Yeah, greetings and welcome back, my good buddies, good friends El Rushball and the Excellence in Broadcasting Network.
I am America's real anchorman, serving humanity simply by showing up at 800-282-2882.
The email address is rush at EIBnet.com.
Great to have you with us, ladies and gentlemen.
I just learned that Speaker Hastert will be on the phone with us for a brief chat about a half hour from now, 1.33 Eastern Time, when we start the second half hour of this program.
In the meantime, there's an ongoing press conference taking place in Pennsylvania over this tragic shooting at the one-room Amish school.
And the governor of Pennsylvania, Fast Eddie Rendell, was there.
A very, very curious answer to this question from an unidentified reporter.
Governor Rendell, do you see any need for any changes in state public schools in terms of security?
You can make all the changes you want, but you can never stop a random act of violence by a person who is intent on killing themselves.
It's the same thing as protected president of the United States.
You can have 50 Secret Service agents there, but if someone is willing to swap their life for the president's, they're going to get a point-blank shot at the president.
Wow.
I mean, as an addendum to this, the movie about the assassination of George W. Bush will open October 27th in various theaters here in the United States of America.
Now, what a way to answer the question.
Fast Eddie, are you going to do anything to ramp up security at the schools?
No, it won't matter.
Somebody wants to come in and wipe out the president.
You can't stop them.
I mean, if they're willing to lose their lives in the process, there's nothing you can do.
Governor Rendell, would you care to weigh in on your thoughts on port security?
Well, there's really nothing you can do.
If somebody's going to put a nuke in a container coming into ports and they're going to hide in a container with the nuke and set it off the minute that they're discovered, there's nothing much you can do.
Governor Rendell, Fast Eddie, Rendell, what can we do here about airline hijackings?
We just had another one.
A Turkish airliner was hijacked and landed in Italy.
By the way, we've learned the motive for this now.
The motive was the Islamists aboard were trying to make a statement about the Pope's words.
So, Fast Eddie, what can we do about airline hijacking?
Well, there's really nothing you can do.
You can put 50 air marshals up there, and you can put lead all over the cockpit door, but if somebody's willing to die in order to bring down the plane, there's really nothing you can do.
About the best thing you could do, Fast Eddie would say, is have a drink.
You know, get an adult beverage, get a cocktail, and say your prayers.
Fast Eddie, what about the prospect of terrorists hitting the electricity grid or maybe poisoning the water supply?
Well, there's really not a whole lot you can do if somebody's willing to drink that water immediately after poisoning it and dying.
I mean, you could have all the security you want at the ports.
You could have all the air marshals you want up there in the sky.
But if somebody's willing to wipe themselves out, there's not a whole lot you can do.
Just like if you wanted to kill the president, 50 Secret Service agents couldn't stop it if the guy's willing to get up close, point-blank range, and die himself.
Now, that's got to make you people in Pennsylvania awfully comfortable.
When he gets a question about increasing security at the schools and basically says won't matter, is that what he said?
He said, well, you can make all the changes you want, but you can never stop a random act of violence by a person who's intent on killing themselves.
Sounds to me like he doesn't think it's possible to stop these random acts of violence.
I wonder if that extends to terrorism.
You know, you really can't stop these things, Fastetti would say.
Strange stuff indeed.
If I were to imagine the liberal contract with America, I think, ladies and gentlemen, I know what the liberal contract with America is.
It has three basic components.
First component is we will discourage conservative turnout at the polls.
The second element of the liberal contract with America is we will discourage conservative turnout at the polls.
The third element, this is the clincher in the liberal contract with America, we will discourage conservative turnout at the polls.
I think, folks, it's becoming more and more apparent and obvious to one and all that the left has nothing to run on.
Foley is it.
Now, there's going to be another scandal that they've been holding in abeyance at Clinton War Room working on these things.
And it'll probably be I've already a little office pool here.
I think by 3 o'clock Friday, we'll know what the next one is as they gin up discussions for the Sunday shows and into next week.
What they're running on is nothing but negatives.
They don't offer peace.
They don't offer a recipe or a policy for peace.
They don't offer prosperity.
Just the opposite.
They're trying to convince you that your country is in an economic shimbles.
They're not even talking about offering up what they consider to be good Supreme Court judges.
They're not even being positive about that.
Now, stop, when you think about the Republican campaigns in the past, presidential and midterm campaigns, one of them, they've had many elements and they have been positive things.
Tax cuts, smaller government.
I know, chuckle, chuckle.
Reducing spending.
I know, chuckle, chuckle.
Peace, prosperity, changing the direction of the Supreme Court.
There have been specifics.
The liberals are offering none.
They are obsessed with doom and gloom.
And so their strategy depends entirely on conservatives staying home and not voting.
Especially you Christian conservatives.
You really need to stay home.
If they convince you to stay home, they think that's their recipe for victory.
So the liberal playbook, the game plan, is to discourage as many conservatives as possible from voting.
So that leads to question, are you discouraged?
And should you be discouraged?
Well, let me ask you again, what does Mark Foley and all of this attention being paid to his instant messages and so forth, what does that have to do with the key issues of our times?
What does Mark Foley have to do with keeping us safe at home?
What does Mark Foley have to do with winning the war on jihadism?
What does Mark Foley have to do with keeping our economy growing?
What does this whole Foley episode have to do with putting more money in your pocket and not Washington's?
You know, Mark Foley, and he had to have a mandatory rejoinder.
What he did was inexcusable.
But whatever it is he did, it has nothing to do with the issues that shape the future of the country over which most of you traditionally go to the polls and vote.
But Foley has everything to do with your turning out or your not turning out.
And their contract with America is to discourage conservative turnout.
Period.
That's it.
That is all they have.
And you really couldn't even say that that's all they have to offer.
They just, they're not offering anything.
They're threatening.
The key to the 2000 election is not really President Bush, and it's not President Hillary.
The key to this election could be Brian Ross.
Brian Ross, you say, why Brian Ross?
Well, who is Brian Ross?
He is the solemn and very serious investigative journalist who broke the story.
Not of Foley, not of Foley's emails.
He broke the story of the IMs, the salacious instant messages right before the election.
The question is, did Brian Ross find the story or did the story find him?
Ladies and gentlemen, we know the how, but we don't know the who.
Someone in some war room handed him this story.
We know he wasn't out beating the hustings.
He wasn't out there, as these reporters want us to believe, scouring the bushes or wherever he'd have to go to find this information.
Brian Ross knows who gave him the story.
But of course, sources are protected.
We must always protect our sources, shield laws, and so forth.
If that name ever gets out, we ever learn who is behind this.
And there are a bunch of theories out there on the internet already.
It will be very interesting.
I suspect that we'll learn more about this after the election.
But remember, voting in America turns on peace, prosperity, and Supreme Court judges.
The liberals can't afford for you to vote on those issues.
They will lose.
The liberals and the Democrats can't afford for you to be thinking about such things.
Look at them.
They go back and forth.
They try to make campaigns out of domestic issues, and they try to hold on.
They just try, but then their cookbase loses it.
And they go, and then Woodward comes out with his book about which we'll speak in a moment.
And they go after Rumsfeld.
They go after the war.
Bush is a liar.
They just can't help themselves.
Now they've totally forgotten the war.
They're on totally on Foley.
Now, this will end and something else will pop up and their agenda will change.
But I'm just telling you, and I want you to be totally prepared out there.
All of this has one single purpose, and that is to keep you from showing up to vote.
Now, just one thing here, and I'm going to go to your phone calls here right after this.
Interesting.
So, by the way, Rushland bought talent on loan from God.
Brian Ross, ABC, I just mentioned to you a moment ago, could be the focal point of this.
New York Times papers knew of Foley email, but did not publish stories by Ann Kornblut and Kate, actually Kit Seeley.
At least two news organizations were tipped off to email messages sent by Representative Mark Foley long before the story of his sexually explicit remarks to teenage pages broke last week and forced him to resign.
The St. Petersburg Times and the Miami Herald received copies of an email exchange between Foley and a teenager, but neither paper gathered enough solid material to publish a story, according to statements by the paper's editors.
At the same time, the paper's decisions not to report the accusations are being cited by Republican leaders as justification for why they themselves didn't step forward earlier to try to stop Mr. Foley.
Denny Hastert said yesterday he deceived his in-state newspaper when they questioned him.
He deceived me too.
Then, well, the St. Petersburg Times said that last November it received copies of an email exchange between Foley and a former page from Louisiana.
The newspaper said the boy who was underage didn't want his name used, and the paper said that it didn't want to publish accusations based on unnamed sources.
That's awfully convenient.
Didn't want to publish because of unnamed sources.
I'm going to have a heart attack.
Fred Sanford here.
It's the big one.
But it gets better.
Brian Ross, ABC News, said he learned about the email messages in August, but he was too busy with Hurricane Katrina and the anniversary of September 11 to pursue them immediately.
None of the news organizations seem to anticipate how big the story would become.
I never thought it would lead to his resignation, said Ross.
Translation: I never thought I could get a Pulitzer out of this.
So, Brian Ross of ABC News has known since August of possible crimes against children and held it until he thought he could get a Pulitzer with it.
You know how you win Pulitzers.
You drive Republicans out of office or you give it a good shot, like Rather, Mary Mapes.
They got Peabody awards for this.
Well, if they know, that could have been that the papers might have been fearful of outing Foley because these were male pages.
Yeah, these, you know, I'll tell you, it's the Democrats are coming across as gay bashers here, the way they're going after Foley.
But it is interesting, if these pages had been women, young girls, would the St. Petersburg Times and the Miami Herald have gotten into action sooner, or were they afraid of outing Foley as gay?
And that's a reasonable supposition.
So you could say, is it possible ST. Petersburg Times and the Miami Herald would hold news, would suppress news that is possibly placing children at risk, so as to avoid outing someone who everybody's now saying they always knew was gay?
Tough questions asked by me here on the EIB network to the phones to Albany in New York.
And Tom, thank you for waiting.
Welcome to the program, sir hi Rush.
It's a great honor to speak with you.
Thank you, Rush.
I've noticed something I'd like to know if you've noticed it also.
Every year, prominent Democrats such as Howard Dean and Madeline The Half-bright warn the country about the October surprise.
Yes, let's go back to 2000, the October surprise.
Every newspaper carried the story of George Bush's DWI in 1976.
Then there was Kerry telling the country that tons of explosives were stolen in Iraq under George Bush's Watch.
Then you just mentioned Dan Rather, Bill Burkett, forged documents.
This year, the October surprise is an all-out smear on George Allen.
I live in New York, and I like Janine Pirot.
They're telling the truth for once, the Democrats.
There is an October surprise, but it comes from them, Rush.
What do you think?
Well, I think there's no question.
And they're doing this as a defensive, well, it's an offensive maneuver, but they're doing this for defensive reasons.
Folks, they have to take your minds off the issues.
I'm glad you brought up that business about the DWI in 2000.
That did come close to defeating Bush.
And you know why?
I'm going to tell you why.
It's because some of the Christian right, some of the conservative people out there, I don't want to mess with this.
And it was an effort to suppress the vote.
And there's some people with theories that it worked.
They're trying it again, folks.
That's why I'm trying to warn you.
This whole thing is being portrayed as the Republican Party is totally corrupt, and they're full of sinners.
And yet they're the holier than now among us and judging everybody else.
The only strategy the Democrats have is not an agenda that is positive and inspirational that you can join and support.
The only agenda they have is to suppress your vote.
And that's why I cringe when I see people on my side of the aisle urging that our guys quit and resign.
It's just not the way to deal with this.
Here is Laurie in Geneva, Florida.
Lori, I'm glad you waited.
You're next.
Oh, thank you so much, Rush.
I'm just thrilled to be able to get through to you.
Longtime listener, first-time caller.
Thank you.
I'm calling because I was thinking that the Republican voters will not be distracted.
Those that actually will show up will come out.
They'll vote for the name that says Foley, know who his replacement is.
I think if the Democrats could vote for a dead guy in Missouri and know that it's a placemarker for someone else, I think the Republicans will do the same thing.
Excellent point.
You're talking about the widow Carnahan.
Yes.
Yeah, her husband, Mel, perished in a plane crash in a campaign for the U.S. Senate against John Ashcroft, and she got a large sympathy vote.
People knew that they were voting for a candidate who had perished in a plane crash.
And if people in Missouri Democrats can figure that's excellent point.
They don't have quite the same analogy here, but still, what you're saying is Republicans are smart enough to know that this is our seat, and there is a Republican running here, and we've got to vote for Foley in order to elect that Republican.
You think this is true for most of the Republicans in your district up there?
I believe so.
I think if there are Republicans that aren't informed, that they don't listen to you or keep track of what's going on, they're just going to see his name as someone that they recognize, a name that they know.
It'd be hard for them not to know about this Foley thing, but I just find it.
See, the Democrat theory is that Republicans are going to be so outraged.
Even though Foley's not on the ballot, why we're not going to vote for Ripo?
I'm throwing my party under the bus.
I'm throwing my party overboard.
I can't believe Foley did.
It's a Republican district, and it has been for 25 years.
And John Voehner said the other day that he thinks the seat's lost, and I just don't.
I have more faith in the voters.
But apparently some do.
And we are back on the cutting edge of societal evolution, the EIB network.
And we're happy to be joined now by the Speaker of the House, Denny Hastert.
Mr. Speaker, welcome to the EIB network.
Great to speak to you again, sir.
Thanks, Rush.
Great to be with you today.
Now, I guess the big news is the Washington Times admittedly conservative editorial page has asked for you to step down and resign, and you have said you're not going to do that, correct?
Well, yeah, I'm not going to do that.
What we've tried to do is focus on this Foley thing, is do the right thing.
We had two messages, you know, there are two pieces of paper out there, one that we knew about and we acted on, one that happened in 2003 we didn't know about, but somebody had it, and they drop it the last day of the session before we adjourn on an election year.
Now, we've took care of Mr. Foley.
We found out about it, asked him to resign.
He did resign.
He's gone.
We asked for an investigation.
We've done that.
We're trying to build better protections for these page programs.
But this is a political issue in itself, too.
And what we've tried to do as the Republican Party is make a better economy, protect this country against terrorism.
And we've worked at it ever since 9-11, worked with the president on it.
And there's some people that try to tear us down.
We are the installation to protect this country.
And if they get to me, it looks like that they could affect our election as well.
Well, it's clear to me that what the Democrats are doing here in some sort of cooperation with some in the media is to suppress conservative turnout by making it look like you guys knew this all along, but because you're so interested in holding the House rather than protecting children that you covered it up.
And I like what you said yesterday, if I may editorialize this way, when you said, look, somebody knew this long before we knew it.
Somebody knew about those instant messages, and you asked for an investigation into who knew what when.
We know that a couple of newspapers in Florida knew a lot more than they were willing to release.
And Brian Ross of ABC admitted that he knew about this all the way back in August, but he didn't have time for it then because he was worried about the Katrina anniversary on September 11th and so forth.
Is that investigation you've called for going to go anywhere?
Who's going to chair that?
Who's going to run that?
Well, first of all, we've asked the federal government.
We asked the FBI.
And I don't think you'd ask anybody better than the FBI.
And they have brought this investigation forward.
We've also asked the state of Florida because it's my understanding that's where most of these messages of circa 2003 came from.
So we've asked the state of Florida to come forward with an investigation as well.
Many of my listeners watch all this and they see a predictable pattern.
They've been watching politics and observing it for many years now.
They see that this is a strategic political or politically timed release of information, particularly based on how long ago it has been known.
And there is, I have to tell you, there's a hunger and a real craving amongst conservative voters for Republicans in Washington, House and Senate both, to simply refuse to be set back on your heels and go on and accept this defensive position and just go on offense and strike back at these guys.
Hey, Mark Foley is not what this future of the country is about.
It's about protecting the nation, national security, prosperity, ongoing efforts to maintain a good economy, not destroying the health care system and this sort of thing.
Is there a problem that Republicans in the House and the Senate have about going on offense when these kinds of things happen?
Absolutely not.
We are going on offense.
But you have to answer the concerns that people have on the Foley situation.
I've tried to answer them.
We've made the page system safer.
We're going to work to make it even more safe.
But the fact is, we hit the high time of Wall Street today.
The economy is good because we've done the right things on holding taxes down and holding litigation down and holding regulation down.
And I'll tell you, if we lose this election, if this goes back over to the Democrats, it'll come back in spades.
What do you mean?
You mean they'll reverse the work?
You'll see higher taxes.
You'll see more litigation.
You'll see more regulation.
That's what they're all about.
And, you know, we won't have this economy.
We have worked to protect this country against terrorism, passed legislation to do that.
We've had to fight guys like Leah every day to make this thing happen, but we've done it.
About the PAGE program, is it really in bad shape?
I mean, you have the Foley incident.
We don't know if there was ever any real contact between Foley and any of these pages.
Understand he sent these emails that could be viewed as predatory.
But is the PAGE program really in a dire circumstance here that needs to be done?
There's two sets of emails, first of all, or text messages, I guess what they are.
And one was done in one set, or one, a bunch of them were done in 2003.
We never knew about it.
Somebody else held those all the way from 2003 until now.
The next set was the other one was something that the family asked Representative Alexander to look into.
He contacted a consul in our office.
Our consul put him to the page board.
Page board confronted Foley, and this was the Katrina message that said basically, how did you get through the hurricane?
Are you okay?
But the parents wanted him, we didn't know what the text of that message was because the parents held it and they didn't want it revealed.
But we went to Foley, told him to stand down, don't do this.
We asked if there was any sexually explicit language in this message.
There was not.
And we thought we had this thing resolved.
On the other hand, we're trying to do better.
As I said, since I've been speaker, we've taken the pages out of a dilapidated building, put them in a safe building, given them 24-hour supervision, put more people in the page building so that they have contacts.
They have people who look over them and work with them all the time.
They are under basically 24-hour supervision while they're in Washington.
This happened when the PAGES left Washington.
And, you know, we're in the same situation with parents all over America and trying to make sure our kids are safe.
And we want to work to make sure all this text messaging stuff and computer stuff is safe, too.
Mr. Speaker, I'm hearing a lot of people.
I'm in Florida, and of course there's a lot of press talk about this and individuals, including in Washington, who are saying, well, we've known for a long time of Mr. Foley's sexual orientation.
Was there any, when the first set of emails hit and the red flags of alarm went up, was there any hesitation on the part of the Republican leadership to not deal with this public at that point because of his sexual orientation and not to appear to be gay bashing?
First of all, what we knew was exactly what I told you.
The parents contacted, they wanted someplace to go to because they didn't want this contact to go on.
And what we knew about it was that Foley contacted this kid through email and asked him how he got through the hurricane, the Katrina hurricane.
He was from New Orleans, I guess.
And the second other part of it was, well, we didn't know anything else other than what they told us.
We went to Foley, confronted him.
He said he wouldn't do it anymore.
He was sorry.
He's just trying to talk to the kid.
He liked the kid, nice kid.
And he wouldn't do it anymore.
We told him not to do it anymore there or to anybody, period.
I know time is limited.
Let me ask you one question that's unrelated to this, as is exemplified today in the Washington Times editorial, and there are others in the so-called conservative movement pundits who have written op-eds in various publications in recent weeks suggesting that it might be good for the Republicans to lose control of the House because they have failed to govern as the conservatives they campaigned as.
All the spending.
I mean, you've heard the complaints.
Is there sort of a silly question?
I think I know what your answer is going to be, but I still want to put it out there.
Is there anything to be gained by a lesson you guys in the House could be taught by losing this election?
Look, we could lose and let the Democrats be in power for 10 or 15 or 20 years, 40 years like they were the last time, because once they get power, they can solidify that power, just like we've been in control for 12 years.
I would like to put that on.
But if you look at what we've done over 12 years, the fact is over the last four years, we've had flat spending on everything except national defense and homeland security.
If you look at what we've done with the budget and the economy, last year was the first time that we ever cut real non spending that we did.
And we cut spending $40 billion.
And that's the first time that's been done.
But that's what our record is, and that's probably why the Democrats don't want us there.
Well, has it been a challenge as leader of a conservative caucus in the House of Representatives on occasion when the president has wanted to spend a lot of money on education or when the president has a view of immigration different from the majority of Republicans in the House?
Is that tough for you?
I mean, it's tough to buck your own president.
My view, in the House's view, that we need to protect our borders first.
And quite frankly, I went to the president and said that's what we're going to do.
And we did it.
We did it through an appropriation process with cap spending, but we did.
We put almost $2 billion along the border and border protection devices and fences so that we can stop immigration.
My view is we ought to have zero penetration policy.
And it's got to be the will of the Congress and the will of the country to be able to do that.
But we've done what we thought was right to do.
And when we differed from the president, we went ahead and did it.
Okay.
Before I let you go, you know that the Democrats and the media are going to continue to press the Foley issue, even though you've dealt with it, even though he's gone, even though the mistake has been corrected.
What is the battle plan to deal with these continuing allegations and accusations that are going to be designed to depress voter turnout?
I'm talking about in the media.
One of the things that we have to do, we're doing a media outreach, but you understand that a lot of that media is not going to listen to us.
Our issue is we have to go back local.
That's why we got our folks back home on the campaign trail.
I'm going to be in 30-some districts over the break.
I leave Monday morning, and we'll be continuing on the trail.
But we have a story to tell.
And the Democrats have, in my view, have put this thing forward to try to block us from telling a story.
They try to put us on defense.
The story is that we have protected this country against terrorism.
The story is we have created a good economy in this country.
And the story is that we have a plan for energy independence, which we have to do as well.
And that's important.
Mr. Speaker, thanks for your time.
I appreciate it.
I know you're hounded by a lot of, well, we appreciate you making time for us.
That's Speaker of the House, Danny Hastert, a brief timeout, and we'll be back right after this.
Just a couple of points here about our discussion with the Speaker of the House, Dennis Hastert.
One of the interesting points he made was that all these instant messages between Foley and the Pages took place when the Pages were out of town.
Number one.
Number two, he, Hastert, is being accused of not investigating based on the early emails, which is all he knew existed.
And others are suggesting he resigned because of that.
But I noticed the FBI didn't think that there was anything to investigate either when it came to the emails.
And last I looked, that was a professional law enforcement operation.
The FBI didn't think there was much to it.
Brian Ross didn't think there was much.
Nobody thought there was much to it.
And so the people that originally released the email said, well, this isn't enough.
And by God, we're going to release the instant messages and so forth.
And that's what got the gist of this going.
Connie in Denver.
I'm glad you waited.
Appreciate your patience.
Welcome to the EIB network.
Hi, Rush.
I was intrigued by what you were saying earlier about how the Democrats wouldn't give us a type of contract with America.
And I bet I could guess what it would be.
First of all, I think they would cut INRAN out of Iraq.
And second, I think they would impeach President Bush.
And third, I think they would raise taxes.
And I think that is their contract with America.
Well, yes, they have.
I said there's one guy, Charlie Wrangell, who has admitted all of that.
In fact, the Wall Street Journal quotes him today that he would defund the war in Iraq, that he would reverse every tax cut.
There's not one of them that's worth keeping.
As for impeaching the president, the Democrats are assuring us that we're not going to do that.
But they can't control somebody like Conyers, who would end up a chairman of a committee.
They would certainly start investigations, whether it led to impeachment or not.
What the purpose of this would be to just totally bring to a screeching halt operations at the White House, flood the place with subpoenas, demand documents, all this sort of stuff to just freeze the Bush administration where it is.
Now, of course, that's their contract.
They can't dare say that other than Wrangell.
And he can get away with saying it because his constituents, you know, hell, you could put Santa Claus on the ballot in his district and Wrangell would still win.
So there's no question what they would do.
That's why I've tried to be urging the House leadership here today to not stay on defense about this Foley business, to talk about what's at stake.
What are the issues that people actually turn up and vote on?
The Democrats are trying to suppress Republican turnout over this Foley stuff and whatever else that's going to come out of the Clinton war room between now and the election.
I'm just saying, don't fall for it, folks, because you know damn well when you go to the polls and vote, you don't vote on stuff like this, or you shouldn't.
Most people don't, particularly at this important historical junction in our nation's history.
Here is Patricia in Tallahassee, Florida.
You're next on the EIB network.
Hi.
Rush.
Hey, thanks for taking my call.
I am sitting here seeping.
I can't imagine that anybody would not vote, or Republicans in particular would not vote or would not vote Republican because of this.
This is a call to arms.
I mean, we should all rally and support.
The Republicans stood up and did the right thing.
Whenever this came up, Foley is out of here.
We now have the Republican Party that we need to support.
And as opposed to the Democrats, when this happens, they rally around the person that's bad and want to keep them in office.
They rally around the good people.
They condone the behavior.
They challenge anybody who's criticizing the behavior as unfit.
Well, who are you?
You can't judge anybody.
You're imperfect.
These people need to be defended and blah, blah, blah, blah.
You're exactly right.
And I think there's a, you know, what you're essentially saying is that there's a new sophistication out there.
That's why I said last or yesterday, I think this, if they keep it up, it's going to cause a backlash.
I'm thinking, we had a call last week before the Foley thing hit from a guy whose daughter was to land in Baghdad in two hours when he was on the phone with us.
And he was simply livid at the message and the words coming out of the mouths of Democrats.
And he was saying that there is anger and rage all over the country about what the Democrats are saying, but it's never reported in the drive-by media because the drive-by media is never going to report when there is unhappiness with Democrats.
The drive-by media will report when they are unhappy with Democrats, and they will do so in the essence of warning them to improve this or improve that.
But the picture's being painted, the country loves Democrats, hates Republicans, and they really hate Republicans because of Foley, and it just goes totally against human nature.
Backlash on this and a number of things probably already happened.
Dribble, dribble, dribble, or spurt, spurt, spurt, ABC with a new round of IMs featuring Mark Foley, ladies and gentlemen.