rush Limbaugh Program
36:15
August 31, 2006, Thursday, Hour #1
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Welcome to today's edition of the Rush 24-7 podcast.
And greetings to you, thrill seekers, music lovers, conversationalists all across the fruited plain.
It's time for broadcast excellence from the EIB building high atop the EIB building, Midtown Manhattan.
As evidenced by the crowds outside, one of the most frequently visited tourist attractions in all of Midtown.
Telephone number if you want to be on the program 800-282-2882.
And the email address is rush at EIBNetB, EIBNet.com.
And by the way, special welcome to those of you watching on the DittoCam today.
President Bush just concluded his speech to the American Legion in Salt Lake City.
We are at this moment prepping the audio soundbites, the highlights from that speech.
Got a tremendous audio soundbite roster here today, ladies and gentlemen, to treat you to.
And I also, I made a promise last night.
I promised that I'd say hello to a couple future young Republicans, young ladies, daughters of a friend of mine, Lily Thomas's, as well as Phoebe Smush Bush Thomas's.
They asked me if I could tug my right ear just to say hello.
And I said, no, I'll say hi to you.
I'd be happy to do that.
So great to have you in the audience.
Their mom's a big-time lib, but they are future.
In fact, Lily is going to be the founder of the Long Island Young Republicans, the Fire Island Young Republic.
There aren't any Republicans out there except her, but she's going to found the club in due course.
Ladies and gentlemen, throughout the stacks of stuff today, more stories on what's going to happen to Washington when the Democrats win.
I've got a pretty interesting story from a Monterey newspaper, Monterey, California newspaper, what's going to happen to George Bush's Washington when the Democrats win the House.
And it's just, it's another, you can get one of these every week, sometimes two of these a week.
They're counting their chickens before the eggs hatch.
They have all of these polling data that suggests like Al Hunt.
Do you know where Al Hunt ended up?
He used to be the Wall Street Journal and CNN.
Al Hunt's of Bloomberg.
Al Hunt had a piece earlier this week.
It's a foregone conclusion Democrats are going to win the House and the Senate too, as a foregone conclusion.
Yeah, still, it read like a Democrat National Committee press release or faxed talking points.
It really did.
And about a half hour after I arrived here at the EIB building in Midtown Manhattan, Drudge puts up this lead story, President Bush assassinated in new TV docudrama.
And this docudrama is going to premiere at the Toronto Film Festival or some Canadian film.
Was it?
Yeah, the Toronto Film Festival.
I just want to read this story to you because you put, you juxtapose this with all of the cockiness that the Democrats have that they're going to win.
And you just, something about it doesn't, they're just, they're insane.
They have descended into utter madness.
And I think they're unaware that people see this.
I think, as I've said before, they actually believe that their animous and sheer, unbridled, totally focused hatred of George W. Bush is shared by a majority of Americans.
This is the dramatic moment when President Bush is gunned down by a sniper after a public address at a hotel in a gripping new docudrama soon to be aired on TV.
Set around October of 2007, President Bush is assassinated as he leaves the Sheraton Hotel in Chicago.
Whatever happened to the notion that if you talked about this, threatened to do this, or what have you, the Secret Service was knocking on your door inside of 10 seconds.
Death of a President is the title of this docudrama, shot in the style of a retrospective documentary, looks at the effect of the assassination of Bush and what it has on America in light of the war on terror.
The 90 Minutes feature explores who could have planned the murder.
We get this, a Syrian-born man wrongly put in the frame.
Oh, of course it couldn't be one of our enemies that did it.
No, no, no.
Couldn't be an Islamo fascist.
Couldn't be a terrorist.
Hell no.
It has to be an American.
I don't know where this goes, but they're going to set it up where the obvious suspect is obvious suspect, but it can't possibly be.
Peter Dale, the head of More 4, which is due to air the film on October the 9th, said the drama.
Now listen to this.
The drama was a thought-provoking critique of contemporary U.S. society.
Remember last summer during the, or two summers ago during a 2004 campaign, his lame brain wrote a book on how to assassinate Bush?
And the left's out there saying, you know, we really need to delve into this.
This is a very important work.
Let's examine this within the zeitgeist, the spirit of the times.
Well worth the literary time one might spend immersing oneself in these shocking pages.
Blah, And this guy sounds the same.
Yep, it's a thought-provoking critique of contemporary U.S. society.
Well, all right, let me ask you a question.
In contemporary U.S. society, if I were to ask you the question, I'm asking you now, who do you think would like to assassinate President Bush?
What group of people comes to your mind?
What group?
Come on.
Liberals.
The blogosphere, the kook fringe.
That's what I'm going to be, I'm going to be so eager to see their reaction to this.
You know, I bet we're going to be able to go to sites like Democrat Underground and the daily, whatever it is, Koz, Kaz, whatever, and all these other places, moveon.org.
They're probably going to sponsor the movie.
They're going to probably try to get domestic import rights.
They're probably going to demand that elected Democrats support the movie and go to the premiere.
And then they're going to want the DVD rights, or at least a percentage if they sell them on their websites.
They're going to demand, they're going, this is the age of insanity.
They're going to demand that elected politicians actually endorse the movie at their own peril if they don't.
Keep a sharp eye on Ned Lament, ladies and gentlemen, because he's the one that's currently leading this train of insanity on part of the left-wing blogs.
Listen, there's more description from the guy that did the movie, Peter Dale.
It's an extraordinary, extraordinarily gripping and powerful piece of work.
A drama constructed like a documentary that looks back at the assassination of George W. Bush as the starting point for a very gripping detective It's a pointed political examination of what the war on terror did to the American body politic.
I'm sure that there'll be people who'll be upset by it, but when you watch it, you realize what a sophisticated piece of work it is.
It's not sensationalist or simplistic.
It's a very thought-provoking, powerful drama.
I hope people will see that the intention behind it is good.
Well, yeah, the assassination of George W. Bush, I'm sure that is a positive intention for some sickos in our country.
So you put this back to back with the new survivor show coming up on CBS, and you take a look at where the, not just the American left is, the worldwide left, and then you ask yourself, are these people really think they're going to be elected to majorities of anything?
Do they think the country is running around here wishing somebody would off Bush?
They really think that this is a way that they're going to get an inroad into the minds and hearts of likely voters.
And how about this phrase?
It's a pointed political examination of what the war on terror, war on terror did to the American body politic.
What the war on terror did to the American body politic.
You know how I interpret that?
It's not at all what terrorists are doing to Americans.
No, It's not at all what our enemies are doing and threatening to do to us.
No, This is a movie about what Bush is causing to reverberate in the American body politic.
And that's why they're doing a movie called, what is the name of this?
What's the name of it?
Well, it's not called the assassination of George W. Bush, but regardless, that's what the whole focal point of the movie is.
So in light of that, we've got to take a quick break.
We'll come back with some audio soundbites from some Democrats.
Not about this movie, but about the whole concept of the war on terror and where Democrats stand on it.
Some of the stuff you'll hear is unbelievable.
Sit tight.
We've only just revved up.
We'll keep going right after this.
All right, this is interesting.
We go to the audio soundbites.
By the way, Rush Limbaugh, America's real anchor man, doing the job the drive-by media used to do many, many moons ago.
Little Indian lingo there.
It's going to be many decades ago, actually.
And that is telling you what's actually going on out there, not through a prism of our own interest, but through a wide lens that soaks up everything.
800-282-2882.
Howard Dean, Democratic National Committee Chairman, said this yesterday about President Bush.
The president has used the war on terror to win elections, and that's not going to happen anymore.
When you say to voters, the majority of whom now oppose the war, that they're Nazi sympathizers or they're appeasers of fascism, people don't like that kind of talk.
Yeah, really?
You know what I notice about this, Dr. Dean, is every time, like, Rumsfeld goes out and makes a speech, hits these things pretty hard.
AP misquoted him in another, well, took him out of context in a number of ways and suggesting he was calling some people appeasers of fascism and so forth.
Simply, you know what the Dems can't stand, the Libs cannot stand, is a recitation of history.
You'd start talking about Churchill.
You start talking about Neville Chamberlain.
You start talking about how it is the use of force that leads to peace, victory, i.e., rather than the words issued by diplomats.
They don't like it.
They don't like it because history gives us truth.
And it's they who are trying to shade the truth and create their own alternative reality.
The idea that President Bush has used the war on terror to win elections, and that's not going to happen anymore.
How's it going to be, Dr. Dean?
Are you guys going to say that you're going to run against the war on terror?
That there is no war on terror?
Are you going to try to make people think that you're actually interested in fighting it and winning it?
Here is George Stephanopoulos this morning on Good Morning America.
And by the one more thing, you know, these people, I've noticed the reaction to Rumsfeld's speech.
You know, and they're all saying, hey, you don't challenge our patriotism.
I'm getting who did.
How about the defensiveness here that these people, every time they are criticized when it comes to the U.S. military, a war, any kind of foreign entanglement, they always jump to the conclusion without anybody having accused them of it.
Well, I have, but I'll say, well, you can't challenge our patriotism.
You know what?
You can.
If you are a person in this country who is invested in the defeat of your own country, then I'm sorry.
What other word for it is there?
You are not patriotic.
You are not acting in a patriotic fashion.
It's gotten so bad.
Remember, Mrs. Clinton attempted to redefine the word patriotism by having the guts and by having the courage to criticize the president.
That's the Democrats' new definition of patriotism.
They may think others have forgotten that, but not I.
The idea here that they get so defensive and so riled up about this is an indication that it's hitting pretty close to home.
But I don't know what else, you know, for the longest time, folks, we've sat around and said, no, we're not questioning your patriotism.
No, no, no, no, we're just questioning your judgment.
Well, I'm going to tell you something.
As I said before, I left last week, when people are invested in our defeat, when people are attempting to secure our defeat, what else do you call it?
What else can you say about it?
You have to say we're challenging your patriotism because that's exactly what it is.
Now, Stephanopoulos, good morning, America, Diane Sawyer, said to him, So this use of the word fascism to evoke the idea of a worldwide kind of World War II enemy.
Is it working?
Will it work?
What's the other most potent thing the Republicans are doing?
They have now settled on that word, and they say these fascists are what unites the war in Afghanistan, the war in Lebanon, the war in Iraq.
The president has to convince the country this is a world war.
The president will always say this war can be won.
The White House has actually brought in political scientists from Duke University who say this is key, that people have to believe the war eventually will be won or they'll cut out.
So now we're going to get all tied up in knots and caught up over what we're calling the enemy, as though we're going to offend them or we're going to offend the Democrats.
There is an enemy out there, and the fact that people in this country don't want to face it squarely is going to present and pose a challenge down the road.
And trying to take everything here as a tactic.
They to this day don't understand Bush and they don't understand Rove.
They think the war on terror is a tactic, a political tactic.
Do they forget 9-11 happened, 3,000 Americans died, and that was just the last massive attack on innocent U.S. citizens?
Today's show, Matt Wauer talking with Tim Russert.
Matt Wauer says, Tim, no Democrats ever spoken out saying that we should retreat in the war on terrorism.
Nor has any Democrat that we can find suggested cutting off funding for the war in Iraq, something the president floated the other day.
Matt, this is 68 days before a midterm election.
The Republicans know that in 2002 and in 2004, using the issue of the global war on terror, national security, has worked for them politically and philosophically, and they're going to emphasize it day after day after day, all the way through November 7th.
Crying out lots of it.
I hope somebody does.
We're at war.
There are people that want to kill us, Tim.
It's a political tactic to focus on it.
And I can't believe this.
Can't find anybody suggesting cutting off funding for the war in Iraq.
That's a very narrow definition.
We've got the Democrats promising to get us out of there, Tim.
The hell with the money.
They have floated two resolutions in the Senate.
One of them got 13 votes, but to deny, they say you can't find any Democrats out there that suggest cutting off funding for the war in Iraq or the war on terror is ridiculous.
You're just not looking very hard.
Ladies and gentlemen, as I said just a moment ago, it is time to face a hard-cold fact.
Militant Islam wants to kill us just because we're alive and don't believe as they do, and they have been killing us for decades.
I think it's time to stop pretending these are mere episodic events and face the reality that our way of life is in grave danger.
Threat's not just going to go away because we have a political campaign or a change of political power in Washington or because we choose to ignore it.
A lot of people out there say we should use diplomacy.
Well, as I've asked, how do we negotiate with people whose starting point is our death?
You know darn well, folks, that when good negotiates with evil, evil always wins.
When right negotiates with wrong, wrong will always win.
Peace, which is what everybody seems to want here, follows victory.
Peace doesn't come from words issued by diplomats.
Ask Neville Chamberlain.
Go out and ask Saddam.
Ask Saddam if words, 16 UN resolutions resulted in his defeat and his capture.
I get the impression that some Americans are not interested in victory and they want us to believe that their irresponsible behavior is patriotic.
Well, it isn't patriotic.
When the critics, Tim, listen to me here.
When the critics are more interested in punishing this country over a relatively few incidents in Abu Ghrab and Guantanamo than they are in defeating those who want to kill us, when they seek to destroy a foreign surveillance program designed to identify those who want to kill us and how they intend to do it, when they want to grant those who want to kill us U.S. constitutional rights, I do not call that patriotic.
You want to know what patriotism is?
Patriotism is rallying behind the country, regardless of party affiliation, to defeat enemies such as these we face now, the Islamo-fascists.
Patriotism is supporting our troops on the battlefield, not undermining them, the mission, and morale.
But despite the best efforts of Howard Dean and Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi, et al., this country will prevail because we are the same America that survived a massively bloody civil war, the same America that annihilated the Nazis, the same America that defeated the Soviet Union.
Every generation of Americans has a responsibility to the next.
And I have no doubt that this current generation will not disappoint.
We live in an era, ladies and gentlemen, where it's the age of madness, the age of insanity.
We have a movie in Canada about the actual assassination of George W. Bush, and it is characterized as a responsible and important work.
Something that is extremely telling about the U.S. war on terror.
There's no guilt.
There is no shame over this.
It's clearly a new age.
And the people that are behind all of these things actually think they are speaking for a majority of Americans based on polling data put together by their allies in the drive-by media trying to create the very attitudes the polls say exist.
We'll be right back.
Stay with us.
The truth.
Yes, my friends, unvarnish the truth.
We make the complex understandable here at the one and only Excellence in Broadcasting Network, El Rushbow, with half my brain tied behind my back.
Just to make it fair, a couple more sound minds, the second of which is, well, they're both good.
It's a continuation of Matt Oauer talking with Tim Rustert.
We're up to number four in there.
A question from Matt Oauer.
By the way, the media took a hit from Secretary Rumsfeld as well, accused of spreading, quote, myths and distortions that are being told about our troops and about our country.
We got 2,600 Americans dead in Iraq, 46,000 Iraqis.
Anybody still going to blame the media for the bad news coming out of that country?
I found it particularly interesting that those words were used during the first anniversary of Katrina, because one year ago there was a major debate as to what was reality, what was being shown by the media who were on the ground in New Orleans, or what was being said by official government spokesmen.
And we know later that the media told the truth about Katrina.
What?
In terms of Iraq, our reports have been accurate, and the Secretary can try to distinguish himself from them or criticize them.
The voters have a big decision to make.
Come on, what's happening here?
Tim, my friend, gee, this pains me.
This wounds me to the heart.
Katrina, the reporting was accurate?
The rapes and the murders in the Superdome and in the convention center and the toxic soup that was to become of the floodwaters?
Shooting and helicopters and all of these things?
The fact that Bush purposely wanted the levies to break so that the blacks would be flooded and leave town, relocate elsewhere and make Louisiana Republicans for crying out loud.
And how this is utter denial.
To say that the media has not distorted negative news coming out of Iraq, what about the body counts alone?
The breathless panting, we're almost to 1,000 dead.
Yay!
And we got the 1,500, we're almost to 1,500 dead, yay!
Because every battlefield death was an opportunity to gin up anti-war support in the American people.
Come on, Tim, you guys have been trying to relive the Vietnam War for two years now.
You've been trying to relive Watergate for four.
Unbelievable.
Oh, sadly, totally believable.
Run out of descriptive words.
Last night on the O'Reilly Factor, guest host was John Kasich.
He interviewed Paul Hackett, lost a congressional race last summer, and Dan Senor, the former spokesman for the Coalition Provisional Authority in Iraq.
I've spoken to Senor.
I think Senor married Campbell Brown at NBC, by the way.
I'm not sure that.
I think at one time they were dating.
I'm not a gossip columnist, nor am I a social secretary, so may be behind, may not be true.
But anyway, Kasich says, look to Hacketts.
Look, I'm not a fan of this war.
But if they want to get, they want to just get out of there right away, the whole bottom could fall out over there, couldn't it?
And throughout the whole region.
So is that a responsible place to be, Hackett?
Suggesting that the whole bottom would fall out implies that somehow it hasn't fallen out.
I mean, to have Hair Senor on your set as a military expert is somewhat of a joke.
He knows absolutely nothing about the military.
He's never served in the military.
He's never been professionally schooled in the military.
What are you talking about, Paul?
Is that me?
I'm talking about your guest, a little unterfuhrer of propaganda, Mr. Senor there, who's an apologist for the failings of the CPA.
I mean, he ought to be ashamed of his service or lack of service.
Paul Hackett, a Marine, calling Dan Senor a little unterfuhrer of propaganda.
Libs can run around.
They can call all these names.
They can call Dan Seynor, who worked for Paul Bremer, by the way, a little Nazi.
I can call him a little Unterfuhrer.
But boy, let Rumsfeld or the president, or even little old me, refer to our enemy as Islamo-fascists.
And there is horror and shock and outrage.
You can't say that.
You can't say that.
Why you can't say that we're at World War III?
They can run around and they can disparage virtually anybody.
In fact, you know, this movie about the assassination of Bush.
And let me go back to that page.
I've got to find a title of this stupid thing.
Just bear with me here, folks.
Death of a president.
Death of a president.
Assassination of George W. Bush, a Canadian docu-drama that'll premiere around the October 9th era period up in Canada.
I wonder if Democrats will be forced to renounce the movie.
I wonder if somebody will stand up and ask them if they will dissociate themselves from the premise and the concept of the movie.
Because they always do that when the right wing says something that they find offensive.
Will you, Mr. President, distance yourself from the comments made by X?
Will you?
So let's just see if somebody says when this thing gets some legs out there, if the Democrats are asked to renounce this and to dissociate themselves from the movie.
Quite the contrary.
You know what I think?
I think these left-wing blogs, they're going to be excited about this thing, try to get invited to the premiere, urging other Democrats to support the movie is what they'll probably do.
To the phones, we go to Wilkesbury, Pennsylvania.
Dave, glad to have you, sir.
Welcome.
Hi, I think you're forgetting one thing.
When a Republican talks against a, like a Clinton, that's called hate speech.
But when Hillary Clinton talks about President Bush, that's patriotism.
Yeah, so of course, criticizing the president is, in fact, patriotism.
Mrs. Clinton has so defined it.
In fact, I think that's the screeching.
Cookie, go out there.
I know she's busy putting the Bush bites together, but I think the soundbite we have, Hillary screeching like your ex-wife, maybe some of your current wife, for all I know.
I think she's actually saying in that bite, we not give me killed, we can't, whatever.
And I think that's about being able to criticize the president and patriotism.
But you're absolutely right out there, Dave.
Because when you did it, it was hate speech.
Yeah, we have that bite all through the administration.
Hate speech.
Hate speech.
And it was directed at me.
Of course, I was the leader of the brigade of hate speechers.
And I was the Mr. Big of the hate speechers.
There's no question about that.
Here's that bite.
Let's see if I'm right in my memory.
Because what everybody remembers about this is just the screeching and the screaming.
Here it is.
I am sick and tired of people who say that if you debate and you disagree with this administration, somehow you're not patriotic.
And we should stand up and say, we are Americans and we have a right to debate and disagree with any administration.
Okay, she's there she is, ladies and gentlemen, the Democratic Party's presumptive nominee for the 2008 presidential race.
So that's what she was she was defining patriotism there as the criticism, not debate, but criticism of the president and so forth.
I'll tell you, to me, they're on thin ice.
And you know what's going to happen?
Forget these polls that are taking right now.
People aren't paying that close attention.
You and I, folks, we care deeply.
This stuff runs through our veins, courses through our arteries.
It's in every cell, deep, dark, gray cell locked in the cradium.
But a lot of people out there, they don't get into this until near the election.
And an off-term election, turnout is always a wild guess.
So polls now about the war and this sort of just a reflection of news coverage.
But when people start paying closer attention, you're going to watch these polls change.
Well, I don't know the polls will change.
I can get what they want out of the change.
I just think the Democrats start, they've counted their chickens again before they hatch.
Wait till you hear this story in the Monterey, whatever it is I have.
Let me find out how deep I put it in the stack here.
So I think I put it.
Oh, did you see General Motors has pulled its sponsorship from Survivor, from Race Survivor?
Yeah, just a pure coincidence.
It has nothing to do with the subject matter of the show.
No, no, no.
It's just a coincidence.
Said Rindy Carney, who is GM spokes babe.
More on that.
Oh, and the PlayM Wilsons.
You know, they got a suit, lawsuit against Cheney and Roev and Libby, and they were asked, you're going to include Armitage in it.
No.
We're not going to include.
Armity's didn't do anything.
Armity's didn't cause any problems.
What he did was totally different.
They're not going to include Armitage in the lawsuit.
Here's the story.
May as well get to it now.
This is from the McClatchy newspaper story.
That's the bunch that owns the Sacarono B, the Fresno B, just bought all these papers and sold some of them off.
This is the Monterey Herald.
It's by Margaret Talev.
And the headline here, Democrats thinking ahead to possible victory this fall.
In fact, let me take a break here, but there's not enough time to get into the full breadth of this before the break.
And I got to remind me, I went to a little party last night with the two freed Fox journalists, Steve Sintani and Olaf Wilg.
Roger Ailes had a little get-together up at his place right across the Hudson from West Point.
Oh, just, I'll tell you, it was, needed meal money to get up there.
But just gorgeous, gorgeous setting.
At any rate, I met Jennifer Griffin, too, the just fabulous reporter in Israel for Fox.
She's just excellent what she does.
All right, now I've got a quick timeout.
We'll be back.
We will continue in mere momentos.
Who is this?
Greg Kin, right?
One of the early guys on MTV.
Wonder what became of him.
Probably run over by a Volkswagen minibus out in the Bay Area.
800-282-2882 on the EIB network.
Before I give you the money quote from this McClatchy newspaper story of what's going to happen, the Democrats thinking ahead to the possible victory this fall, I want you to listen to Tim Russert again from the Today Show this morning.
Matt Wauer says, Tim, they're bouncing off Rumsfeld.
Tim, no Democrat's ever spoken out saying we should retreat in the war on terrorism.
Nor has any Democrat that we can find suggested cutting off funding for the war in Iraq, something the president floated the other day.
Matt, this is 68 days before.
Okay, so these guys said, what is this talk about?
Democrats wanting out of the war on terror and Democrats wanting out of this and Democrats are cutting run.
What is this cut and run stuff, Matt, Tim?
I don't know, Matt.
We can't find any evidence of it out there.
We've turned over every stone.
We've looked under every highway.
We've looked under every bridge.
We can't find a thing out there.
Here's the quote from Margaret Talliver, the money passage from the story.
Democrats will press to get out of Iraq.
They'll mount investigations into the Bush administration's record that could rival those of Presidents Nixon and Watergate and Clinton in the Monica Lewinsky affair.
They'll push a boatload of social welfare legislation, such as raising the minimum wage that reflects their pent-up priorities while blocking the Republican agenda on Get This.
Blocking the Republican agenda on social issues such as gay marriage, abortion, and religion.
What is the Republican agenda on religion?
Somebody tell me what that is.
Those are some of the top plans that Democrats would pursue if they won power.
Democrats will press to get out of Iraq.
She's talking to Democrats.
They are telling her this.
Tim Russard says, well, you know, any Democrat, Matt, we can't find one, suggested cutting off funding for the war in Iraq.
Tim, that doesn't mean they want to pull out of there.
They've offered resolutions in Congress.
The Republican Control Congress has worked with the White House to shield them and the government from any scrutiny of corruption and abuse.
Henry Waxman said, Democrats plan to expose the truth about billions of taxpayers' dollars.
Well, this is rich.
And they're getting their back to the culture of corruption now.
They're going to ensnare Dingy Harry.
He's got another sneaky deal out in Las Vegas involving developers, much like the one the L.A. Times exposed that nobody cared about back in 1996.
And then there was another congressman in Texas that's been caught up in another scandal.
Anyway, I want to go back to this quote.
Democrats will press to get out of a rock.
They'll mount investigations into the Bush administration's record that could rival those of Presidents Nixon and Watergate and Clinton.
They'll push a boatload of social welfare legislation such as raising the minimum wage that reflects their pent-up priorities and so forth.
What is the Republican agenda on gay marriage, on abortion, and religion that the Democrats are going to block?
What is it?
Gay marriage amend, well, gay, what?
Well, but that can't even get to the vote by the people.
That's the point.
Gay marriage amendments can't pass Congress.
They can't pass Congress already.
They put them up for a vote.
They don't get out of Congress.
They don't get to the people.
So what is there to block there?
Probably block the vote in Congress.
We're not going to make sure this never gets to the floor again.
Is there any pending abortion legislation?
I don't know.
So what is there to block there?
Exactly what religion are they referring to?
The fact that Republicans are still amenable to people having one.
And that upsets the Democrats.
I know it does.
I know Democrats, all this talk yesterday about they got to get a candidate.
Mark Warner said they got to get a candidate and go out to these 16 states where they have no prayer and actually relate to these people to values.
How are you going to do that when you resent their religion?
I can't think of a Republican agenda on religion other than they think you should be able to have one.
In stark contrast to the Democrats.
But anyway, as you go through this, and obviously Margaret Talov, who wrote the story, has talked to Democrats.
You go through it and you can't find anything resembling a positive agenda.
All they can muster is a bunch of talking points strung together that have very little meaning.
Other than I think they would cut and run out of a rock just like that.
I think they get out of there just like that.
And I don't think they have any clue or desire to take the war on terror seriously.
But this is nothing but, and I'll tell you, the main thing they want to do is mount these investigations.
They want to impeach Bush.
They want to get it on record how dirty and sleazy he is because their objective is to destroy conservatism, folks.
And the problem with that is there's some lily-skinned Republicans, moderates, who wouldn't mind the same thing happening.
Somebody might have to explain this to me.
A leading anti-war Democrat now criticizing Hillary Clinton on her stance on the war in Iraq, Jack Murtha, called on the Bush administration to immediately withdraw American troops.
Tim Russert couldn't find evidence of that, even though Mirtha's been on his show how many times saying it.
Now, in an interview airing tonight on New York One's inside, it aired last night, actually, inside City Hall.
Murtha is turning his tough talk on Clinton.
I think we've got the audio from this.
Yep.
We have it.
We'll have time, Derek.
Don't sweat.
I'm not going to try to squeeze it in there.
Busy broadcast seconds evaporating right before our very eyes.
But out there, Murtha attacking Hillary.
Somewhat interesting to me.
Let's take a brief time out here, my friends, as the programming format dictates that we must.
This is what they call in the broadcast business a heartbreak.
It doesn't move.
It doesn't float.
We have to take it whenever we have to take it.
I can keep talking, but we go to the break.
That's right.
Folks, folks, we may have a hurricane.
We may have a hurricane.
Yes, Al Gore was right.
▲
Export Selection