Welcome to today's edition of the Rush 24-7 podcast.
Hiya, folks, and greetings.
Welcome to you, thrill seekers, music lovers, conversationalists all across the fruited plane.
Time for broadcast excellence, hosted by me, America's real anchorman, here at the Limbaugh Institute for Advanced Conservative Studies.
As always, a thrill and a delight to be with you to each day get the truth out, set the record straight, and bring perspective to the madness created by the drive-by media.
Telephone number 800-282-2882 and the email address rush at EIBnet.com.
State-run radio saying a commercial airliner has been hijacked over Greek airspace.
Turkish airlines spokesman is saying that that aircraft, the hijacked aircraft, has landed at an airport in Brindisi, Italy.
There is no confirmation yet whether Mark Foley or Karl Rove are involved in the hijacking of this jet.
I guess it's a Turkish airlines jet.
We're following the story here, and as soon as we get any information, we will pass it on to you.
As you know, there are elements of the Republican slash conservative base that are cracking and crashing.
Among them, the Washington Times in an editorial today demanding that the Speaker of the House, Dennis Hastert, resign.
Also, our friends at the Wall Street Journal getting a little nervous over all this.
And remember, folks, there's a lot of behind-the-scenes politics going on about all this.
By the way, Speaker Hastert has said through a spokesman that he will not step down despite the request or the call from the Washington Times.
And I hope he does more than just say through a spokesman, I'm not going to resign.
It's time for the Republicans to fight back here, folks.
This is getting absurd.
This constantly being on defense, awaiting for the next shoe to drop.
It is time for the Republicans to fight back and point out, and it should be led by Hastert, point out how the Democrats continue to avoid the real issues of importance that we as a nation face.
Continually allowing the American people or trying to distract the American people from what essentially is a non-existent agenda on the part of the Democrats to deal with things that really, really matter.
The idea that the House of Representatives is the GOP side of it is a bunch of perverts hitting on pages is absurd.
It is the Democrats who have condoned that kind of behavior in the past.
It's Democrats who don't find that behavior repugnant in any way, shape, manner, or form.
This is not about protecting the children as far as they're concerned.
This is a strategic attack, time during an election, and the Republicans don't have to sit there and take it.
You know, they can say, we didn't know.
They can say whatever they want to say about it, but then return fire.
The president's doing his bit.
The president's on a campaign trip.
He's out west.
He was in Reno.
He's been in Stockton, California, or as they say on PBS out there, Stockton.
Well, they do.
They got a PBS station at Sacramento.
It's licensed for both markets.
And I forget what the call letters are.
You know, KPBS, I don't know what it is.
Sacramento, Stockton.
You know, these elitists smarter than everybody else in the room types.
But nevertheless, presidents out there.
He's campaigning for John Doolittle and Richard Pombal.
And the president is continuing to pound the message that the Democrats will lessen the safety of this country, that there will not be the attention of national security.
Country can't be trusted in their hands.
He's doing his part on this.
Drive-by media, not covering any of this.
Local media in California, Nevada is.
But the Foley thing is all over everywhere.
And I don't care where you look on cable TV, you have people salivating over what this will mean to the Republicans' chances of holding on to the House, of course.
And the conventional wisdom is that Foley's seat will go Democrat.
The replacement candidate's a guy named Joe Negron.
How do you pronounce his name?
Negron, I think it's he'll be on, well, he won't be on the ballot.
Foley's name will be on the ballot in his district because the ballots have already been printed and you can't, or they've been entered into the electronic voting machines, which Democrats say we can't trust.
Whatever is the case, we can't change the name on the ballot or in the machine.
So people are going to have to go out and vote for Foley, even though they're going to actually be voting for Mr. Negron.
And even Mr. Snerdley is a fatalist on this, thinks there's no way that the Republicans hold this seat, that people aren't going to go in there and vote for a candidate named Mark Foley, given all of this.
But in fact, if they go in there and they won't be voting on Foley, Mr. Snerdley, I'm not so sure that the Republicans have held this seat in this district for 25 years.
I'll be, you know, I'm going to go on the, I will be surprised if they lose the seat.
Republicans in this district aren't idiots.
And this is part of the thinking.
We still have this mindset that our voters are a bunch of fools and idiots and whatever the media bubble of the day is affects them.
And they respond to all this.
I think just the opposite.
And I think the Democrats are going to continue to overplay their hand on this.
And I think there are going to be other scandals that drop that come out of the Clinton war room.
They'll give this one as much time as they think it needs.
They'll overreact.
They'll take it too far.
But some of the internal politics going on, Washington Times Wall Street Journal, let's be honest.
You've read it.
I've told you about it.
There are a lot of, quote, conservative pundits, unquote, who actually believe that it would be good medicine for the Republicans to lose the House because they've done such a horrible job.
They've spent way too much.
They don't do enough on immigration.
They've totally bollocksed all this up.
It's time to kick them out.
It's time to teach them a lesson.
It's time to show them that we're not going to put up with them not being conservative.
And so if they lose, fine.
And I think that, you know, there's, you know, some people over the Wall Street Journal would probably not mind if Hastert quit.
They'd like Mike Pence and Jeff Woods, a guy from Arizona to take over the House because, you know, they're not as strong on illegal immigration as Sensenbrenner and Hastert and so forth are.
But, you know, I just, I think it's time for offense on this.
The Washington Times, by the way, I don't know if you saw this story.
This is from September 28th.
The human resources director of the Washington Times has been arrested on charges of soliciting a teenager for sex on the internet.
Did you know about this?
D.C. police say that 53-year-old Randall Cassaday of Dobbs Ferry, New York, was arrested Tuesday night in Northeast Washington.
He had allegedly arranged to meet what he believed was a 13-year-old girl he had been corresponding with in an online chat room.
The person he was communicating with was a detective with the department's Internet Crimes Against Children branch.
Now, I love Tony Blankly, and we've interviewed him for the Limball letter.
I have a lot of respect for him.
I've known him since he worked for Newt.
But did he resign from the Washington Times?
When the human resources director?
You know what human resources people do?
They monitor all this kind of stuff, make sure the employees aren't out catting around, handle all the benefits, the payouts, all the nanny state stuff like health insurance, family medical leave act, trips to the vet on the part of mom and dad, getting old grandma and grandpa and the old folks home on work time, whatever it is, they handle that sort of stuff.
But I don't remember Mr. Blankly resigning over this, yet they're demanding that Hastert step down again.
Hastert has refused to do so.
The bottom line is this: this latest assault by Democrats will not work either unless the Republicans surrender, stay on defense, and damage themselves.
Let the Democrats resign for crying out loud.
Let them resign, Overson.
Let Nancy Pelosi resign.
I can make a case that she should resign immediately.
Now, even Snerdley's looking at me with a raised eyebrow.
Well, here's my basis: Nancy Pelosi knows the person who planted the story about Foley five weeks before the election.
But rush, but rush, but rush.
Tell us what you know.
How can you be sure she knows?
Well, I can almost guarantee it.
She might not know who specifically did it, but she knows where it comes from.
All the liberal Democrats do.
She knows the person because these emails were held by a liberal.
They were planted by a liberal and they were timed to the 2006 election cycle by a liberal.
And liberals know liberals.
And so Pelosi knows who Deep IM is.
There's a deep I am here.
And not deep throat, but there's a deep I am.
Now, you know who I've been trying to find out who this is.
Who is this?
Is it an angry gay group that's upset that Foley was not a good gay?
Could it be that they didn't like that Foley was not out?
That Foley was gay, but he was not out is trying to act like he wasn't.
You can go to certain websites and you can find pictures, screenshots of gay websites from 2004 pledging to get Foley, pledging to out him, because he's doing damage to gay and lesbian people, gay men, lesbian women throughout the country.
Who knows who's behind this?
There's another theory that, well, I'm not going to.
There's all kinds of theories about who had this, for how long they had it, and then who gave it to Brian Ross at AB's.
And Brian Ross says, well, yeah, they gave me this stuff some time ago, but I was too involved in trashing the Bush administration in our Katrina anniversary coverage.
Now, this is what it is.
This is a strategic Democrat-timed scandal.
None of this is to defend Foley.
Some people on our side are totally missing the boat.
I understand the need to stand up righteously and morally and say we, as conservatives, do not tolerate and we will not put up with this kind of behavior from members of our movement or our party.
I understand all it.
Foley should.
There's no question.
I'm not, I couldn't, couldn't really care.
This is really not about him anymore.
This is about the Democrat attempt to take over the House.
And we have people who want to go further and not recognize what this really is and not understand the Democrat Clinton war room strategy behind all this are unwittingly falling into the hands of the Democrats.
There's almost a death wish out there.
This is hardball politics.
This is not about the children.
This is not about pedophilia.
This is not about any of that.
The way this has happened, the way it is played out, Foley's gone.
I mean, if it was really about Foley, stop the coverage.
Issue's over.
We found out.
However, we found out, Foley's gone.
Foley's in rehab.
Foley's gone doing whatever he's doing.
He's out.
Conservatives have stood up and done the right thing.
Foley quit.
He didn't do a Jerry Studs.
And you know what Studs did?
When he had from Massachusetts, studs call a press conference with the page that he had been accused of having this little tryst, and they demanded privacy.
And they said, It's our business, none of yours, blah blah blah.
And they went on and got re-elected.
Foley didn't do any of that.
He's gone.
So if it's just about that, it's time for conservatives to say, see, we clean our house, we do the right thing.
But then to go further and say, well, Haster should resign.
Why not Boehner?
Let's have Boehner resign.
Let's have everybody resign.
Let's just have the Republicans give up.
You know what?
Let's just have everybody on the Republican side quit and resign.
Why not?
How far do we take this?
I don't think people understand the war and the battlefield mentality of things like this.
Either that or they do understand it and don't care, or they think it's irrelevant to the fundamental issues they think are involved.
Anyway, I'm a little long here.
I must take a brief time out.
Back with more broadcast excellence after this.
You know what I'd love to see?
I'd love to see this announcement.
Breaking news.
The drive-by media.
Barney Frank nominates former UN Weapons Inspector Scott Ritter to get to the bottom of the Foley mess.
I just would love to see that.
By the way, we here at the EIB Network, ladies and gentlemen, have started an office pool because I told you yesterday, this is just the tip of the iceberg.
There's going to be strategic releases of scandal-related, so-called scandal-related news from now through the election.
And we have a little office pool here on when the next shoe will drop, what the next story will be.
I have my money on 3 p.m. after this program, Friday afternoon, time to make the Sunday shows.
I don't know what it'll be.
I just know that the Clinton War Room has got a bunch of stuff cooked up.
Look what they've already ensnared.
They've ensnared George Allen.
They got Janine Pirot up in New York.
They're trying to get Bob Woodward's book.
Then make no mistake, the timing of that, the things that are.
We're going to talk about that today because actually some interesting things in that Woodward book that I think kind of make an opposite point that the Libs and Woodward want to make that ought to please Democrats in the set.
Rich Lowry touches on this a little bit today in his piece at National Review Online.
Frank Gaffney has a great piece in the Washington Times if he hasn't resigned.
I don't know why he should, but the Washington Times human resources director had to quit soliciting sex on the internet with a 13-year-old babe.
Nobody there has resigned over this.
And I haven't seen the conservative blogosphere upset with the Washington Times as an institution claiming that maybe it just should shut down because of the actions of their human resources director.
So my money is on 3 o'clock Friday for a new story, a new scandal coming out of the Clinton war room.
If you haven't had a chance, you ought to go to rushlimbaugh.com.
We have a great graphic up there depicting the Clinton war room and its victims to date.
And make no mistake, that's what's happening.
Let's go to the audio sound bites.
This is interesting.
Knew this would be the case.
I'm the only one saying anything different about this yesterday.
And so I knew that I would be the focal point of discussion last night on the cable shows.
PMS, NBC, Scarborough Country talking with the new Republic's Michael Crowley.
And Joe Scarborough says, Rush Limbaugh says the Clinton War Room is in full effect.
And then he played audio from yesterday's program.
The truth is that the people on the left who are acting all outraged and stunned and angry, they don't see what Clinton or Barney Frank or Gary Studs did as repugnant.
In fact, they view those things as private matters that didn't affect anybody's work.
And it's nobody's business what somebody does with their private life, particularly when it comes to sex.
Michael Crowley, I don't buy that argument, do you?
No, I mean, it's ridiculous.
I mean, first of all, we're talking about minors here.
I mean, we're talking about 16-year-olds.
You know, so in the Clinton case, you know, it was clearly sort of a troubling age discrepancy, but it's completely different terrain.
Oddly enough, the age of consent is only 16 years old in D.C., but actually the laws governing online contact are different.
And I think partly because of legislation that Foley supported.
All right, so the age of consent 16, the pages are 60.
It doesn't matter.
This is different.
And of course, Clinton's totally different because Monica was 19.
And we ignored studs altogether.
What is there to disagree with about notice that they do not tackle the point that I made that the Democrats do not find this behavior repugnant?
That was the point that I was making yesterday.
They don't find what Foley did repugnant because they didn't, and he just admitted what Clinton did.
That's no big deal.
Clinton and Monica.
I mean, that's everything I said here is true.
The Democrats circled the wagons.
Hey, it's private.
Hey, it's only about sex.
Hey, it didn't affect the way he did his job.
Now, Foley then goes, goes, I think, or Crowley goes on to sort of make my point.
Scarborough says then, well, thanks to Congressman Foley, he may now be in trouble with the FBI, right?
I would also just say that, you know, Republicans to some extent ask for this sort of a reaction because of their position on moral issues.
I mean, this constant drumbeat about family values and this very strict scolding approach to how people should live their lives invites particularly high standards and harsh criticism when one of their own is caught in this sort of a situation.
So, you know, Cry Me a River Rush.
Hey, Crowley, why don't you become a journalist and listen to what I said?
I'm the one that made that point yesterday.
I don't know why Scarborough didn't play that.
Maybe his producers didn't hear it.
I made that very point.
What I said yesterday was that Republicans are vulnerable to this because they are the family values party, the family, the party of morality, right and wrong, and that liberals like you, Crowley, look at people that make judgments as the sinners.
You liberals, you coddle the imperfections of human beings.
You promote the imperfections of human beings, including alternative lifestyles, including sex with minors, including teaching sex in school with a condom on a cucumber, a banana, or peanut, whichever is appropriate.
You guys coddle all of this imperfection in human behavior, and that's how you claim you're compassionate.
And when you coddle imperfection, you promote it.
And you have made those who engage in imperfect human behavior by choice, you have made them victims.
And of whom are they victims?
They are victims of the so-called right-wing judgmental squad.
You tell me that you can cry me a river.
I should cry a river.
I'm not crying a river.
I'm not the one complaining about the things that you guys are complaining.
I know exactly why you claim that it's so much fun to watch hypocrites bite the dust.
You guys think you're immune from being hypocrites because you don't judge anybody and you despise being judged.
But it is your coddling of imperfection in human behavior, by choice imperfection, that leads to an ongoing perversion of our culture.
You guys have a lot of explaining to do.
Don't have to think about it.
Just listen.
Pops out of the radio right at your Rush Limbaugh EIB network.
And I'm going to tell you something, you Democrats, you libs, you are teetering very close to the edge.
And a number of people are going to, I think they're already starting to see you people as gay bashers.
I mean, and that's, you know, if there's anybody bashing gays in this story, who is it?
Why?
It's our old friends, the Democrats.
I want to go back to this first soundbite from the Scarborough show last night that I just played you.
Michael Crowley of the New Republic Scarborough's question, Rush Limbaugh says the Clinton War Room's in full effect.
And they played this video, audio from yesterday's program.
The truth is that the people on the left who are acting all outraged and stunned and angry, they don't see what Clinton or Barney Frank or Gary Studs did as repugnant.
In fact, they view those things as private matters that didn't affect anybody's work.
And it's nobody's business what somebody does with their private life, particularly when it comes to sex.
Michael Crowley, I don't buy that argument, do you?
No, I mean, it's ridiculous.
I mean, first of all, we're talking about minors here.
I mean, we're talking about 16-year-olds.
You know, so in the Clinton case, you know, it was clearly sort of a troubling age discrepancy, but it's completely different terrain.
Oddly enough, the age of consent is only 16 years old in D.C., but actually the laws governing online contact are different.
And I think partly because of legislation that Foley supported.
All right.
You know, notice this ongoing effort to dissociate Clinton from any of this.
In fact, there are people on our side.
Don't bring up Clinton.
Don't bring up Gary Studge.
Why, we got our own problems here with Mark Foley.
And I think people on our side are saying that don't understand the mindset of those of us who are bringing it up because we're looking at Foley's gone.
We've done with it.
We've dealt with it.
We got rid of whatever the problem was.
He's gone.
That is the result of a Democrat trick.
That is the result of a Democrat strategy.
And so he's gone.
We've done the right thing.
Now we've got to look at what the ongoing effort to get Foley is really aimed at.
So when you bring up Clinton, you know, these guys like Crowley here, these Libs, they put up the boundaries.
Oh, no, no, no, Clinton's not relevant here.
Why?
Monica was 19.
Well, can I remind you, Libs, of something else?
Yeah, you can talk about whether the age of consent is 16 or not for online things, whatever.
But it should be noted to you, Libs, that the sexual harassment activists and the feminists have made the main point that harassment occurs when there is contact between a person who has much greater power than his subordinate or victim.
That makes the contact non-consensual.
So who could be more powerful than the president of the United States?
And who could be more vulnerable than an impressionable groupie intern working under him, literally, under him and under the desk?
He was the chief executive of the United States of America.
If he thinks it's okay to do it, what's an intern supposed to think?
You just can't erase Clinton here.
But you don't even have to do this.
Clinton was accused of rape by Juanita Broderick.
Ah, nothing doesn't matter.
Private matter.
Long ago, Rush can't trust the accuser.
Why not?
The woman is always right when she accuses her husband of predatory behavior.
The woman is always right when she accuses somebody of sexual harassment.
But somehow in Clinton, Kathleen, Willie, Paula Jones, they were, no, they were trailer trash.
They were what have my only point in bringing this up is not to defend Foley.
It is not in any way, shape, manner, or form.
It is simply, I'm not going to sit here and act on defense.
I'm not going to be put on defense by these people.
I'm not going to demand that guys on our side resign.
I'm not going to demand that we take action that guarantees we lose the House to a bunch of people who cannot be trusted to defend and protect the national security of these country.
It would take them in four years.
Do you know the damage they could do in four years, particularly if they win the White House in 08?
These people can destroy the health care system of this country.
They could destroy the effort to beat back the terrorist extremists, the Islamo fascists.
Charlie Wrangell is one Democrat who's being honest.
He's going to end up, if the House wins, the Democrats win House control, he'll be chairman of Ways and Means.
He was asked, is there any tax cut that you think ought to be preserved?
No, not one.
Can't think of any.
What about the war in Iraq?
Well, you have to pay for it, don't you?
I mean, Wrangell is making it clear he's going to get rid of all these tax cuts he can.
Now, he's going to be tough with Bush as president.
It depends on majorities, what kind of cave mentality exists on the part of surviving Republicans in the House and the Senate if the Democrats do win both.
So bye-bye tax cuts.
And by the way, the tax cuts, an additional $500 billion in the last year alone, I think, to the Treasury.
Bush's tax cuts have generated something like that much additional revenue, if not more.
So bye-bye tax cuts.
Bye-bye, war in Iraq, war on terror, defund it, what have you.
And Wrangell is making it plain what his agenda is.
Now, that, to me, is what's at stake here.
And I know there are people on our side who say, well, in our Republican House, they need to be shown a lesson.
These guys, they ran as conservatives and they got up there.
They governed as a bunch of moderate, spineless fish, and saw this spending and nothing on immigration and so forth and so on.
And we need to teach them a lesson.
They need to lose.
I have never understood the philosophy of quitting to win.
I've just never understood it.
Nobody has ever explained how that works.
If that works, then we should leave Iraq today and win.
Well, yeah, just leave.
We should just cancel all the elections.
Just tell our people not to show up.
Can't cancel the election.
Tell Republican voters, look, don't show up.
It's time our side lost.
This is how we win in the future.
This is how we I've heard this so many times in the past, and it just appalls me because I don't understand the thinking.
I understand the anger on our side, and I understand the desire for payback, and I understand the desire for people to send a message to the Republican leaders in the House and the Senate with whom they are angry, and the desire for those people to somehow get the message.
And I also understand the desire for them not to be rewarded for this absolutely horrible performance that some think the House Republicans have engaged in over the past two years, four years, or what have you.
But as I say, the Democrats only need four years, and they could destroy the health care system, destroy the war effort, raise taxes.
And let's not forget, let's not, for the moment a Democrat is elected president, there will be two immediate Supreme Court resignations, at least one for certain.
A couple of these people are holding on just because they don't want Bush appointing their replacement.
So if you want to say goodbye to the Supreme Court actually having a fundamental change in its ideological orientation, if you want to say goodbye to all that, then fine.
You go ahead and you encourage Hastert to resign and anybody else you think ought to resign, and then you encourage Republicans to lose and encourage Republican voters to stay home, act mad, and show these guys a lesson.
And just keep in mind who you're going to be putting in power.
Audio soundbite number three.
Another C, I told you so here.
Liberals don't care about the children in this Foley business.
They are just ecstatic over the hypocrite game they get to play.
Last night, John Roberts, sitting in on CNN for Anderson Cooper, talking to Randy Cohen of the New York Times, the question, so what does that do to the entire party, this Foley business?
It delights me.
I think if you're a person who can't enjoy the downfall of a hypocrite, then you have no Z for life.
Remember, Foley is the person who castigated President Clinton very vigorously for having a consensual affair with someone quite a bit older.
It is strikingly delightful to see a hypocrite fall.
Predicted all of this yesterday, and they set this up, of course, because the Republicans are the people that judge.
You conservatives, you fundamentalist Christians, you NASCAR types.
All you do is sit out there and judge other people.
That's all you do.
And the Libs hate you for judging them because you're not perfect.
Who gives you the right to judge them?
What gives you the right to define right and wrong?
What gives you the right to define good and evil?
You know, no human being is perfect, but most human beings know the difference between right and wrong, whether they're able to follow the principles on a daily basis 100% of the time.
Nobody is, by the way.
But just because you owe failure at doing the right thing all the time does not discredit you from knowing what right and wrong are, which is what the Libs want you to think.
The Libs want you to think that nobody who has a single human failing has the slightest ability or right to define what's right and wrong.
It's the root of many of their arguments.
What do you mean you can't talk about the defense budget?
You didn't go to Vietnam.
Who the hell are you?
You can't talk about the NASA budget.
You've never been in space.
You can't tell me about morality and right and wrong.
You've been married and divorced twice, three times, whatever they want to say.
And they hope in doing this to totally obliterate the lines that separate right and wrong, good and bad, moral and immoral.
And they want to get to moral equivalency.
And they are the ones who promote.
I cannot say this enough.
They are the ones who promote the willful choosing of imperfection in human lifestyles.
They coddle imperfection.
They don't find imperfection repugnant at all.
These are the guys that defend criminals.
These are the guys that try to get criminals out of jail.
These are the guys who are soft on crime.
Why?
Because it's really not the criminals' fault.
We're all imperfect.
The real problem is the people doing the judging.
You want to put them behind bars.
What right do they have to put anybody behind bars?
And so, when you have the guts and the courage to stand up for what you think is right, let me ask a question.
Let me put it point blank.
One of the things that Foley did, and the psychological reasons for this are somewhat interesting.
We could get into that if you want, but we don't have to.
Foley was in charge of some committee in the House on protecting children from predatory sexual acts.
Psychologists are saying that's because he wanted some internal protection mechanism or what.
But forget the psychological reasons for a second.
Mark Foley was the author of some decent legislation in this regard.
Mark Foley chaired committees hoping to bring about change in this area.
Does it make what he did bad simply because of these emails and instant messages?
Does it say that what Foley was trying to do in this area is no good?
Does it change the right versus wrong aspect of what he was trying to do?
Does it discredit what is obviously right simply because he failed?
The Libs would have you believe it does.
And in the process, there is no such thing as right.
There's no such thing as good.
It all becomes relative.
And so you've got dip like this guy Cohen from the New York Times, ostensibly a journalist, is reveling here in happiness, admitting it, how happy he is when hypocrites fall.
This is what Libs live for.
And I'll tell you, this is going to put a lot of pressure on people because they don't want to be accused of being hypocrites.
And the pressure that the liberals are bringing here is designed to see to it that fewer and fewer people have the guts and the courage to stand up for what's right and wrong, good and bad, moral and immoral, because they're just going to get toasted by liberals the next time there is a human failing on the right.
There are human failings all over the place.
Human failings do not change the essence of the definitions of right, wrong, good, evil, moral, immoral, and what have you.
Looks like the only Democrat issue left is Mark Foley.
The Dow Jones Industrial Average has surpassed its all-time trading high of $11,750.28, and the oil price has tumbled below $59 on ample supply.
They say, well, this is because the hurricane season didn't ramp up the way the experts predicted it.
Will there be any apologies for the botched predictions?
No, there won't be because they will say, well, we were more prepared this season because of these predictions.
Bill Gray at Colorado State, Colorado, wherever he is, says that we'll have no more major hurricanes, couple more storms out there, one more named hurricane named storm out there.
But that's pretty much it.
Well, what's driving oil so low is supply and demand.
There's the greatest supply of it.
Snerdley.
I had a great little line about what's driving the oil price under $59, and I can't tell you.
It's a very funny line, and I asked the staff what they thought of it.
HR said, no, don't even allude to that.
Dawn loved it, but thought it would be risky.
Snerdley said, no, you know, he's still trying to egg me on into saying the line.
I'm not going to say it.
I sent a little instant message of the line to Matt Drudge, and he said he just spit coffee all over his computer terminal.
And I said, be glad that's the only stain on that terminal, given what's happening out there today.
He said, you just made me spit the rest of the coffee on the terminal.
At any rate, so what issue do the Dems have left?
I mean, what the Republicans ought to do, and I just say this one more time, rather than act all defensive about this Foley thing, we have corrected a mistake.
They're calling that hypocrisy.
Now, stop and think about this.
A mistake has been corrected.
We all make mistakes in life.
We all do.
Many of us have the good fortune of a second and third chance to correct them.
The liberals want to call that hypocrisy.
The thing about it is they try to control the debate by insisting that only they can comment on fallibility because they're the ones with no standards.
They love it when people who have standards fail because then they get to obliterate the whole concept of standards.
Nobody's entitled to set standards.
Liberals can't stand being judged.
The guilty usually can't.
And so they're all excited about this.
But what have they got?
The Republicans, it's time to stand up, swing back, led by the speaker, and say, enough of this.
Where's your plan to protect the country?
Where's your plan to keep this economy going?
Where is your plan to fix health care?
You keep talking.
Don't tell us you're going to do things smarter.
We want to hear specifics.
One of the things the Democrats are saying about that, by the way, well, we can't afford to be specific because Republicans will just tear it to shreds.
No, they can't afford to be specific because if they were to be honest, they'd blow whatever chances they do have of having some sort of victory in the upcoming elections in November.
The North Koreans have said today they're going to conduct a nuclear test amid what it calls increasing U.S. hostility toward the communist regime, prompting the South to raise its security level.
That'd be South Korea.
U.S. also said it would raise the issue in the U.N. Security Council later today.
Whoop-dee-doo.
The statement from Pyongyang, Ping Pong, gave no precise date as to when a test might occur.
The DPRK will in the future conduct a nuclear test in a condition where safety is firmly guaranteed, said the North Korean's foreign ministry in a statement using its official name, the Democratic People's Republic of Korea.
Hey, Kim, why don't you invite Madeline Albright over there to your show, to that party while you're at it?
She loved your shows the last time that she was there.
So if you're going to do one of these, invite one of the people that enables you to do the test.
Quite an interesting comment from Pennsylvania Governor Fastetti Rendell at a press conference to discuss the shooting at the Amish school.