All Episodes
Previous Next
Oct. 25, 2006 - Rush Limbaugh Program
36:34
October 25, 2006, Wednesday, Hour #1
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Welcome to today's edition of the Rush 24-7 podcast.
And greetings to you, thrill seekers, music lovers, conversationalists, all across the fruited plane, time once again for the award-winning, thrill-packed, ever-exciting Rush Limbaugh program from the Excellence in Broadcasting Network.
I am America's real anchor man, America's truth detector, and the doctor of democracy.
We're here for three exciting, full-fledged broadcast hours.
And of course, we'll be talking to you.
Telephone number is 800-282-2882.
And the email address is rush at EIBnet.com.
Some interesting polling data released today from the state of Missouri from the L.A. Times Bloomberg survey.
Jim Talent, 48%, Claire McCaskill, 45%.
Survey USA released a poll yesterday showing the same results over a polling period of the 21st through the 23rd.
These two polls sort of dovetail, and they do cover the controversy involving the Michael J. Fox ad for Claire McCaskill.
So Talent 48, McCaskill 45.
In another startling result, Amendment 2, this is the misleading amendment that everybody is citing as promoting stem cell research when it actually bans cloning or doesn't ban cloning.
A lot of people think it does.
This is one of the most conflagrated things that is out there typical of ballot initiatives.
Anyway, there's a new poll out today from SurveyUSA.
On the 12th of October, Amendment 2 in Missouri was passing by 57% yes, 27% no, 16% were uncertain.
The Survey USA poll out today, 45% yes, that's a 12% drop for the yes side.
36% no, that's up nine for them.
18% uncertain.
This amendment is dropping like a rock in Missouri, and Jim Talent has moved ahead of Claire McCaskill 48 to 45%.
Now, ladies and gentlemen, yesterday, during our discussion of the Michael J. Fox, Claire McCaskill ad flap and controversy, I warned you, I told you the big guns would be aimed at me and this program all day yesterday and into today, and that is the case.
You have to understand who I am to these people.
There's no reason they should like me.
They ought to hate my guts.
They used to have a monopoly before I came along.
For 18 years, I have been hammering the drive-by media often by name.
It makes total sense they would despise me.
It makes total sense that they would try to discredit me.
I don't have any expectations of being treated fairly, and so I'm not disappointed.
In fact, this is all kind of exciting, actually.
Once again, I got a note from a friend.
Damn you, here you go again, becoming a focal point of an election.
Can you save some of this for the rest of us?
I said, I'm not trying to do that.
Just telling you what I think about what I see.
But it's interesting to note, ladies and gentlemen, you all heard this program.
You've heard this program for the past two days.
You've heard nearly four hours of detailed analysis of every issue involved in this controversy.
And yet, after you hear it, you turn on the drive-by media and you hear one line.
You hear one line from what I have said the past two days.
And that line is, he's either acting or off his medications.
And that line is not even put in context.
The reason I speculated that Mr. Fox might have been off his medications is because he's admitted he does that.
And I've got audio soundbites here today of him saying it.
One of them to Diane Sawyer, who apparently forgot it, that she had said that he had said that to her and tore into me this morning while interviewing Sean Hannity on Good Morning America.
So here you are.
You're out there.
You listen to this program regularly.
You heard the in-depth analysis of all of this.
You turn on any other media outlet and you are stunned and you're shocked and you are in disbelief over how they miss it.
Miss it totally.
Miss it purposely.
And you wonder, wait a minute, these are the people smarter than all the rest of us.
These are the people who have been trained to go out and find the meaning and the truth in every news story out there and pass it on.
And then you realize that that's not at all what they are about.
I imagine many of you are rather pleased with yourselves today.
You ought to feel a little bit superior to the alleged best and brightest journalists out there.
You heard what I said.
They could have heard what I said, but they don't listen.
They simply get their reports from AP or whoever.
But if they listen to this program, there's no way they could report on it the way they hate.
Well, take that back.
Yes, there is an action line to every story in the media.
I am a story to the media, and thus I have an action line.
The action line is, I personify I'm the post-poster boy for all of the negative stereotypes that they have created about conservatism.
And anything they think fits that action line moves it forward, they are happy to report.
But what did you hear me discuss yesterday?
We heard, you heard the discussion about stem cells versus embryonic stem cells versus the controversy over federal funding.
You heard about the Missouri deception, the Chicago deception, the Minneapolis-Minnesota deception, and the Maryland deception that the Democrats are engaged in here using the actor Michael J. Fox.
You heard about promising cures that don't exist in the stem cell research area.
You heard about research in other areas to cure Parkinson's or to reduce its effects that is working involving gene therapy, involving the insertion of a virus in the brain.
You heard about that.
By the way, that research being funded by the Michael J. Fox Foundation.
You heard all of that.
You heard about which cures the smart money is investing in and not.
You heard a number of things.
Do you wonder how it is the drive-by media misses all this?
Do you wonder how it is they process information or why they process information the way that they do?
It ought to be patently obvious to everyone, ladies and gentlemen.
And I'll tell you something else, as you will hear in the audio soundbites, advancing the notion theory yesterday that the Democrats have a strategy of finding victims, either of illness or unfortunate circumstance.
They trot them out as infallible.
They can say what they say with impunity.
Nobody, even when they enter the political arena of ideas, nobody is allowed to respond to them.
Nobody is allowed to criticize them.
You will hear that personified in mere moments by Diane Sawyer on ABC's Good Morning America today.
So there's a lot to discuss about this.
The president also had a bang-up press conference today on Iraq.
He was best.
He is best when he's off script.
He was off script today.
It was cool.
We're working on assembling those soundbites even now.
Before we go to the break, I want to play for you one sound.
I saw this last night as I was working and getting ready for today's program and perusing the World Wide Web.
That would be internet for those of you in.
You think they know about the Internet in Rio Linda yet?
I think they have broadband there.
Well, anyway, KCBS-TV Los Angeles was running a poll on my remarks.
And we have internet audio of, I don't know who the male anchor is, reporting the results last night, KCBS television in Los Angeles.
Here was the big story tonight.
Accusations that Michael J. Fox deliberately went off his medication in a new campaign ad to make his symptoms more pronounced.
Tonight, we wanted to know what you think.
Well, 38% say yes, the ad looked contrived.
13% say no.
He's passionate about the issue.
26% say Rush Lindbaugh has some nerve.
And 20% say no matter what his message is, it's an important one.
No matter what the message is, it's an important one.
20%.
No, there you have the moderate.
So according to an online poll in Los Angeles, 38% said the ad looked a little contrived to them.
13% said it didn't.
Quick timeout.
We'll be back and continue after this.
Stay with us.
All right.
Welcome back, ladies and gentlemen.
El Rushball with talent on lawn from God.
Now, before we get to the audio soundbites, I want to try to explain to you what this whole, the whole point of this is to me.
This is not about Parkinson's disease to me.
And this is not about Michael J. Fox.
And it never was.
And to me, it is not personal and never has been.
I don't know him.
I've never met him.
I know of him only through his career as an actor and a political activist.
I think when anyone climbs into the arena of ideas, the political arena of ideas, particularly during a heated campaign, they do not get the special privilege of being the only fighter allowed to throw a punch.
There are not special people among us who get to enter the political arena of ideas and say whatever they want.
They can mislead, they can misquote, they can misrepresent, they can even lie.
And yet we're supposed to, if they are victims of something, stand back, be compassionate, be tolerate, and understand and not respond.
Sorry, I don't follow the script.
Daffy Duck could have done a commercial for Clara McCaskill saying the same things that Fox did misleading about stem cell research and Jim Talent or in Maryland with Ben Cardin and Michael Steele and my reaction would have been the same.
I would have reacted and responded to Daffy Duck.
Now, the idea that certain people, because of their victim status, are allowed to enter the fray with impunity is something I am not going to subscribe to.
This is a strategy.
It is a tactic that the Democrats have used for as long as I have been observing politics.
And I'm sorry, the days are over where I follow the script.
It may sound cold-hearted or mean-spirited, but ladies and gentlemen, I have my ideas and I have my principles and I think they're right and I think they should prevail.
And when people who are running for office represent the things I believe in, are lied about or are misrepresented, you can rest assured I am going to defend those principles and ideas and the people who stand for them and represent them.
I am not going to be fooled, fooled, or lulled into standing aside.
I'm not going to be intimidated under the pretext that some people have a protected, insured right to say whatever they want simply because they are unfortunate, they are victims, or what have you.
The drive-by media today, In most instances, he is acting like a hysterical mother who is afraid her little boy won't be able to defend himself after he picked a fight.
And so they are attacking me and others for being insensitive, cold-hearted, cruel, mocking, what have you.
I don't know whether Michael Fox assumed that he would step into the arena of ideas and have impunity, whether anybody would be prone to respond to what he said.
But I stand by what I said.
I take back none of what I said.
I wouldn't rephrase it any differently.
It is what I believe.
It is what I think.
It is what I have found to be true.
Let's go to the audio soundbites.
Interestingly enough, we heard yesterday that Inside Edition was doing a piece on this.
And I had my doubts about this.
Inside Edition is basically a celebrity/slash Hollywood show.
They don't have a show unless they curry favor with celebrities, Hollywood types, to get their participation.
So I warned them at Inside Edition, Deborah Norville hosts this show, that we're going to be monitoring them.
They're going to monitor me all day.
We'll monitor them, report on what they do.
It turns out that of most of the media, in fact, all of it, in the drive-by category, Inside Edition, the so-called tabloid news show, actually presented the most objective and fair report on this whole controversy.
They played more than just the one soundbite for me to provide context, and they went to some extra effort and dug up tape of Michael J. Fox admitting he does not take his medication before making certain appearances.
April Woodward had the story.
Conservative radio host Rush Limbaugh is accusing Fox of exaggerating his Parkinson's disease symptoms.
He's either off his medication or acting.
He is an actor, after all.
Limbaugh told his radio and internet audience he believes the ads are misleading.
He's using his illness in a way to mislead voters that there's a cure for Parkinson's disease.
And he also attacked Inside Edition for broadcasting part of the campaign act.
The drive-by media, including things like Inside Edition, are all panting to make something out of this that isn't.
But he has admitted to not taking his medication before some public appearances.
That includes this appearance before Congress in 1999.
Parkinson's patients wait and wait, as I am right now, for the medicines to kick in.
He later admitted to ABC News Diane Sawyer he wanted to show lawmakers what Parkinson's was like.
They didn't take it deliberately as some kind of theatrical thing.
But it seemed right for me to be uncomfortable in that situation.
Fox shot this ad for Missouri Democratic Senate candidate Claire McCaskill, who supports stem cell research.
A spokesman for her opponent, Senator Jim Talent, said the attacks are false and that he supports stem cell research that doesn't involve cloning or destroying a human embryo.
There may be some exaggeration in his symptoms.
We've seen other ads where Michael J. Fox seems to be very normal.
That's Inside Edition yesterday.
And you know what they did to enable them to get this right?
They actually listened to some of my program yesterday rather than simply rely on a report of what had been said in a five-minute segment of a total 45 minutes on Monday.
All of the news that you saw yesterday, last night, into this morning, is not reflective at all of anything you heard or what was said on this program yesterday.
Only five minutes or even less what was said on Monday.
But Inside Edition actually listened to some of this program yesterday and enabled them to get the story right.
Imagine that, a so-called tabloid show outdoing the best and brightest of American journalism.
Now, here are these two sound bites standalone.
And by the way, let me stress before playing these, this is not about Michael J. Fox.
This is not the reason.
I am in the I think an enviable circumstance here.
I have the opportunity to set the record straight where the drive-by media is being entirely incorrect and wrong on purpose and knowingly in my case.
They are saying that I said Michael J. Fox was acting.
Some of them got it right and said I said he's either acting or off his medications.
Said he was off his medications speculated because he's admitted that he does that in order to show the ravages of the disease, which I said, by the way, it's not a bad thing to do when you're trying to raise consciousness about it.
Was not even critical of it.
I'm just suggesting that if he's done it once, done it twice, could he have done it again in the McCaskill ad?
Speculated.
I've never seen a Parkinson's disease patient.
I've seen Parkinson's disease patients a lot.
I've never seen that kind of behavior.
And I'm not an expert in it, but I'm just explaining to you why I had the reaction that I had.
So since the focus of attention on me and the drive-by media is that I think he's acting and I think he's exaggerating and I think he was making it up and I think he was, I want to give you the reasons from his own mouth why I speculated that he might have been off his medications during the taping of the McCaskill ad and the other ads that are running in Maryland and Illinois and in Minneapolis.
Both these very short.
The first one's six seconds, 1999 in Washington at an appearance before Congress.
Michael J. Fox.
Parkinson's patients wait and wait, as I am right now, for the medicines to kick in.
In a subsequent interview with Diane Sawyer, this was May 17th of 2000.
He explained not taking his medication before testifying.
I didn't take it deliberately as some kind of theatrical thing, but it seemed right for me to be uncomfortable in that situation.
I didn't take it deliberately as some kind of theatrical thing.
That's fine.
I believe that.
But the point is he admits he doesn't take it when he wants to make a point.
So, and I want to stress, ladies and gentlemen, this is not personal.
And those of you who have listened to this program regularly understand this.
This is about the ideological battle and the political battle that has waged in this country since I have been born and long before and will go on long after any of us have passed on.
It's a battle that many of us choose to engage in.
I happen to take it seriously.
I happen to believe that liberalism is not good for America, being as plain and simple as I can.
And I think liberalism has to hide what it really is and who they really are in order to win.
They have to misrepresent.
They have to lie.
They have to make emotional pleas.
And I'm not going to fall for the trick anymore of letting them get away with lying and misrepresenting things that I believe that I know are true.
And people who are running for office, I'm going to let them sit around and be attacked.
I'm going to defend them, despite the fact that the liberals have this technique of putting people forth to do this who they think should be immune from such criticism, not in the political arena of ideas.
And when anybody enters that arena, I don't care who or what they are or have, they are in the political arena.
And as such, as all of us in it are, are subject to criticism, reaction, response, and what have you.
Nobody is immune.
Nobody.
To having more fun than a human being should be allowed to have at the same time.
The all-knowing, all-caring, all-sensing, all-concerned, maha-rushi, half my brain tied behind my back just to make it fair.
Moving on now to Good Morning America.
Diane Sawyer today interviewed Sean Hannity.
We have a montage of her questions to Hannity.
But before we get to that, I want to go back and play again from Good Morning America, May 17th of 2000.
This is Michael J. Fox talking to Diane Sawyer, comments I'm sure she forgot he made, explaining about his philosophy not taking his medication before testifying before a Senate committee.
I didn't take it deliberately as some kind of theatrical thing.
But it seemed right from my part to be uncomfortable in that situation.
Okay, it seemed right to be uncomfortable in that situation.
He's trying to make a point.
He's trying to be persuasive.
He was trying to encourage people to understand his plight, what have you.
I again say I totally understand doing this before a Senate committee.
Raise consciousness to what you issue that you're concerned about.
I have no problem with it.
I'm just saying, since he's admitted that he goes off his meds for the purpose, that's the reason for my speculating about it.
Now, we'll take these questions one by one, but I want you to hear them in totality montage.
Diane Sawyer, good morning, America today, talking to Hannity.
And this is a montage of some of her questions.
Limbaugh, what was going on here?
Attacking Michael J. Fox?
This is the reality of Parkinson's.
That is the reality.
Rush Schlimbaugh, even in his apology, said that Mike Fox was allowing his illness to be exploited, shilling for a Democratic candidate.
If you have Parkinson's disease and you believe embryonic stem cell research is the answer, a possible answer, a possible cure, don't you have a right to speak up?
Did Rush Limbaugh go too far?
Now, in this montage, we have a classic illustration of one of the salient points I have been dwelling on the past two days, and that is a victim can say anything about anything, and nobody is allowed to criticize it or respond to it in even a slightly critical way.
How dare Rush Limbaugh do this?
Now, let's go back to the bite, and we're going to do a start stop here, Mr. Broadcast Engineer.
So listen close for when I shout stop, hit the bite.
Limbaugh, what is going on here?
Attacking Michael J. Fox?
Stop.
The tape.
As I have tried to explain today, I believe Michael J. Fox, and then yesterday, I think Michael J. Fox's ad is the attack.
Michael J. Fox's ad is full of misleading and false statements about Jim Talmott in Missouri, Michael Steele in Maryland, and a candidate in Minneapolis.
His is the attack.
I defended the issues, the principles, and the people I believe in in responding to Michael J. Fox in his ad.
I raised questions, and this is what they think is the attack, about whether or not he was on his medications or acting in the filming of the ad.
But this is the thing.
See, you can't criticize what people, if they are victims, say because that's going to be characterized as a personal attack on them.
This is how the Democrats attempt to inoculate victims in a political arena so that they can say anything because most people do end up cowed folks.
Most people don't have the guts to respond to it because they are precisely afraid of the reaction they are going to get.
Here's the rest.
The reality of Parkinson's.
That is the reality.
Rush Schlimbaugh, even in his apology, said that Mike Fox was allowing his illness to be exploited, shilling for a Democratic candidate.
Stop the tape.
Rush Limbaugh, even in his apology, which of course was not accepted, it's not good enough.
And my apology based was, by the way, my apology was if somebody shows me I'm wrong about my speculations of either acting or being off medication, I'll hugely and bigly apologize.
But it's not good enough.
Even after I apologize, she says Michael J. Fox was allowing his illness to be exploited, shilling for a Democrat candidate.
Sorry, that's exactly what was going on.
It is exactly.
It's either he was being exploited or he was exploiting it himself.
But there's no question there's exploitation here, lady.
When you engage in a television commercial as one who suffers from a disease, with the notion that only if Republicans are defeated will there be a cure for this disease, that is cruel.
I could have said far worse than I said about this.
It is cruel to mislead people to believe that there is a cure on the horizon when there isn't, if only Republican candidates are defeated.
I'm sorry.
I'm not going to sit around and let this go by uncommented upon.
I don't care who says it.
There's no question the illness is being exploited.
The Democrats do this constantly.
They exploit any number of victims.
They exploit Social Security.
For all these years, they've been promising that if Republicans get elected, Democrats, the Social Security victims, the patients, whatever they want to call them, they're all victims.
They're going to have their benefits cut back, and their choice will be medicine or dog food.
Or Republicans are going to kick them out of their homes.
We had John Edwards in 2004 assuring America that if only John Kerry were elected, Christopher Reeve and others who suffer spinal paralysis would walk again.
Now, that is mean.
It is misleading and cruel.
How about the school lunch debate in 1995?
The non-existent school lunch cuts were going to starve our children.
And all of this water is carried by the drive-by media.
Democrats say something, media jumps right on it.
And with kids, why we can't criticize, why the kids are sending letters to President Clinton asking him to save the school lunch program.
Parents of kids are sending letters to Washington, don't let them starve my kids, as though the parents have no say-so in whether their kids eat or not.
And the drive-by media is right in there carrying all of this water.
Now, Diane, you can be all upset here that I think that Fox was either allowing his illness to be exploited or was participating in it himself, shilling for a Democrat.
It's exactly what he's doing.
Tell me, Diane, what's different about how ABC allows their entire network to be used to shill for Democrats?
A la Mike or Mark Foley and the Brian Ross investigative team sitting on the news for a number of weeks, perhaps months, before releasing it as a premature October surprise?
How about Democrat George Stephanopoulos, Democrat Chris Cuomo, Democrat whoever else appearing as learned, serious, objective journalists in major positions on ABC?
You think there's no shilling for the Democratic Party going on as part of ABC's network news coverage?
How you can miss, what is the point if he's not shilling for a Democrat candidate?
What is he doing here?
Let's resume the tape.
Have Parkinson's disease and you believe embryonic stem cell research is the answer, a possible answer, a possible cure.
Don't you have a right to speak up?
Did Rushland go too far?
Now, this is perhaps the silliest question that she asked, and let me read it to you from the beginning.
If you have Parkinson's disease, ergo, if you are a victim, and you believe embryonic stem cell research is the answer, a possible answer, a possible cure, don't you have a right to speak up?
Of course.
And he did.
And nobody stopped him from speaking up.
Does he have a right to lie?
Does he have a right to misrepresent simply because he has Parkinson's disease and have that not be commented upon, Diane?
I mean, I can tell you that, look, I have a disability.
I'm deaf.
Does that give me the right to tell people whatever I want about anything and have nobody challenge me on it?
This is an absurd proposition.
It is beneath the intellectual quotient we believe exists in the drive-by media, learned journalists who are informed more so than the average American.
This episode is indicating that they don't know diddly squat and they make no effort to learn and they make no effort to inform themselves.
They have an action line.
When they see something that fits the action line, bam.
Don't fact-check it.
Don't analyze it.
Just run with it.
Michael J. Fox, anybody who has Parkinson's disease, who believes embryonic stem cell research is the answer, a possible answer, possible cure, they have a right to speak up.
Absolutely.
You can say whatever you want, but you don't get insurance against criticism if you're wrong.
Diane, does it not matter to you whether the substance of what somebody says is correct or not?
There is no evidence.
No evidence.
And Fox knows this.
Michael J. Fox Foundation invests in these various experiments and research studies.
There's no evidence that embryonic stem cell research shows promise for curing anything right now.
In fact, let me take you not to my words, but to the words of a doctor, Mary Davenport, MD, obstetrician, gynecologist, a fellow of the American College of Obstretrics and Gynecology, writing today at the American Thinker.
It's entitled The Unconscionable Claims of Michael J. Fox.
The popular and appealing star has taken to the airwaves in Senate battleground states, Missouri, Maryland, and New Jersey with a highly misleading ad urging defeat of Republican senatorial candidates opposing the use of taxpayer dollars to fund new embryonic stem cell line research.
He states, stem cell research offers hope to millions of Americans with diseases like diabetes, Alzheimer's, and Parkinson's, but George Bush and Michael Steele would put limits on the most promising stem cell research.
Dr. Davenport's right, Dr. Davenport writes, Mr. Fox and his ad sponsors are guilty of conflating embryonic stem cell research, which the GOP candidates and many Americans oppose for destroying a human life in the name of curing other people's diseases, with stem cell research in general, which includes adult stem cell research and umbilical cord blood stem cell research.
The only limits in question are on federal funding of new embryonic stem cell lines requiring the sacrifice of new embryos.
Private and state-funded research is ongoing.
The implicit claim that research based on new embryos is the most promising is absurd, completely unsupported by scientific literature, and an insult to voters based as it is on the assumption that they are incapable of understanding the issue.
Too stupid to tell the difference is the elitist assumption underlying the campaign.
And yet here is Diane Sawyer asking brilliantly, well, hell, if you have Parkinson's and you believe embryonic stem cell research is the answer, possible answer, possible cure, don't you have a right to speak up?
Yeah, and you even have a right to be wrong, but you don't have a right to have impunity when you say it.
Does it not matter whether what he's saying is correct, Diane, or not?
Does it not matter?
Is that irrelevant?
Or is it just important that we all think things?
Is it just important that we all speak up and be heard?
Does it not matter the substance of what we say?
Flim flam is a charitable description.
Why would federally funded research be more promising than state and privately funded research?
As I pointed out, in Maryland and in Missouri, state-funded embryonic stem cell research is taking place.
Jim Talent doesn't want to criminalize it, as the Fox ad says.
Neither does Michael Steele.
In Maryland, the only candidate to vote against stem cell research is Benjamin Cardin, the Democrat, for whom Mr. Fox is running a commercial.
Does none of the substance here matter to those of you in the drive-by media?
Does none of it matter?
No, it doesn't matter.
Because the action line on the story is Republicans anti-abortion, Republicans pro-life, Republicans against curing disease.
Republicans want people to die.
That's the action line.
It's absurd, but that's what they try to put forward.
And they wonder why they can't win elections anymore.
They wonder why it is that people are reading them less, watching them less, and patronizing their sponsors less.
They wonder why this is.
People are not nearly as stupid as the drive-by media participants think that they are.
Here is Dr. Davenport again.
The plain fact is that embryonic stem cell research is proving to be a bust.
There are currently 72 therapies showing human benefits using adult stem cells and zero using embryonic stem cells.
Scientifically minded readers can review this medical journal article, and it's linked in this piece on the status of adult stem cell research.
Adult stem cell therapies are already being advertised and promoted while no such treatments are even remotely in prospect for embryonic stem cell research.
So if these people truly care about embryonic or just plain old stem cell research, why is it they throw out the facts on adult stem cells and focus only on embryonic?
Because abortion is the sacrament of the Democrat Party, and they will never abandon that.
And this argument of embryonic, federally funded embryonic stem cell research, despite no research that shows any progress toward a cure of anything, advances other ideas the Democratic Party holds dear.
Quick time.
And Diane Sawyer, does none of this matter to you?
I've just given you facts from a doctor.
You can research it yourself.
Michael J. Fox can say what he wants, and he can be wrong all day long, but he doesn't get a free pass on having his wrong passed off as right.
Back in a second.
All right, we got one more bit of audio here to go before we move on to other things in the next hour.
We got some sound bites from President Bush's presser today on the Iraq war, and that remains the primary focus of the cable news networks trying to drum up anti-war support among the American people.
And we'll get to that in due course.
Michael J. Fox in Chicago yesterday for Tammy Duckworth.
200 people showed up for this fundraiser.
And by the way, I have the headline for the Drive-By Media tomorrow in covering what happened on this program today.
I've got the headline and the story.
Limbaugh compares Michael J. Fox to Daffy Duck will be the sum total of this hour's analysis by the Drive-By Media tomorrow.
Here is Michael J. Fox, and this is characterized by CBS2, Channel 2 in Chicago, as addressing Rush Limbaugh's accusations.
This is what they say is his response to my so-called accusations.
I'm kind of lucky right now.
It's ironic, given some things that have been said in the last couple of days, that my pills are working really well right now.
Now, I'm not going to interpret this.
I'm going to leave that to you.
Kind of lucky right now.
It's ironic given some of the things that have been said in the last couple of days.
My pills are working really well right now.
Implies that they weren't working well sometime in the past.
When?
Who knows?
And listen to this commercial, the audio.
Ap, don't have time.
Darn it.
There's a response ad.
They're claiming it's not a response.
You may have seen the ad on the internet.
There is an ad running that it replies to Michael J. Fox on Amendment 2 in Missouri, the so-called Stem Cell Research Act, totally mislabeled and misnamed.
And it features Jim Coviesel, St. Louis Cardinals pitcher Jeff Supon, who's starting tonight, Game 4 of the World Series when this commercial will run.
Arizona Cardinals quarterback Kurt Warner, the actress Patricia Heaton, Kansas City Royals player Mike Sweeney, and Warner and Caviesel wrap it up.
We'll have that for you later on.
As for now, have to take brief time out.
We'll be back.
We will continue.
We'll roll right on with broadcast excellence and rhetoric in resonance right after this.
You're going to love the audio soundbites from President Bush's press conference that started this morning at 10.30 and ended just in time for this program to begin.
Excellent timing on the part of the president.
Lots still ahead.
We're looking forward to all of it.
Don't vanish.
Don't go anywhere.
We'll be right back.
▲
Export Selection