All Episodes
Previous Next
Oct. 6, 2006 - Rush Limbaugh Program
36:36
October 6, 2006, Friday, Hour #1
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Welcome to today's edition of the Rush 24-7 podcast.
You know, I have to laugh, ladies and gentlemen.
I've been studying the drive-by media, drive-by media now attacking me and others like me, claiming we are blaming the victims and defending Foley and trying to spin this into a conspiracy that involves the Democrats and the drive-by media and a bunch of liberal activists, which is exactly what's going on here.
The intrigue continues to build.
It's Friday, and let's roll.
Live from the Southern Command in sunny South Florida.
It's open line Friday.
Well, you said that awful defiantly.
I asked Dawn if she's wearing a dress today.
I didn't see her come in.
I've been swamped.
I've been busy.
I'm really frustrated here, folks.
I've done this once before, but I can't figure it out how to do it again.
I'm trying to transfer my contacts, my computer Rolodex address book via Bluetooth to a cell phone.
And I can't figure it out.
I've been working the last 20 minutes.
It's one of those days I wish I could stop time.
I can't get hold of the computer geek.
So I'm sitting here frustrated.
I didn't see Dawn walk in.
I said, Dawn, are you wearing a skirt today?
Because Wendy did yesterday.
She said, no.
Okay, I'm pretty defiant.
Open Line Friday, ladies and gentlemen.
Whatever you want to talk about.
Are you tired of the Foley titillation?
Feel free to ask other questions or make other comments.
Telephone number is 800-282-2882.
Email address, rush at EIBnet.com.
Look, I want to pick up on something I started with yesterday, and that is this list, the list it's being called, of gay congressional staffers.
It is not so much gay congressmen, although they may be some of them on the list.
But this is a list that's being circulated.
And hang on here, just to be specifically clear about this.
It is not Republicans who are pushing this list of gay lawmakers and staff.
It is Democrats and gay politicos that are doing this.
Nancy Pelosi heard about, I'm told, Nancy Pelosi heard about this yesterday and got very angry.
She got very livid, and she tried to make it clear.
I don't want this list to be made public, but it may well be within days.
She remembers what happens to John Kerry, as I pointed out yesterday, and the Brett girl when they tried to out Mary Cheney in a debate.
It just rubbed everybody the wrong way.
But I want to tell you people what the purpose of this list is.
And this, for those of you who say that there's nothing political going on here, that this is a legitimate scandal and we've got to get to the bottom of it and blah, blah, blah.
And there's no conspiracy here.
Let me just tell you this.
And I want all of you in the Christian right, the evangelicals, if you're a religious person at all, consider yourself a values voter.
I want you to listen to this because this is the objective that the people with this list and the Democrats have in using it.
They hope, by publishing this list, to illustrate for the first time how many gay Republicans there are in Washington, either as members of Congress or their staff.
They are hoping that you in the religious right are shocked and stunned and outraged that there are so many of them, quote unquote, in the Republican Party.
They want you to abandon the Republican Party.
They want you to throw up your hands in anger and conclude the Republicans have been misleading you all the while on all this talk of family values and morals and so forth.
And they want you to get upset with all those gays in the party that the party's been trying to hide from you.
They think that if they can dissuade you from voting, and that's what this is really all about, is suppression, vote turnout.
If they can dissuade you from voting, they have a further desire, and that is to dissuade you from even being a Republican.
They are hoping that they can anger enough of you that you will simply abandon the party because they know that without your steadfast support, the Republican Party loses a considerable amount of its voting strength, if not a lot of other kinds of power.
So that's what this list is all about.
And this Foley story has provided the springboard for that.
Foley is gone.
And yet, there was our old buddy Brian Ross, who I think has a penis fixation.
Brian Ross at ABC has posted a story, posted a story last night, three more page stories, and it's nothing to do with journalism.
It is nothing but below-the-gutter prurient BS.
None of these three, by the way, that Brian Ross seems to have just recently discovered ever say that they told the Republican leadership about Foley, which is the storyline.
The storyline is GOP cover-up.
So what the hell is the purpose of the release of more transcripts, supposed transcripts, of supposed IM messages between Foley and supposed pages?
What is the point?
Especially from a group of people who said, it's all about sex and there's nothing wrong with that.
Sex, come on.
Everybody lies about sex.
Everybody does lie.
What I'm eating that gumbo.
I'm eating a lot of other things.
They lie about sex.
Of course, protect their family.
We went back.
We have searched the archives.
We're going to go back and give you a lot of quotes today from Carville, The Gala, the Forehead, even Susan Estrich during the Clinton-Lewinsky scandal, all that in due course.
It's coming very soon.
Might even get to it here before the break.
But, you know, it serves no journalistic purpose whatsoever for Brian Ross to continue to post this stuff on his ABC blog.
None.
Absolutely zero.
It seems to me that there are a lot of people preoccupied with sex on this story.
It seems to me there are a lot of people that may be really titillated by this personally.
And look at what's going on out there at the same time.
The North Korean communists are threatening to test a nuclear weapon.
Iran is threatening to continue their nuke program.
We are at war with terrorists.
We're at war with members of the Democratic Party.
We are at war with liberal federal judges.
We're at war with elements of the drive-by media who want to undermine our ability to win the war on terror.
National security remains the big issue here.
I don't care how salaciously interesting this is.
But it even gets worse than that.
Democrats have promised to inflict pain on us if they win the House.
Charlie Wrangell, who would head the Ways and Means Committee, has pledged to repeal all the Bush tax cuts.
Nancy Pelosi will strip American businesses of tax incentives.
She says she's going to have to drain the swamp.
The cesspool that the House has become because of Republicans.
More on that, of course, as the program unfolds.
So why are we wasting time with a third-rate sex scandal?
This isn't even real sex, folks.
This hubbub is about internet sex, cybersex, alternative lifestyle, virtual sex.
Give me an old-fashioned Washington sex scandal that actually had sex and actually had a woman in it.
And that's what I miss.
We're going to have a sex scandal.
Could we have some sex instead of some prurient, worthless in terms of journalism continuing dribs and drabs from ABC's Brian Ross about the what is the point?
There is literally no, well, there is a point, and it is all about repulsing you and as many people in the Christian right as possible.
It's about as repulsing as many people as possible.
You can't tell me this is not an agenda to affect the outcome of the election.
You know it is.
The Democrats and the media are talking about it as though it's already occurred every night on television.
The page in question here, Jordan Edmond, has a criminal lawyer, was over 18 years old when the most explicit instant messages were transmitted.
So from what I learned in the 90s, this is a private matter between consenting adults.
It didn't affect Foley's work at all.
Besides, everybody lies about sex, folks.
Sex has been part of the beltway and below the beltway since before there was a beltway.
This doesn't rise to the level of impeachment or resignation.
We've heard that before.
Why is the House Ethics Committee looking into this?
Are they sexually obsessed perverts?
Now they're looking into the cover-up.
They're looking into House.
They're not even looking into Foley.
They can't.
He's gone.
But here's the real embarrassing thing about this, folks.
And I know that I'm going to touch a lot of hearts and minds with this one.
This Foley sex scandal is making us the laughingstock of civilized Europe.
They already think we're a bunch of backward twits.
They already hate our guts.
And now, look at the way we're going nuts here over an internet sex scandal.
It doesn't even involve sex.
They're not so uptight in Europe about real or virtual sex.
And the Democrats took these positions during the Clinton sex scandals.
Why are they taking these positions?
Now, grab audio soundbite number one.
Just a preview here of what I have for you after the break.
This is James Carville on Good Morning America in February of 1998 talking about Ken Starr.
He's concerned about three things, sex, sex, and more sex.
He's concerned about three things.
Sex, sex, and more sex.
You want to play that one more time for me, Mr. Mamone?
He's concerned about three things.
Sex, sex, and more sex.
And, well, let's play the next one just to give you an idea.
This is January 25th of 98.
Meet the press.
Tim Russert, Carville says this about Ken Starr and the Lewinsky investigation.
These scuzzy, slimy tactics of wiring people up, of getting them in hotel bars, of threatening to arrest their parents and all that kind of foolishness.
You know what?
When this whole star thing started, I told American people about it, and they can see that I'm writing spades.
They can see that I'm writing spades.
We start out with a land deal, and now we're trapped around with some 24-year-old interns.
It's ridiculous.
Yeah, nothing about sex.
It's private matter.
We got more.
Stay with us.
Don't go away.
Hi, welcome back.
It's Open Line Friday.
Rush Limbo at 800-282-2882.
And the email address, rush at EIBNet.com.
Let's go back to these audio soundbites.
I asked Cookie to go back to the archives today because of this prurient interest in sex that the media just can't get enough of.
And Brian Ross at ABC can't get enough of and provide enough of.
All of these salacious details that are irrelevant in terms of journalism.
Foley is gone.
In fact, you know what?
I'm worrying.
I'm thinking about doing a Brian Ross impersonation here.
In fact, let me do a Brian Ross impersonation.
Ladies and gentlemen, in terms of putting out there as content on this program, the equivalent of what Brian Ross is putting out on ABC.
And Everybody wants there's a everybody is interested in some sort of list out there the gay list and this list and that list who's who's who's gay in the Republican Party in the in the staff who's gay in the elected officials.
Well, here's a list that I would like and here's a list that I would like made public.
I want a list about sexual preferences too and I want a list for every liberal in the House of Representatives.
And it's very simple.
You prefer the missionary style or do you want the woman on top?
And I'll tell you why I ask.
Because missionary is active male.
Woman on top is passive male and we're at war and we need active males.
We need alpha males.
We don't need a bunch of passive people directing our war effort.
We need active males.
What is your preference, Liberal Democrats?
I want a list.
Well, look at if Brian Ross can get away with it and be credited for great journalism and breaking all kinds of news, this is the kind of thing I'm going to go for.
I mean, they sit there and they talk about how lowball and scum and low-rent talk radio is.
Take a look at major broadcast networks and the way they are covering this story.
Snerdley's looking at me like he can't believe what I just did.
Well, I did it.
I did it.
And there was more than seven seconds of it, so we can't hit the dump button.
It's out there.
You call this illustrating absurdity by being absurd, Mr. Snerdley.
It's there's nothing violative in what I did.
Nothing whatsoever.
Crying out loud, what I did is far less prurient than what is on the websites of ABC and others about what's in these instant messages with Foley.
And you don't think what I said has some relevance?
We are at war.
I don't want a bunch of passive males running the war effort, being dominated by women all over the place, including in the bedroom.
That's the point I was trying to make.
I mean, if this is what you have to do to win a Pulitzer Prize, I want to get my hat in the ring.
Now back to the audio soundbites.
James Carville, this is February 11th, 1998.
Good morning, America.
The anchor says, why doesn't the press come forward and explain all of this, the Lewinsky thing?
Let the media and let the independent counsel go in and say, subpoena now, six women that denied that they ever had sex with the president.
They're out subpoenaing these people, harassing it.
I'm sure that they're going to try to threaten to put their mothers in jail and their family and hold them for nine hours in some room.
People are sick and tired.
After $40 million of investigating, these people are out leaking and investigating sex, and the country is sick and tired of it.
Really?
I don't think so, James.
It doesn't appear that way.
It doesn't appear you're tired of it either.
And it doesn't appear Brian Ross is tired of it.
It doesn't appear the Drive-Buy Media is tired of it.
Now, let's go to the forehead.
This is back in the old This Week with Sam and Koki show.
Cokie Roberts says, should a married man be involved in a relationship with anybody but his wife?
And the forehead says...
The president has said, didn't have a sexual relationship with this woman.
I did not ask anybody to do anything other than tell the truth.
There is an investigation going on, and it will clear him.
Now, if we're going to shut down the whole country about that, then I think that's unwise.
All right.
Now, here is a man who subsequently has been hired by CNN as an expert commentator and then as a participant in Crossfire.
And now he's got a book out with Carville running around as experts on things.
Stood up for a liar.
He was hired to lie for a liar, and he did it pretty well.
Snerdley's still chuckling.
Are you chuckling with fear or are you chuckling with humor in there?
He can't believe it.
I did it.
Can't believe it.
Well, get used to it.
Now let's go to Susan Estrich.
Sunday, February 28th, Meet the Press, Tim Russert.
Russert says, What do you believe will be the political, legal, moral, cultural fallout from the Juanita Broderick interview?
I don't think we should be convicting the president 21 years after the fact.
And I'm a little troubled to hear the discussion as if these allegations are true.
I mean, you know, this is very serious stuff.
And even if in 1978 some of it would have been called bad sex, and I think it would have been, Tim, you know, we can't convict the president on this kind of speculation.
Well, we can, Denny Hastert.
We can convict Denny Hastert.
We can force him to resign.
We can force the whole Republican leadership.
We can convict any Republican we want, can't we, Susan?
Notice how the allegation of rape didn't bother them at all.
Even if it was so old, it didn't bother them at all.
Ladies and gentlemen, no, no, no, no, not at all.
Notice how outraged they are over virtual internet sex.
And do you remember, ladies and gentlemen, December, I think it was December 18th of 1998, after the president was impeached.
They had a little ceremony in the Rose Garden called, and I dubbed it the Politics of Personal Destruction Must End show in the Rose Garden.
Gephardt was there, and everybody was defending Clinton.
He was standing behind them, nodding in approval because they all knew that he had something on him.
They had to go out there and defend him.
We have a montage here of Gephardt, David Bonyer, and Bill Clinton at that ceremony after Clinton was impeached, December 19th, 1998.
We must turn away now from the politics of personal destruction and return to a politics of values.
The American people deserve better.
The politics of personal smear is degrading the dignity of public office, and we must not let it continue.
We must put an end to it.
We must stop the politics of personal destruction.
We must get rid of the poisonous venom of excessive partisanship, obsessive animosity, and uncontrolled anger.
That is not what America deserves.
Where does this uncontrolled anger stem?
It's from the left.
I mean, this stuff speaks for itself.
Here's little Dick Gephardt once again in the same setting.
The Democratic caucus in the House will continue to stand alongside our president, and we will work to enact the agenda that we were sent here to pass.
The president has demonstrated his effectiveness as a national and world leader in the face of intense and unprecedented negative attacks by his opponents.
I'm confident that he will continue to do so for the rest of his elected term of office.
So there you have it.
And we have, let's see, one more of these.
I don't have time to get it in before the break, but I just wanted to refresh your memory how the party of personal destruction today was so opposed to it and so opposed to sex in politics not that long ago.
That's right, having more fun than a human being should be allowed to have.
Here's the kicker.
This is December, I think it's either the 18th or 19th, I'm not sure which.
At the Rose Garden Stop the Politics of Personal Destruction show, this is the day he was impeached.
For six years now, I have done everything I could to bring our country together across the lines that divide us, including bringing Washington together across party lines.
Right.
Okay.
I just wanted to review these things.
We could get countless more.
You remember all the times that people were out there talking about, got to stop all this sex, sex, sex, too much sex being discussed out there.
Now we've got to reform the page program again.
This isn't the way Washington, we've got to reform the PAGE program.
We reformed it back in 1983.
And you know what we did?
We put them all together in dorms, making them more easy to find for the predators out there.
So now we've got to reform the page program again after we formed it, reformed it after Jerry Studs had his little tryst, an actual tryst, with an actual page.
They overhauled the PAGE program.
They adopted new protections.
And now we have to do it all over again.
Spent a lot of time on the internet last night, ladies and gentlemen, searching and searching and searching.
And I went to the page, the House Page Alumni Association website.
And a fascinating number of entries by Jordan Edmond, who's now all lawyered up, and he's got a criminal lawyer.
And I guess FBI interviews coming up.
And that's another thing that's interesting.
The FBI, you know, this group, Stop Sex Predators or whatever?
The FBI claims now that the emails, not the IMs, the emails.
Oh, and that's another thing.
The family of the guy, the page that sent the emails, is ripping the media.
They don't want to go public.
They don't want anything more to do with this.
They're blaming the media for causing their life to become a living hell with the media trying to find them and get hold of them.
And they end up saying, my son, our son would be happy to serve again as a page.
Really?
Does it make it sound like there's all kinds of rotten stuff going on there?
So anyway, the FBI, when they originally were presented these emails, noticed two things.
They had been altered.
Not substantively, but very, like a comma where it wasn't, a page break or line break where it wasn't, an apostrophe where it wasn't.
There are two different versions of these emails, and they've been altered.
As far as we know, the substance hasn't been altered, but the point is they've been played with.
So if various elements have been altered, could the content have been altered and yet remain the same in both?
Yes, it's entirely possible.
The FBI said without a name in these emails, and they'd redacted that, we can't investigate.
And there's nothing here to investigate anyway.
And Brian Ross thought the same thing of ABC.
He said, there's nothing here.
I've got to worry about destroying Bush and the anniversary of Katrina.
And then we got the 9-11 anniversary coming up to destroy Bush again.
I don't have time for these emails.
It wasn't until the website people, oh, the emails aren't enough.
Okay, we got to find something else.
Found the instant messages, however they came up.
That still is the question of the day.
How those instant messages find their way into the public domain.
Anyway, as to the stop or the House Page Alumni Association, the topic that I found for discussion, April 23rd of this year, the book.
Jordan Edmund began a discussion on the book.
What book?
His entry, has anyone been in contact with the author?
Do we know how it is coming?
Was it just given up on?
Not the faintest clue.
I would venture to say it's been given up on.
I was never under the impression the person had a publisher of any such thing.
Well, when I spoke to her on the phone a year or so back, she said she had written a few other books, but I would doubt that there was someone who'd be willing to publish a book about pages.
The clerk's counsel would probably keep anything from being published anyway, probably on the grounds that we all signed confidentiality agreements when we started.
So every interview she did with a page would be null, just my assumption.
Hey, Ripley, these guys, there's different people here, different pages talking to Jordan Edmund about the book project.
And then another item on this website, the House Page Alumni Association, from 19 September this year, not even a month ago, pages in roll call as pages, lawmakers mixed politics and pranks.
Now, the link for this story is not active.
I couldn't find it.
Roll Call Magazine.
So they obviously had a story about pages.
And that was a slugline.
This pages are talking to each other on their website here.
Pages in Roll Call as Pages, Lawmakers Mixed Politics and Pranks.
So an entire discussion was started on the book.
And as part of that discussion, one of the threads as Pages, Lawmakers Mixed Politics and Pranks, September 19th of 2006.
Hmm.
Now we had the story from Drudge yesterday, two sources close to Jordan Edmund that this whole thing was a prank.
Sounds to me like what happened is that the word was out on Foley.
And every incoming class, the page group, was told about this guy.
And one of the mistakes that everybody makes, particularly a story like this, the way the template has unfolded, is that these pages are the essence of innocence.
That they are just, they're all virgins, and they take a bath three or four times a day.
They've never seen a curse word or heard one.
They don't know anything about sex.
They're just the essence of innocence.
They're people trying to become good government people.
They want to understand I think them of government.
They're good physics people and they're going up there and they have been corrupted by the perverts and the creeps that are there.
But bottom line is they all have to be pretty smart and they're probably thus typically like many teenagers.
And you know, teenagers can be mean.
They haven't yet had the maturity to understand sensitivity and decency.
They love making fun of people.
They walk around mimicking the way they walk.
They make fun of the way people look and they'll do it sometimes to their faces.
So you can imagine that the words out on Foley.
And I can see where some of these pages would just have more fun than a human being can be allowed to have trying to titillate the poor guy into sending him all this stuff.
None of them ever met with the guy, apparently.
Now, what does that tell us?
He tried, come on over for a massage, come over for an adult beverage, according to the EIMs, but none of them ever met with him.
But it seems like they, I mean, privately, but it seems like they had, some of them just had a grand old time teasing the guy and getting their jollies.
And they print out their instant messages to show everybody to get a yuck and a laugh.
It's sort of like sharing the practical joke with people who weren't in on it at the time and have grand old time.
But somebody saw it and thought, ooh, this is explosive stuff.
And it somehow gets in the hands of a political operative, not friendly to the Republicans.
And bamo, you've got the beginnings of how this stuff finds its way into the public domain.
And that apparently is what a couple people are suggesting that Jordan Edmond did.
There's also another page out there, Tyson.
Other pages, I can't remember his last name, but he's the one that's been all over TV.
And other pages are sending emails out from concerned pages of America or some such thing, warning people in the media about this guy.
He's nothing but a media hog.
He's a phony baloney plastic banana, good time rock and roller.
And so whether, don't know the details of this and how true they are, but the point is there's not unity among the pages.
They're like any other group of people.
There are jealousies.
There's envy.
There's resentment.
And apparently, this guy hasn't accounted to much, hasn't accomplished much.
He's divorced and now has proclaimed himself gay publicly.
And other pages are a little resentful that he's trying to make himself the face of the story with all this TV time and so forth.
It is, I think it's common with any group of people.
They're going to have top dogs, bottom feeders, and there's going to be the resulting clicks.
You know, there's going to be people that fit in and people that don't.
Here's the CNN story.
Page's family leave our hero son alone.
And the interesting line from this, we are pleased that he had the opportunity, our son, to serve as a page in the U.S. House of Representatives.
And if given the opportunity, he would serve as a page again.
Well, uh-oh.
That sort of argues against the fact that the whole place is a sexual cesspool, does it not?
If some parents want to send their son back there, Ernest Isstook, on whose staff Jordan Edmund now works, Ernest Istuk, a congressman from Oklahoma running for governor there, apparently got a question from the media asking if it was Carl Rove who recommended that he hire Jordan Edmund.
Now, why would that question pop up?
Because I suspect after the Drudge post yesterday, somebody in the left, some people are suspecting a Rove dirty trick to trip him up.
So Isstuk dismissed the question.
He did not answer it.
And before we go to the break, a story here from Channel 10 in Tampa Bay, Florida, by Mike Deason.
Actually, it's in St. Petersburg.
Some Florida Democrats called Kevin King a rising star amongst the ranks of Democrats, but others, like the head of the Pinellas Democratic Party, Ed Helm, had doubts.
King was arrested, a Democrat, 2001.
A judge ordered the St. Petersburg Police Department to seal all records regarding the arrest.
Kevin King admits that the arrest stems from when he was a substitute teacher.
He was arrested for computer solicitation to commit a lewd and lascivious act and two counts of contributing to the delinquency of a minor.
According to published reports, Kevin King sent emails or instant messages to two female students aged 14 and 15 trying to get them to skip school and drink adult beverages with him.
In addition, the reports say that King also asked the 14-year-old to perform a sexual act on him.
Wow.
King, who admits he was arrested, insists he did nothing wrong.
He points to the fact that the records were sealed and he was not found guilty of anything.
King would not appear on camera for this story.
Who is this guy?
Kevin King resigned his paid position in the Democratic Party after the primaries to care for his parents two weeks ago.
However, Kevin King was elected a Democratic committee member in Pinellas County.
The position concerns Ed Helm, Ed Honcho, who had earlier asked the Florida Democrat Party leadership to relieve him of his duties in Pinellas County or to terminate him.
This information comes, of course, in the wake of scandals involving Mark Foley.
So I mean, it's not big enough to make a national impact out there, but we have a Democrat that engaging in the same sort of stuff as a substitute teacher.
And I assume he was a Democrat when he was a substitute teacher.
He wasn't in the Democratic Party hierarchy.
Got to take it.
The principal.
Yeah, well, the principal of that school should have quit.
That's a good point, Mr. Snurdley.
The principal of that school should have a good point.
All right, a brief timeout, ladies and gentlemen.
Back with more in just a second.
It's Open Line Friday, and let's start with the Fawns with Michelle in Delaware.
Nice to have you, Michelle.
Welcome to the program.
Hi, Rush.
It's an honor to speak with you today.
Thank you.
I heard something on the radio the other day, and I'm wondering what you felt about it.
I understand that Nancy Pelosi is opposed to Louis Free investigating this whole Foley matter.
And the two things I thought of is: if she's so concerned about the integrity of the PAGE program and the security of the pages, it really shouldn't matter who's doing the investigation unless she wants to handpick the person so she can manipulate the results.
My second thing that I wondered is: could she be concerned about what might come up on her side of the aisle with members of her own party?
Perhaps.
I think that would be true in any investigation.
I think, Michelle, the real reason that Nancy Pelosi rejected Louis Free is because of Free's book.
Louis Free ripped Bill Clinton in his book.
Nobody read the book.
Nobody heard about it much.
It wasn't talked about much.
I mean, we did on this program, but it didn't get wide play in the drive-by media.
But I think the rejection of Louis Free is the Clinton war room.
I think the rejection of Louis Free is simply the fact they're not going to have anybody on there that ripped Bill Clinton at all.
And what other possibilities that you mentioned, the other possibilities you mentioned, are true.
It's like why I said yesterday, look, if we're going to really clean up this program.
Now, by the way, let me specify something in case you haven't heard this.
The House Ethics Committee is not looking into the Page program.
They're looking into Republican cover-up.
Now, that's the storyline.
They're not even looking into Foley.
Some other committee is going to worry about the PAGE program and what they're doing there, but the Ethics Committee is simply looking into a Republican cover-up, and their investigation will take weeks.
They won't have anything on this before the election.
There's not going to be anything.
Well, it could be leaks.
Who knows?
I don't even know how soon they're going to get started on this.
They're a bureaucracy, which doesn't lend itself to speed, but a number of Democrats are interested in speed on this as the election issue, so you never know.
But I think that if we're really concerned about the PAGE program, if we're really concerned about predators out there, we better demand everybody's instant messages, better demand everybody's emails and find out.
Because, folks, look, you know, Foley's not the only one.
I cannot believe in a body of 535 members that you don't have but one.
You only have one creepy pervert who's out there doing these kinds of things.
I think my guess is there's some Democrats quaking in their boots, hoping that they don't get outed themselves over this.
That's why I think you find a lot of Democrats actually laying low on that aspect of it and letting the drive-by media take care of it.
Here's an interesting soundbite.
This is from Charlie Rose's show last night on PBS.
He's talking with Mark Helperin of ABC and Washington Post columnist John Harris about their new book, The Way to Win.
And Charlie says, What's your assessment of the Foley impact on this election?
There's a Rove strategy here.
There was a Nixon strategy, which lay dormant through Ford and Reagan and Bush One, which is use the media to get the base stirred up.
Run elections against the Washington Post, CBS News, ABC News.
That's what they're doing on Woodward.
They're saying, don't let the Washington Post decide this election.
Amazingly, it's what they're doing on the Foley story as well.
They're raising all sorts of suspicions on Rush Limbaugh and other new media for Rush Limbles.
They're saying, don't be fooled by the timing of this.
Isn't this suspicious that this stuff's coming out so close to the election?
This is coming from liberals and liberals in the press who don't want the Republicans to win micro-targeting messages to the base saying, do not let the liberal media decide this election.
That's effective.
You know, of course it's effective because it's accurate.
Nobody's ever come along and done it before.
We are running against the media, Mark, and whoever else.
You're exactly right.
But we're not being put up to it by Karl Rove.
I have been doing this since 1998 or 88 before I ever heard of Karl Rove.
I didn't hear of Karl Rove until close to the year 2000.
And I'm sorry, it's true.
But how's this question?
Maybe it's what they're doing on Rush Limbaugh.
They raise all sorts of suspicion on Rush Limbaugh, and Rose says, what are they saying on Rush Limbaugh?
Hey, Charlie, good buddy, they are saying nothing on Rush Limbaugh.
Rush Limbaugh is saying on Rush Limbaugh that whatever.
And of course, the Libs is ignore the timing.
Ignore the timing.
Ignore that man behind the curtain.
It's like I'm some sort of wizard of Oz out there.
At any rate, they think this is a Rovian strategy.
They still don't get that many in this country don't like the media either and haven't for a long time, long before I came along.
▲
Export Selection