All Episodes
Previous Next
Oct. 25, 2006 - Rush Limbaugh Program
36:15
October 25, 2006, Wednesday, Hour #2
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
No, no, no.
I don't care about that.
I'm not going to get into that.
Nice try, Brian, but you get your own show, and you can go say that.
Greetings, my friends.
Welcome back.
Great to have you.
Rush Limbaugh firmly ensconced behind this, the golden EIB microphone.
We are here at the EIB Southern Command today, serving humanity, executing assigned host duties flawlessly, zero mistakes.
Telephone number, if you'd like to join us, is 800-282-2882.
The president had a really powerful press conference that I thought he was really good.
He was off script most of the time, and it was fabulous.
We have five soundbites.
One, two, is it four?
One, two, three.
We have five soundbites.
I'll get to them in just a moment.
But coincidentally, I received an email today from a man I know who has returned from Iraq, used to work in Baghdad.
And I want to read his note to you.
Hey, Rush, as I listen to the president's news conference, these thoughts come to mind.
We need to emphasize this, that freedom will win the war on terror.
Democracy is our strategic weapon in the global war on terror.
Democratically elected governments will set the conditions for success, enabling freedom and peace.
We cannot lose sight of this.
The big picture, democracy, freedom, work.
Meanwhile, our enemy is attacking civilians while we attack the enemy.
This is an asymmetric fight where we punch them in the face and kill enemy combatants while they hit us below the belt by killing civilians and showing it on TV.
We are winning on the battlefields.
We are rebuilding Iraq's industry and infrastructure and winning the hearts and minds of Iraqi people.
But I think we may be losing the hearts and minds of Americans through disinformation rampant in the drive-by news media.
I have been there, Rush.
I have been on the ground in Baghdad, as you know.
I have seen it myself.
We are kicking butt.
But the news media only show the killings and bad things that are going on while they overlook the good things our coalition forces are doing there.
It's to shame.
It's a farce.
It's unbelievable that they can report news like this in good conscience as we continue to make progress in the war.
You know, when I see the local news here in Virginia, all the murders and crimes they report, I begin to wonder if that's all they know now.
Report tragedies and bad things that happen to people.
It's stuff like this that attracts viewers.
I guess it's the same over there in Iraq.
Megadittos, Rush, which takes me to the lead editorial today in the Wall Street Journal, entitled The Beltway Retreat.
We need to be realist, but not defeatist.
We need to understand that there is a need of almost urgency to deal with many of the problems of Iraq, but we must not give in to panic.
So said Iraqi Deputy Prime Minister Bahram Salih on Monday in a BBC interview while in London for talks with Tony Blair.
If only such statesmanship prevailed on this side of the Atlantic, where election politics and a spate of critical new books have combined to paint an increasingly desperate and false picture of what is happening in Iraq.
As the critics describe it, all of Iraq is in chaos.
Its new government isn't functioning.
The U.S. is helpless to act against these inexorable forces.
And it is only a matter of time before we must pack up and leave in abject defeat.
We're on the verge of chaos.
The current plan is not working, declares Senator Lindsey Graham in one of the purer expressions of this elite inconstancy.
Just what Mr. Graham would do about it, he doesn't say.
But in the land of blind panic, the soundbite Senator Graham is king.
Yes, the Iraq project is difficult.
Its outcome dangerously uncertain.
The Bush administration and its military generals have so far failed to stem insurgent attacks or pacify Baghdad.
And the factions comprising Prime Minister Al-Maliki's government have so far failed to make essential political compromises.
But the American response to this should be to change tactics or deployments until they do succeed and to reassure Iraqi leaders that their hard political choices will result in U.S. support, not precipitous withdrawal.
The American panic, current American panic, by contrast, is precisely what the insurgents intend with their surge of October violence.
And if you will permit me to remind you of things I've said about this, I think it's important to keep all of this in perspective.
I mentioned to you back in September that the biggest group of undecided voters, the terrorists.
And I asked in September for whom will they vote?
The Democrats are the Republicans.
And they made their choice.
They are voting for the Democrats.
They are trying to create as much chaos as possible so as to create angst and anger at the current administration and the Republicans so as to throw them out.
Another reason for doing, why do they want the Republicans gone, by the way, if the terrorists are winning and if Bush is creating so many new terrorists and if we're about to suffer big defeat there anyway, why do the terrorists want the Republicans gone?
It would seem to me they would want the Republicans right where they are and Bush right where he is if Bush is the architect of terrorist victory.
But no, they seek to empower Democrats.
What do they know that maybe you should know?
That the Democrats will hand them victory on a silver platter.
That's at least what they think.
A measure of rationality at least came yesterday out of Baghdad when General George Casey and U.S. Ambassador Zalmay Khalizad, and I must, you know, moment of disclosure, I have met and spent some time in Afghanistan with Ambassador Khalizad.
He was the ambassador in Afghanistan when I was there almost two years ago, maybe two years ago in February.
And it was while I was in his office, by the way, I was there with Mary Madeline, that his wife called and told him she had read in the Washington Post he was going to be the new ambassador to Iraq, and he didn't even know about it.
He had not heard about it from anybody officially, but there it was in Al Kamen's column in the Washington Post.
At any rate, here is what Ambassador Zalmay Khalizad said, trying to put the violence in some larger context.
The Iraq government is in fact functioning as Iraqis continue to get their food rations, and as more than a million civil servants, Iraqi security force members, and teachers continue to show up for work every day.
They get paid.
Just this weekend, Iraq's oil minister announced that production had surpassed pre-war levels.
Economically, I see in Iraq every day that I do not think the American people know about, where cell phones and satellite dishes, once forbidden, are now common, where economic reform takes place on a regular basis, where agricultural production is rising dramatically, and where the overall economy and the consumer sector is growing, said Mr. Khalizad, who for this attempt at hopeful realism will be derided in some quarters as a Pollyanna.
Here's the closing paragraph from the Wall Street Journal.
But the political truth is that none of this will happen any sooner if Americans look like they're heading for the exits.
Timetables and deadlines may sound like real politic, but they only feed suspicions that the U.S. will abandon Iraq's leaders once they have walked out onto a political limb.
Iraq is not yet in a state of civil war.
It has a functioning, if imperfect, government.
If changes of tactics or force levels are needed, by all means, make them.
But what Iraqis most need from Washington is reassurance of support for the tough decisions and battles that lie ahead.
There's a classic, interesting little line that they use here.
And I want to analyze this.
Timetables and deadlines may sound like real politic.
That means the Democrats call for timetables and reduced withdrawals.
That may sound smart, and it may sound brilliant.
But all it does is feed suspicions the U.S. will abandon Iraq's leaders once they have walked out on the political limb.
That, to me, is the point of this editorial.
What I think the journal is saying is that what the Democrats want the Iraqi government to do, al-Maliki, hey, bud, walk out on that limb, and we're going to saw it off out from under you.
That's the point.
The Democrats will sell out the Iraqi government like that, and the whole thing will be for naught.
And all of this that we have undertaken will have counted for nothing.
Brief time out, presidential soundbites coming next after this.
I just found something else I want to get to here before we get to the presidential soundbites in the press conference today.
This is from The Prowler, American Spectator Online.
CNN terrorist outreach is the title of the piece.
Much has been written about CNN's decision last week to run portions of a video provided to the network via a group identified by CNN as the Islamic Army of Iraq.
The video shot by the insurgent groups as propaganda for the Muslim world, as well as a recruiting tool for a number of Islamo-fascist websites, showed terrorist snipers attacking American soldiers in Iraq.
Now, according to CNN, the video was provided after a producer for CNN sent the group an email asking about its activities.
I think the American public would be interested in exactly what the email contained, at least from the CNN side of things, says a producer for a rival news network who was made aware of the video's existence before it aired.
My understanding is that the email sent by CNN could not be construed any other way than as supportive of the Islamic militant's position in Iraq.
There are people inside CNN who are disgusted by their colleagues' activities in Iraq and here in the United States and covering the war, quote unquote.
Attempts to get a copy of the email were unsuccessful, but one CNN source, familiar with the techniques employed by network producers to get the Islamic extremist perspective, says that it's common for producers to use Iraqi or Muslim contract employees to get information and access to the terrorists, and they do so by claiming sympathy or support for what the terrorists are doing.
Anti-Americanism pays off for us over there, no doubt about it, says the CNN employee.
Questions were raised about this video and the way we got it.
Once it was confirmed that it was real, the next question was, how did we get it?
And the answer was, listen to this.
The answer was, we promised to give the terrorists a fair shake.
I know that we are saying there was soul searching here about running the tape, but I didn't see much soul searching.
There were somber people here, but there was also a segment of people on staff once the tape had run and created a firestorm that celebrated.
They thought they were so courageous for running the tape.
This is a CNN employee.
We promised to give the terrorists a fair shake.
This is not surprising.
It's just confirmation.
A former CNN news employee says that at the network, there is a decidedly anti-war approach to what they do.
It might not be so clear from some of our anchors, but there are people here who direct the news operation who are very comfortable giving aid and comfort to the enemy.
They wouldn't call it that, but I would.
It's clear.
It is clear, ladies and gentlemen.
It is obvious.
We all have no doubts about CNN and their intentions here.
Promise to give the terrorists a fair shake.
In light of that, let's go to the audio soundbites from the president's press conference today.
Terrence Hunt from the AP says, Mr. President, the war in Iraq has lasted almost as long as World War II for the U.S.
And as you mentioned, October was the deadliest month for American forces this year.
Do you think we're winning?
The only way we lose in Iraq is if we leave before the job is done.
And I'm confident we can succeed in the broader war on terror, this ideological conflict.
I'm confident because I believe the power of liberty will defeat the ideology of hate every time.
Here, the president then continues to explain why reality doesn't fit the drive-by media template.
I know it's incumbent upon our government and others who enjoy the blessings of liberty to help those moderates succeed.
Because otherwise, we're looking at the potential of this kind of world.
A world in which radical forms of Islam compete for power.
A world in which moderate governments get toppled by people willing to murder the innocent.
A world in which oil reserves are controlled by radicals in order to extract blackmail from the West.
A world in which Iran has a nuclear weapon.
And if that were to occur, people would look back at this day and age and say, what happened to those people in 2006?
How come they couldn't see the threat to a future generation of people?
Defeat will only come if the United States becomes isolationist and refuses to, one, protect ourselves and, two, help those who desire to live in a moderate, peaceful world.
Absolutely, we're winning.
This is such a great answer.
And does it not raise some questions in your mind about the opponents of the war?
Particularly, I'm not talking about the kooks on the left and the predictable 60s mentality anti-war crowd.
I'm talking about the supposed learned among us, America's journalists who are eager, and the Democratic Party, eager for American defeat here.
Do they see what's on tap, as the president laid it out?
The potential of the kind of world we would live in.
Radical forms of Islam compete for power, a world in which moderate governments get toppled by people willing to murder the innocent, a world in which oil reserves are controlled by radicals in order to extract blackmail from the West, nuclear weapons proliferating throughout the Middle East.
I don't, I really, folks, I have learned so much about the drive-by media just in the last two days that I really didn't learn anything.
It just confirmed all of the things I have suspected and known for a long time.
They are not the most informed among us.
That is a myth.
It is an image.
They have an aura of authoritativeness that accompanies their profession, and they use it to the hilt, but they don't see past tomorrow.
And right now, they're looking at everything through only one lens, and that's political.
And that lens is how do we defeat Bush?
They hate him, and they want him out of office.
They don't like him there.
They want their pals in power, and nothing else matters.
And they will deal with all the messes they create later.
And that's the problem, because they think their ways of dealing with the messes that they create are superior to anybody else's, and all they do is compound the problems.
Here's a great answer on Rumsfeld, Peter Baker, The Washington Post.
When you first ran for president, you talked about the importance of accountability.
We learned from Woodward's recent book that Secretary Card, on two occasions, suggested that you replace Secretary Rumsfeld, and both times you said no.
Given that the war in Iraq is not going as well as you want, and given that you're not satisfied as you just told us today, and Bush says, wait, Peter, you're asking why I believe Secretary Rumsfeld is doing a good job.
I think if I might decipher that through the Washington Code, is that what you're asking?
I've asked him to do some difficult tasks.
One, wage war in two different theaters of this war on terror.
And at the same time, ask him to transform our military posture around the world and our military readiness here at home.
The transformation effort, into itself, is a big project for any secretary to handle.
To compound the job he has, he's got to do that and at the same time wage war.
And I'm satisfied of how he's done all his jobs.
He is a smart, tough, capable administrator.
As importantly, he understands that the best way to fight this war, whether it be in Iraq or anywhere else around the world, is to make sure our troops are ready, that morale is high, that we transform the nature of our military to meet the threats, and that we give our commanders on the ground the flexibility necessary to make the tactical changes to achieve victory.
President then took responsibility for everything in Iraq, said he doesn't blame the general, said this.
This is a tough war in Iraq.
I mean, it's a hard fight, no question about it.
All you got to do is turn on your TV.
But I believe that the military strategy we have is going to work.
That's what I believe.
The ultimate accountability, Peter, rests with me.
That's the ultimate.
You're asking about accountability.
That's what the 2004 campaign was about.
You know, if people want to, people are unhappy about it, look right to the president.
I believe our generals are doing the job that I asked them to do.
They're competent, smart, capable men and women.
And this country owes them a lot of gratitude and support.
And here is this.
This next bite is interesting because you may have heard of this program on previous occasions the description of Democrat behavior right now that they are celebrating on the 10-yard line.
They're about ready to spike the ball to the 10-yard line.
They haven't scored a touchdown.
The president said this about the upcoming elections.
The press was, again, incredulous that he thinks that the Republicans are going to hold both houses of Congress.
I believe I'll be working with a Republican-controlled Congress and a Republican-controlled Senate.
I understand here in Washington, people have already determined the outcome of the election.
Like it's over, even before the people actually start heading, you know, voting.
But that's not what I see.
You know, we got some people dancing in the end zone here in Washington, D.C.
And they haven't scored a touchdown yet.
It is a good analogy.
And he also, not in this press conference, but in previous press conferences, has alluded to the fact that you're measuring the curtains here too soon.
You're going to the dance party here before you've been invited.
And it's true, ladies and gentlemen.
Plus, the drive-by media is all concerned, too.
They think Iraq is how they're going to win.
Iraq is what's going to force Republicans out of office.
That's going to bring people to polls.
And at certain drive-by spots I looked at on the web today, they're really upset that this Michael J. Fox ad flap has occurred because it's taken Iraq off the front pages.
A couple other things they're upset about have done the same thing.
We're just doing it for the cause here, folks.
Brief timeout.
We'll be back.
Your telephone calls next.
Sit tight.
Gladly, ladies and gentlemen, making the complex understandable.
All right, here we go.
I mentioned moments ago that a new ad will run tonight during the World Series.
It's a response to the Michael J. Fox ad running for Claire McCaskill in St. Louis.
And it's an ad on Amendment 2, the misleading stem cell research so-called amendment.
Actor Jim Caviesel, and he opens this speaking in Aramaic.
People say, I don't understand what he's saying.
Jim Coviesel played Jesus Christ in the Passion of the Christ, so he's speaking Aramaic here.
He's followed by Cardinals pitcher Jeff Supon, who will pitch game four tonight in the World Series if they play it.
There's a 90% chance of rain tonight in St. Louis.
Temperature's in the mid-40s.
Following Supon will be former Cardinals quarter, former Rams quarterback Kurt Warner now with Arizona.
Then the actress Patricia Heaton, everyone loves Raymond, Kansas City Royals player Mike Sweeney, then Warner, and then Caviesel comes back speaking in English.
It's a 60-second ad.
Le Bar Nashvinesak.
Amendment 2 claims it bans human cloning.
But in the 2,000 words you won't read, it makes cloning a constitutional right.
Don't be deceived.
Californians agree to spend $6 billion on the exact same science.
Now they admit there won't be any cures for at least 15 years.
Same science, $6 billion?
No cures.
Beware of loopholes.
Missourians will pay.
Don't be tricked.
Amendment 2 actually makes it a constitutional right for fertility clinics to pay women for eggs.
Low-income women will be seduced by big checks.
And extracting donor eggs is an extremely complicated, dangerous, and painful procedure.
25 women have died, and 6,000 have complained of complications.
Missouri, don't be fooled.
Why does it cost $28 million to convince Missourians that an amendment to the Constitution is good for them?
Maybe because it's not.
Don't be bought.
You know now.
Don't do it.
Vote no on two.
That's what he was saying in Aramaic.
You know now, don't or vote, vote no on two.
Now, what these references here to by Mike Sweeney of the Royals, 25 women have died and 6,000 have complained of complications.
There's a drug that is, again, I'm going to find, I've got the name of the drug here someplace.
I have to find it during a break.
I don't want to waste time here during valuable programming portions.
But this drug is injected into women to enable their eggs to be harvested.
There have been 25 deaths reported and 6,000 complaints of a various nature because of complications because of this drug.
It's just not a simple procedure to go harvest the eggs.
And then, of course, Patricia Heaton's point that it actually makes it a constitutional right for fertility clinics to pay women for eggs.
Low-income women will be seduced by big checks.
Extracting donor eggs is an extremely complicated, dangerous, and painful procedure.
Now, all of this, ladies and gentlemen, is about an amendment that has in its title stem cell research.
Amendment two, according to its title, stem cell research.
And then it says it bans cloning.
But it doesn't, because if you read the amendment, you will find that the scientific name for cloning is authorized.
It will become part of the Missouri Constitution.
Now, I'm told by the people, and I read, I've been told personally, but the people who produced this ad said the timing here is coincidental.
It has nothing to do with Michael J. Fox's ad.
And in fact, all of these celebrities approached them to be in the ad, that they were not sought out.
So that ad will run tonight in game four of the World Series.
Well, no, I don't know.
I know Caviesel.
I've never met Supon.
I've never met Warner.
I know Patricia Heaton.
I've never met Mike Sweeney.
So I'm snurdly since I'm behind this.
Limbo behind ad in Game 4 of World Series.
I'll be getting emails shortly from the left.
What right do you have to talk about Amendment 2?
You don't have eggs.
You can't be harvested.
What do you know about it?
That's typical way they try to shut up and silence debate, particularly debate that nukes them.
All right, to the phones.
People have been patiently waiting here for over an hour and a half.
We'll start in Pittsburgh.
This is Miles, and I'm glad you waited, sir.
Welcome to the program.
Hello, Rush.
Greetings from your former hometown in Pittsburgh.
Thank you, sir.
First, let me preface by saying my mother did die from Parkinson's disease about seven years ago.
Sorry to hear that.
I am very empathetic towards the disease.
However, I'm curious to know how you would compare Michael J. Fox's behavior with what Jerry Lewis has been making a career out of every Labor Day with the muscular dystrophy telephon.
Basically, braiding these children across the screen in front of our eyes and making this a media circus every year.
Well, there's a huge difference.
Michael Fox is not out trying to raise money for a cure here.
Michael Fox is trying to affect the way people vote.
Vote, Michael.
Michael Fox entered the political arena.
Jerry Lewis doesn't.
The Jerry Lewis telethon is its own self-contained fundraising event that actually goes on all year.
I mean, to get that total that they have every year, they're raising money every day out there.
They put on the show every Labor Day weekend, but any politics in that show.
There's no politics in the muscular dystrophy movement.
Jerry Lewis doesn't go on television claiming that there's a cure for muscular dystrophy right around the corner if only Democrats are elected.
That's what's happening with the stem cell debate, Michael Fox and these Democrat candidates.
There's a world of difference.
Well, you don't agree then that there's false hope in both of their tactics?
I don't know that there has a cure for muscular dystrophy been promised by Jerry Lewis?
And has he gone out and said that if you elect certain people, that cure will come about faster.
And if you don't elect certain people, that cure will never happen.
No, I don't think he's using it politically, but I think well, that's the big difference.
I mean, that was your question.
That's the huge difference.
Okay.
Nobody has to watch the telethon.
And by the way, Jerry Lewis gets his own share of criticism and has over the years in the vein of that which you have just offered.
And he deals with it as it happens.
But he, you know, Jerry Lewis doesn't say, I am above reproach.
You can't criticize me.
I'm doing the Lord's work here.
I don't have to answer you.
He doesn't do that.
He answers it.
He always has.
Now, Jerry Lewis is a big lib.
Once invited me to appear on that telethon way back when I had my TV show back in the 90s.
And I had previous plans on Labor Day weekend and couldn't do it.
But he called personally.
I'll never forget this.
HR took the call in our elaborate and plush television studio offices and so forth.
But there's a world of difference here.
And again, people want to make this personal between me and Michael J. Fox.
Daffy Duck could have done this ad and voiced the same things, and I would have reacted the same way.
And you don't get to enter the political arena of ideas and say whatever you want with impunity.
You can say whatever you want.
We have the First Amendment for a little while longer.
You can say whatever you want.
But the idea that some people, because of status of some type, are immune from having what they say challenged, sorry, not on this program.
Others may buy into that, but not here.
Mark, Wadsworth, Ohio.
You're next on the EIB network.
Hello.
Hi.
Rush, you were talking about Michael Jay.
I kind of agree with you.
He shouldn't use his disease as a political stature.
And I didn't say that.
I didn't say that.
I said he can do whatever he wants, but he can't expect, nor can anybody else, to not have anybody respond to it.
Once it becomes political, then it's fair game once you enter the political arena of ideas.
I kind of agree with you on that.
I'm sorry that he did it because I have the disease and I don't quite understand where he's coming from other than he wishes that other people don't have the disease and are cured of it.
For him to stand up there and pick a party, I felt was wrong.
Well, that's, see, that's the thing that offended me, the idea that Republicans don't want diseases to be cured.
And if you elect Republicans, there won't be, in fact, we'll criminalize people who try to find a cure.
That's what he says in the ad.
And it's a false hope.
There's no party going to pick up the research because it's a dream world anyways.
What I wish they would concentrate on is more a cause to prevent it so that my child doesn't get it.
Yeah, I understand.
You know, here's, you know, what you're illustrating, Mark, is over the years in this country, and I even, you know, I sort of cringe when I use this word to describe it.
It seems like everything has become political these days.
Yes, it has.
But I'll tell you, it used to be that in this country we fought diseases on a bipartisan way.
I can remember presidents of the United States during State of the Union addresses announcing the war on cancer.
Nixon did it once.
And the whole chamber would stand up and applaud, not just one side, the Republicans or Democrats.
Fighting cancer and fighting heart disease, they haven't been politicized yet.
Somehow Parkinson's disease and spinal disease have been politicized.
It's political, I know.
It's a dangerous thing because we've always had a tradition of everybody banding together to try to solve these various diseases, come up with cures or treatments that advance our knowledge.
I think it's wasting time.
It's valuable.
Yeah, it's well, there's more to it here than curing diseases, is the point.
Once you enter the political fray and start saying only one party will take it seriously, then you've got another agenda on your mind or other things in your agenda rather than just research and cure the disease.
And so once that happens, I mean, people that do that are fair game.
Okay, a couple of things about the disease that I thought that you had wrong.
I'm not the knowledge man on it, but I'm going on my personal experience.
The involuntary movement he had was medicine-related.
He probably had too much in a system.
Yeah, I've had people, I've gotten emails from people, doctors and others, people who suffer or their family members suffered.
And frankly, what I'm hearing is all over the board on it.
A lot of people have said what you just said, that too much medicine can lead to those kinds of movements.
Others have said not taking the medicine can.
Others have said if you don't take the medicine, you're basically just still with some slight tremors.
But what I'm hearing from it's impossible to come to a consensus about it because I've got so many people claiming to be family members, sufferers, doctors, and so forth.
And everybody's telling me, not everybody, but I mean, there's a variety of explanations for this that I'm hearing.
I don't know which to believe.
Well, I worked for the post office for 28 years, and the disease that took me was it made my muscles very stiff and unable to walk.
And since then, I have I was diagnosed in 98 and had to take a disability in 2004.
And since then, I have had surgery through the Cleveland clinic.
Still there?
Yeah, okay.
It's called DBS surgery.
And I don't know if you're aware of it.
It's not a cure, but it does eliminate a lot of the symptoms of Parkinson's.
Well, I'm learning a lot about this disease in the last two days.
One of the things I learned, for example, Mark, yesterday, was that at a Chicago hospital, an alternative therapy has been tried, and it's shown far more prospects for success than any stem cell research has.
And it involves a virus inserted into the brain via a gene.
Two nickel-sized holes are drilled in the top of the head, and the virus is admitted or inserted.
And what it does is apparently stimulate the production of dopamine.
Now, Michael J. Fox's foundation's donated $1.9 million to a study to further the research here after these promising results.
So there's an area.
We talked about this yesterday, didn't get reported on, but there's an area of research into Parkinson's nobody's talking about.
But it has nothing to do with stem cells.
This whole stem cell thing really is not about stem cells, folks.
It's about other things important to the leadership of the Democratic Party.
Mark, I'm glad you called.
I know it was probably difficult for you, and I appreciate your effort and your courage.
We got to go.
Quick timeout.
We'll be back and continue after this.
There's another ad flap going on out there.
More controversy over at TV ad, and the left is worried about this.
The left thinks the controversy over the Michael Fox ad and now the Harold Ford ad run by the RNC.
It's just bad news.
The liberals see racism in the Harold Ford ad where there is none.
It's an anti-Harold Ford ad.
He's running against Corker in Tennessee.
Corkers up in that race.
Democrats say that this ad is racist.
Harold Ford looks nice.
Isn't that enough?
Terrorists need their privacy.
When I die, Harold Ford will let me pay taxes again.
Ford's right.
I do have too many guns.
I met Harold at the Playboy Party.
I'd love to pay higher marriage taxes.
Canada can take care of North Korea.
They're not busy.
So we took money from porn movie producers.
I mean, who hasn't?
The Republican National Committee is responsible for the content of this advertisement.
Now, what's racist about this?
According to the Democrats...
Yeah, Harold called me.
That's the blonde.
And the racism here is that the unidentified female who says, I met Harold at a Playboy party, is white and blonde.
And that's what's racist about it.
It plays on an old stereotype.
Last night on PMS NBC, correspondent Nora O'Donnell interviewed Harold Ford, and she said, some people believe that there are racial overtones in that ad, and that the Southern strategy is once again alive and well from the Republican side.
What's your reaction?
I don't know.
I can't answer for chairman of the Republican Party, Ken Melman.
I can't answer even for my opponent.
I do know that if my opponent wanted this ad pulled down, he could get it pulled down.
But they've chosen not to, and that's his choice.
If the Democrats are running an ad like that, I'd have it pulled.
Right, right.
Did anybody pull this ad?
This is the NAACP ad that ran, let's see, this, when did the James Bird, was this 2000?
Here's the, this ad ran six years ago.
I'm Renee Mullins, James Byrd's daughter.
On June 7th, 1998, in Texas, my father was killed.
He was beaten, chained, and then dragged three miles to his death, all because he was black.
So when Governor George W. Bush refused to support hate crimes legislation, it was like my father was killed all over again.
Call George W. Bush and tell him to support hate crimes legislation.
We won't be dragged away from our future.
All right, so George W. Bush responsible for James Byrd being killed in Texas because he didn't support hate crimes legislation, as though that would have stopped this from happening.
And let's not forget the Black Churches will burn ad in St. Louis during the 2000 campaign.
For Harold Ford and his camp to start whining that this is racism is proving another point that we make on this program quite frequently, and that is that liberals are just a bunch of spoiled kids.
They think they're ready for a hardball, but they can't handle it when people punch back.
They just can't handle it.
This is a great ad that's running on Harold Ford.
He looks nice.
Isn't that enough?
Hey, terrorists need their privacy.
When I die, Harold Ford, let me pay taxes again.
I do, Ford's right, I do have too many guns.
It's a great way of painting his position on the issues.
Hey, Harold Ford, here's what you should have said when he ad run.
Yeah, I was at a Playboy Club.
I'm single.
There were girls there.
At least I wasn't there with a bunch of pages, male pages and interns or married women.
▲
Export Selection