All Episodes
Previous Next
Oct. 11, 2006 - Rush Limbaugh Program
36:30
October 11, 2006, Wednesday, Hour #1
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Welcome to today's edition of the Rush 24-7 podcast.
I tell you what, the uh the president has an exquisite sense of timing.
He just, I mean, literally seconds ago, 30 seconds ago, ended his press conference to make way for America's anchor man.
Me.
Rush Limbaugh, the Excellence in Broadcasting Network hump day.
It's Wednesday, and we are ready to go three full hours of broadcast excellence.
Looking forward to talking to you folks.
We uh uh were putting together some sound bites from the president's uh press conference today.
I think it was a good press conference, home run came alive uh uh on top of his uh game.
It was really good.
Uh whatever subject came up, it was uh no complaints that uh uh I felt uh or had any reaction to.
So when we get those bites prepared, we'll share them with you.
We have other things to do until such time as the sound bites come uh together.
The press seemed uh to me a little bit more sophomoric than usual today and a little bit less combative today.
Uh in in this uh press conference, which lasted, as I say, an hour and five and a half minutes.
Uh Eddie, it it they were uh seemed like to be more uh uh friendly parrying going on uh than uh than real confrontation.
At any rate, the Washington Post has a story today which some people read and and and take different uh things from.
I I I read it and it it makes it clear that a bunch of Democrats knew of these Foley emails and instant messages from months, which we've all known, but this is uh this is the first time it's been documented in the drive-by media.
Uh and they're out there saying, How can we do this to children?
How could this happen to children?
How can the Republicans sit on this while the children were at risk?
And so we find the Democrats were the ones who were actually sitting on it, and uh have a companion story that goes along with this uh regarding an attack on a gay man by uh a bunch of kids 16 to 20.
Uh they lured him for sex uh via the internet, and when he shows up, they beat him to death.
Uh not to death, but they beat him to a pulp uh and ages 16 to 20.
The only reason I'm gonna mention this story is because it it uh confirms what I have said on previous broadcasts about the fact that the notion that all these pages are little uh Mary Poppins is out there, that it's a bunch of of uh innocent and clean and pure as the wind-driven snow little kids uh i is not necessarily a correct uh portrayal of uh your average teenager today.
Who trained them?
Who trained who to do what?
Who trained the kids?
What are you talking about?
Who Who trained who trained kids to fight?
You mean all?
You're bouncing off the story out of Texas yesterday that we have to spend ninety-five thousand dollars to teach kids down there how to fight back.
Well, that's somebody with a gun.
I mean, that's when you're sitting in the school c schoolroom and uh and a school gets attacked, taken over by a guy with a gun, uh that's that we're having to teach them to protect themselves in that scenario by throwing books and scissors and paper airplanes at the assailant.
Uh that's a good question.
All of this will be explored as the program unfolds before your very eyes and ears today.
There's a another bogus report from the same group that tried the same thing a couple of days before the O4 presidential race.
Um this is uh I think it's the group called Lancet, I'm not sure, but two days before the 2004 U.S. presidential elections, this group published an estimate of Iraq's civilian deaths at 100,000 today.
They are out with a report 685 or 635, forget which it is, 600 plus thousand civilian deaths in Iraq that would not have occurred had we not gone there.
It is the most bogus way when you hear the um the the what would you call it, the uh statistical analysis and rationale for this.
It is a pure political document.
It is pathetic.
It is obvious that the Democrats uh I don't I I you know what I think.
I think the Foley thing is not working for them.
Did you hear what Chris Shays did?
I have a story here from the Hartford Current.
Today, Shays hits hard and page scandal, invokes Chappaquitic in rebuking his opponent.
Polls show issue not helping Democrats.
Let me give you the details.
When the Congressional Page scandal broke last month, Democrats across the country saw a chance to lamb-based Republican leadership, including Diane Farrell, who called on House Speaker Dennis Hastert to resign.
But when Senator Kennedy came to Connecticut last week to help her campaign, Representative Chris Shays hit back, he said, I know the speaker didn't go over a bridge and leave a young person in the water and then have a press conference the next day, said Chris Shays, R. Fourth District, referring to the Chappaquitic incident of 1969.
He then said Dennis Haster didn't kill anybody.
Shay's words were emblematic of the increasing bitterness over the fallout from the conduct of Mark Foley, a scandal that may not be helping Democrats as much as they had hoped.
The GOP had seemed to be in deep political trouble a week ago when many Democrats were stridently insisting that Hastert quit and press their Republican opponents to make the same demand.
But so far, the Democrat's idea to make Hastert the villain has not worked.
And ABC News Washington Post Pole, uh taken October 5th through the 8th found that three of every four respondents didn't think Democrats would have handled the Foley matter any better, and roughly two in three thought Democrats were pursuing the matter for political gain, not to raise legitimate concerns.
The Foley scandal has not earned the Republican leadership any goodwill, but neither does it look like a point of differentiation for the Democrats, said the um uh poll director Gary Langer.
In fact, job approval of Republican leaders, 33% before Foley quit went up one percentage point after Foley quit.
I told you that was it when they when they try to make the case that it is fully uh or that Haster is the is the is the villain here.
Do a name recognition survey of people across the country and ask them how many people have heard of Danny Hastert, and you're gonna get a vastly uh huge hugely large number of people who never heard of him.
And to try to make him the the villain in this, uh, and now we're learning that uh the uh Democrats had knowledge of the Foley affairs and sat on it.
Uh the uh there are indicates let me give you some excerpts from the Washington Post story today, because the Washington Post acknowledges the Democrats' role in Foley Gate.
But there are indications that Democrats spent months circulating five less insidious Foley emails to news organizations before they were finally published by ABC News late last month, which prompted the leaking of the more salacious instant messages.
Harper's magazine said yesterday that it obtained the five emails from a Democrat Party operative, albeit in May long before the election season, and they sat on them.
So did the St. Petersburg Times, and so did the Miami Herald.
And I'm not sure if the Palm Beach Post knew of it, but uh I think they've been thrown on the list.
I'm not, I'm not actually sure.
Back to the post, but new information suggests that the story of the release of Foley's communications with male X pages is more complicated than either side asserts.
The most sexually explicit material, the instant messages, appears to be disconnected from politics.
The two former pages who revealed their correspondence to ABC News in the Washington Post, however, may never have come forward had Democrat operatives not divulged the five more benign emails that Foley had sent to a Louisiana boy.
All right, what we have here, unmistakably more confirmation of what I have known all along, and it comes from the Washington Post here, that Democrat operatives were the source of the emails.
And in fact, don't forget what what's his name, Jordan Edmund uh uh when when it was uh discovered that he was the source of the salacious instant messages.
A couple of his friends told Matt Drudge's website that, yeah, well, we were doing this as a prank, and that we were creating these things and we were baiting fully, and we're printing them out, we're passing them around, and uh they got into the hands of Democrat operatives.
We keep hearing that phrase.
Democrat operatives.
So what we know is that Democrat operatives uh were the source, or AN operative, I don't know, one or more of the emails.
We know that the story was uh uh shopped.
You call it from November 05 to August of 2006.
We even have Brian Ross admitting that he saw the emails, everybody who saw them, everybody in the mainstream media who saw them.
Nothing here, no big deal.
They were more interested in trying to destroy the Bush administration over the Katrina anniversary and the anniversary of the fifth anniversary of 911.
And it was after these emails came out that then some pages supposedly, hmm, I got some better than this, and it started to trickle out.
Uh but the bottom line here is the Democrats have known about it all along.
The Democrats held it.
The Democrats intended it.
This sort of confirms the story we got yesterday from the prowler and the American Spectator, that they were holding all of this for ten days away from the election, but they had to go with it early because their fortunes were plummeting, gas prices were going down, the president's approval numbers were coming up,
the economy was looking great, uh, a number of uh uh uh circums that the path to 9-11, the Clinton administration was melting down uh over a bunch of things, so they had to go with it, and to keep it alive, they had to go beyond Foley because Foley quit, so he was no longer the story, so they had to focus on Hastert, and that isn't working.
Now, when we come back from the break, the transition from this to what I'm gonna play for you next is unbelievable.
Ellen Tosher on C-SPAN today.
Would you believe me if I were to tell you that the Democrats today have set out across the media to make sure that everybody knows they are tough on defense, and that they are for a missile shield.
Now that North Korea has claimed to have gone nuclear, the Democrats all of a sudden want to portray themselves as hawks and strong in defense, and always having been in support of a missile defense, which is caca.
Uh and there's a headline here in the Washington Times.
Democrats veer to the right in fight for house.
They have to lie to win the heartland.
It's a story about Heath Schuler, the former Washington Redskins quarterback.
He's a Democrat running for a House seat in North Carolina, declaring himself a pro-life member of the pro-gun NRA, and accusing his uh opponent, Congressman Charles Taylor, of supporting amnesty for illegal aliens.
So you've got Keith Schuler, or Heath Schiller, a Democrat, trying to outflank a Republican on the right.
Now, wait till the Democrat base hears about this.
Wait till a cook fringe base on the blogs of theirs hear about all of this, and they are going to be in a tizzy, because the Democrats, to them, will be abandoning their principles.
And Ned Lament, Ned Lament actually was on with Chris Matthews and shocked Matthew.
Matthews couldn't believe it when Lament said he might favor an attack on Iran.
Not Iraq, an attack on Iran.
So I'm uh the the sense I get here is that just from Monday and last Friday to today, the once again, the grandiose visions of the Democrats to take it all back are crumbling in their very hands.
The keys to the House have become dust, and the dust is sifting through their fingers, they can't hold it tight enough.
It's amazing.
They have opened the door and they've smacked it into their face, bloodied their nose, yet again, because, ladies and gentlemen, their motives are now seen for what they are.
They're not trying to protect kids.
They are not anything other than political.
Nobody in this country hates Denny Hastert.
I have I've maintained long ago, and for a long time, that if you're going to portray somebody as a creep, they better look like one, and they better have some history you can point to that shows them as a creep.
They try to make Denny Hastert an evil devil, and he's not.
He's the most nondescript figure, other than his size, patrolling Washington.
Nobody ever sees the guy.
Despite his uh stature.
And so they're out there trying to portray this guy as the epitome of evil, a guy who didn't care if kids were abused or set upon by a predator.
And it doesn't work because even when you see Denny Hastert for the first time, it just doesn't work.
Just doesn't connect.
All these evil, rotten things that they're trying to say about him don't stick, because it's not true, and it's obviously not true.
Anyway, quick timeout, we'll be back.
We will continue in mere moment.
Stay with us.
And now we go to the audio's sound bites.
C span this morning, Ellen Tosher, uh, is the uh is a Democrat.
She's a member of the House Arms Services Committee.
And uh uh she's talking about missile defense, Star Wars, strategic defense initiative.
Now, I don't have to tell you people that ever since Ronaldus Magnus proposed the program.
The only people who have really opposed it are Democrats.
They opposed it on the basis that it would unnecessarily accelerate the arms race, that it would cause the Soviets to try to create their own, and Reagan said, hey, that's great.
You know what?
We might even share it with them.
If we can do it, we'll share it with a what better way to defend against these things than to render them impossible to use.
Oh, we're still against them.
Too much defense spending, social programs will suffer.
Uh oh, okay, where again the Democrats have never, you might find two or three now and then, but as a party, they have never ever been for this.
So I hear about Ellen Tosher on C-SPAN today, and I am stunned.
Here's what she said.
We also need a safety net for the American people, and that is a missile defense system that works.
Not one that's just deployed, but one that's operational.
People know that we have deployed a missile defense system.
Um I've supported that, but not one that works.
And, you know, we need to have uh a Congress that's gonna hold the administration accountable, not allow it to pull the missile defense system out of the normal testing regime, and not one that is an embarrassment right now that we know can't work.
Holy, it's worse than I thought.
It's worse than I saw.
So now they're saying they can do it smarter.
They can do a missile defense system smarter, and it's Congress that can do it.
Well, this prompted a viewer watching C-SPAN to call.
And the uh call was from uh New York.
And here's how that exchange went.
I'm in shock about what the representative is saying.
You're talking about a missile defense system when 90% of the liberals' Democrats in Congress, the Senate voted it down for the United States.
Not true.
Not true.
And talking, now you're the Clinton apologist in North Korea.
Oh, he needs a legacy.
You Democrats are just helping him to get Hillary was out yesterday.
She was totally shot down by John McCain, who over two years worked on the North Korean deal with Bill, and Bill, of course, being the coward that he was, did nothing, and now he's back again trying to do the same thing with Hillary, letting her be the mouthpiece.
Look, look, if this if this is five thousand people died, how how how insane are you, Ms. Dowship?
Uh, I take my medication on time, and I would suggest that you start drinking Dcaf.
Folks, you know, when you hear hear things or hear about things like this, uh you you you have to realize that these people are not skunking the whole country anymore like they used to.
I mean, I think it's well maybe the first call after she talks about the fact that Democrats support a missile defense system.
But why say it now?
This is the thing.
You had Foley on the front page, he's on a front page for a while, then he goes and then it's Hastert and the whole Republican leadership, and then everything changed when Kim Jong-il claims to have um successfully tested a nuke.
And the Democrats, what does this tell you about their polling?
This tells you that national security and their internal polling has to be huge.
It has to be big.
And their polling has to be telling them they're not showing up so well on that subject.
So they send out Ellen Tosher, who is on the Armed Services Committee, to start spreading uh the myth that Democrats have always been for a missile defense system.
Yeah, we just want to do one that's smarter.
We want to we want to be smarter and do one that's better.
And so uh not have this silly one that's constantly in test mode that uh doesn't work.
Now, this uh to me, uh ladies and gentlemen, is indicative of quite a few things.
Uh, but the most important thing it indicates to me is that this election, Democrats know it, is going to be about issues.
It's going to be about things that matter to people.
Real things that matter in their real lives.
Uh liberals even said, by the way, it would be impossible to build any missile defense system that worked.
They're always the ones that poo-poo these grand ideas.
If you listen to them, nothing's possible.
Nothing will ever work.
At any rate, this is going to be an election about issues.
Democrats, liberals scared they lose when elections are about issues.
We will be back.
Yeah, yeah, hang on.
I'm just printing out a couple things, because I'm getting prepared because I know.
I know that the Libs are going to be on the war path on the phones today, trying to defend Alan Tosher.
Ellen Tosher, or Toucher, however she pronounces it.
And I want I want you to go back.
I want you to listen to this sound bite again, and I want to preempt any liberal phone calls to try to rewrite history here on this program.
Here's what she said on C-SPAN just this morning.
It's a little bit after nine o'clock.
We also need a safety net for the American people, and that is a missile defense system that works.
Not one that's just deployed, but one that's operational.
People know that we have deployed a missile defense system.
Um I've supported that, but not one that works.
And, you know, we need to have a Congress that's going to hold the administration accountable, not allow it to pull the missile defense system out of the normal testing regime.
And not one that is an embarrassment right now that we know can't work.
All right.
So uh they've always supported this.
Uh the missile defense system.
Uh we've supported Democrats know that we need a missile defense system.
So we went back.
Just a couple of things here.
Uh, from the UK Guardian, Tuesday, September 11th, 2001.
Nobody will remember this because this was in the newspapers the day of the 9-11 attack.
Democrats lash Bush lunacy on missiles.
The Senate's most powerful voice on foreign affairs, Joe Biden, yesterday, that would have been September 10th of 2001, denounced President George Bush's defense policies as absolute lunacy that threatened to pull the trigger on a new arms race.
In the most blistering Democrat attack to date on the planned missile defense system, Biden, who chairs the Senate foreign relations committee, poured scorn on the scheme which he said would starve other military programs of cash and make the world a more perilous place.
Senator Biden's remarks expected to mark the start of a concerted campaign reflecting the Democrats' belief that Mr. Bush is politically vulnerable on foreign and defense policy, which has been characterized by a unilateralist approach and a belief, ridiculed by Biden as theological, in building a missile defense system against possible attacks from rogue states.
This story ran the morning of September 11th, 2001.
So it faded into the ether.
I mean, it was but we did a little research on it, just keyword search, bamboo.
So Ms. Toucher, if you want to go out there and try to make the claim that Democrats are all for a missile defense, it's not possible to make that claim and back it up.
May be able to find a couple Democrats said some good things about a missile defense system, maybe have even voted for one, but as party policy, they have been opposed to it ever since they first heard about it.
Uh just as they're opposed to most new weapon systems, using the same argument.
Well, this is gonna this is gonna starve us of uh of needed cash for needed programs and other segments of our society from the United States Senate Republican Policy Committee, their website, June 26th, of 2002.
Why do Democrats oppose the president's missile defense funding request?
It's not the cost.
Democrats continue to oppose efforts to improve improve our national defense, arguing that certain programs are too expensive and don't represent responsible government spending.
Yet their opposition based on a program's price tag evaporates when voting on non-defense issues.
They're opposed to it institutionally.
They're they're They always have been.
They're liberals.
You know, with the Cold War having uh ended, the intense focus on Democrats foreign policy and defense industry views has sort of faded to the back page, other than when they surface their overall cut and run strategy when it comes to the war on terror and a war in Iraq, which by the way, Bush nailed them on again today at his press conference.
Um got questions from the media.
You keep saying that the Democrats would have cut and run.
I've never heard them use those words.
And uh President said, Well, you know, I know I know that my vocabulary may not uh be up to snuff as much as others, but when I hear people say set a date certain for withdrawal, that to me is cut and run.
It means you're leaving before the mission is over.
That means cut and run.
Bam, bam, bam, right back at them.
Uh so we'll hope to have that bite in some of the others as the program unfolds.
I want to go back before we get to the phones to this Foley business and this Washington Post story today, because as I read the Washington Post story, you come to the conclusion that there were at least two Democrat operatives who were shopping the emails, not the instant messages, the emails.
Uh and one of the sources for this is Harper's Magazine in a story by Ken Silverstein.
Now, Silverstein said that his source was a Democratic operative, the same source that had uh provided the email exchanges to the St. Petersburg Times in November of 2005.
Now, this is October 2006.
Eleven months ago.
All these things were being shopped around, folks.
Eleven months ago.
Both uh the magazine and the paper declined to publish a story, but the source was not working in concert with the National Democrat Party.
Silverstein added, this person was genuinely disgusted by Foley's behavior, amazed that other publications had declined to publish stories about the email emails and concerned that Foley might still be seeking contact with the pages.
But a second source emerged, still reading here from the Washington Post.
Second source emerged, however, just last month, peddling the emails to several other publications, including the Washington Post.
And Brian Ross of ABC News has stressed that his initial source was uh a Republican.
So the way I'm reading this story, you come up with two Democrat operatives who are out there for whatever reasons they want a state, who knew of the story.
And I find it a little interesting that the uh the the Silverstein here in the uh at Harper's says, well, you know, it wasn't working in in tandem with the National Democrat Party.
He was just really upset that Foley might still be doing this stuff.
He was concerned about the children.
Really?
Well, why shop it to the media?
What if you had on the if you had this stuff for a year almost now and you sat on it?
Why shop it to the media?
And then when the media doesn't run with it, you just forget it.
If you're really concerned about the churrin, you just the media doesn't do what you want.
Why don't you go to Haster then?
Why don't you confront Foley if you're really concerned about this?
I mean, uh, this stuff is uh it it's it's it's starting to blow up in their faces and backfire.
And it's something that uh uh was almost foreseeable the way they were playing it.
Um, let me get let me just give you the timeline here in this story that the Silverstein writes in uh in Harper's, because they say they were given Foley's emails by a Democratic operative months ago.
Ultimately, they, the magazine, along with these Florida newspapers, decided not to run a story about them.
The drive-by media, however, now is drilling the Republican leadership for not doing anything about Foley when many of them decided not to expose him either.
I mean, that's the best way to sum this up.
We had a bunch of Democrat operatives out there claiming To know about this, trying to stop it with their friends in the media, getting no support.
Now all of a sudden, for all this time, Democrats have been denying they had nothing to do with it.
Well, at first I've heard of it, never seen it.
Nope, don't know anything about it.
First I heard of it was in the paper.
I remember.
Now they they dump on um on Hastert for not doing anything about it when Democrats have known for almost a year.
And here are more details uh about the Heath Schuler race in North Carolina, former Washington Redskins quarterback running for a House seat, declares a Democrat, declared himself a pro-life member of the Pro-Gun National Rifle Association, accused his opponent, Congressman Charles Taylor of supporting Mnesty for illegal aliens.
Uh, Mr. Taylor is a conservative Republican.
Schuler's a Democrat trying to outflank him on the right.
And that was not an uncommon move this election year, even before Foley and his scandal increased the midterm vulnerability of the House of Republicans if he has.
I'm still not sure that's an operative uh accurate statement.
Uh but it's happening across the Washington Times says it's happening across the South and the Midwest as Democrat congressional candidates from Illinois to Georgia are casting aside liberal loyalties to compete in conservative districts where they hope to gain the 15 seats needed for Democrats to take control of the House.
Uh blank, and here's a key.
Blank slate races have Democrats who haven't held office and have no voting record.
You know, so that it's it's it's it's hard to go back and point to uh anything to be exploited.
Democrats blank slate candidates usually have not held public office, thus they have no voting record for their Republican opponents to use against them.
So when they come out as conservatives, they're trying to fool people.
Liberal Democrats making my point once again, they cannot run as who they are.
They dare not.
They have to try to come out.
You talk about fraud and political malpractice.
Anytime a liberal Democrat runs as a conservative Republican, that's exactly what it is.
But it ought to be a heartening good sign, folks, confirms everything we know.
They don't dare be honest about who they are.
They don't dare.
And it's also interesting, confirming one of the central themes of yesterday's brilliant broadcast when elections are about issues, liberals lose.
Quick timeout.
Your phone calls are next.
Sit tight, we'll be right back.
Well, well, well, how fortunate are we?
Our first caller today is Michael from Kingston, New York, who happens to be the caller who had the shootout today with Ellen Towsher on C-SPAN.
Michael, welcome to the program.
Nice to have you with us, sir.
Thank you, Mr. Limbore.
It's my pleasure.
Now, before before you get before you get to your point, I for people just joining us now.
I want to play your call.
Certainly.
Uh so people can uh can hear you talking to Ellen Towsch.
She has just said that Democrats are for missile defense.
Michael was watching, couldn't believe it, called in, got on.
This was his exchange with Congressman Tausher.
I'm in shock about what the representative is saying.
You're talking about a missile defense system when 90% of the liberals, Democrats in Congress, the Senate voted it down for the United States.
Not true.
Not true.
And talking, now you're the Clinton apologist.
Oh, North Korea.
He needs a legacy.
You Democrats are just helping him to get Clillary was out yesterday.
She was totally shot down by John McCain, who over two years worked on the North Korean deal with Bill.
And Bill, of course, being the coward that he was, did nothing, and now he's back again trying to do the same thing with Hillary, letting her be the mouthpiece.
Look, look, if this if this is five thousand people died, how how how insane are you, Miss Dowship?
I take my medication on time, and I would suggest that you start drinking decaf.
Michael, congratulations.
That was a that was fabulous.
Fabulous, fabulous call.
Welcome to the program here.
Thank you very much.
I was just totally blown away.
Um I told the uh gentleman that answered the phone, because I wanted to make a comment also about being a Vietnam veteran that served 358 days, not 42 minutes like John Kerry did in Vietnam.
Which started me off, and then I heard Howard Dean always saying that Dick Cheney and Donald Remsfeld and the president never really served.
Well, how would Dean never served, and Bill Clinton never served, but he seems, you know, they failed to mention what they don't need to mention.
And as far as the legacy goes, that's what just kills me.
Every day I'm hearing Democrat after Democrat, liberal after liberal say the same thing.
Bill Clinton never did anything wrong.
Well, it's hypocrisy.
For eight years, the man did nothing but zip a diplomacy, hid, we don't know where he is.
His wife tried to do things.
She was a total loser.
And now I'm in New York stuck with another Clinton.
We had 230,000 jobs lost in upstate New York where I live.
Hillary came here and promised us the world.
We're gonna get factories, we're gonna get jobs.
Well, now we have 360,000 jobs.
We lost another 130,000 jobs under her watch.
And yet the people up here, I don't know what their problem is.
But everything is geared to like you say, that war room mentality.
Clinton is out there, Lanny Davis, Carville, the Farhead, they're all out there trying to build a legacy.
And the the funniest thing to me is he doesn't have a legacy after eight years.
Now it's six years later.
He still doesn't have a legacy.
He has nothing to run on, nothing to do, and my greatest fear is that Satan, his wife, will try and get him a legacy.
She's not going to run the country.
She's going to look after her so-called man.
And I was when I heard Taucha start with the Star Wars and defending the country, that's the last thing a liberal wants to do.
But they so feel that they're going to win next month that they're all saying, not if we win, it's when we win, that we're going to do this and we're going to do that.
It's all the ideas that Reagan had, the greatest president, George Bush, one of the greatest presidents to be.
Clinton never had an idea.
What are you doing?
What a France living.
Wait a minute, that's unfair.
That's unfair.
Now wait a second.
We know that Clinton gave us detailed plans to get bin Laden, and Sandy Burglar is out on television saying he remembers every detail about the North Korea deal, and Bush is the one that screwed it up.
We've got burglar sound bites.
I heard him the other day, and he was absolutely ridiculous.
Let me ask you a quick question, because time is dwindling.
Um can you think how you how old are you?
I'm going to be sixty-two.
Okay, sixty-two.
Can you remember in your lifetime any at any point the media being obsessed with any ex-president's legacy?
I don't remember the media being concerned with Reagan's, with uh even JFK's, or with uh LBJs, or with Jimmy Carter's, or with Bush 41.
I don't Gerald Ford.
All of a sudden now we're obsessed with the Clinton legacy.
Do you know why that is?
Yes, because he has information.
What do you call it?
The bones in the closet, the skeletons, and this man is such a monster, and she is so dirt evil that they'll use it against these people.
All it is is a bribe and a payoff with these people.
And I'm just waiting to find out that Clinton legacy will be the zip of diplomacy.
But you know that the media is gonna go way beyond that, Mr. Limboy.
Well, I do not want to try.
Well, they're they're never gonna give up because for this reason.
Clinton's legacy is theirs.
The media that we're discussing are all from the same generation.
There is a there is a generational tie to those people, age-wise, culturally, educationally, Clinton's legacy is theirs.
And that's why they are obsessed with it.
Um because uh if Clinton is allowed to fail and be portrayed as uh as a well as a loser or didn't do anything as you say, um, it doesn't reflect on the man they're trying to create as the as the most important democrat president, perhaps uh last century, second only, and it's a close race uh to FDR.
Well, it was great hearing you on C-Span, but I have to you're even better here.
It's great to have you on the program, Michael.
Thank you so much.
A quick timeout, folks.
Uh back with much more right after this.
All right, we've got our president's uh uh press conference sound bites ready to go for you.
In the next hour, Sandy Burglar defending the Clinton administration of North Korea.
It just keeps getting better.
And all we have to do every day is just show up and tell you about it.
▲
Export Selection