All Episodes
Previous Next
Oct. 26, 2006 - Rush Limbaugh Program
36:27
October 26, 2006, Thursday, Hour #2
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
This is this is hilarious This.
Greetings my friends, welcome.
It's Rush Limbaugh and the Excellence IN Broadcasting Network Having more fun than a human being should be allowed to have while serving humanity.
Half my brain tied behind my back, still there.
To make it fair.
Telephone number if you want to be on the program is 800-282-2882 and the email address is Rush at EIBnet.com.
One of these, one of these many articles about the flap, as they're calling it, over the Michael J. Fox ad, and I forget who it is.
I read it last.
I didn't print it out.
They asked some professor.
They asked some professor about my remarks from a communications.
I think it's either the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette today or the Baltimore SUN.
Both those papers have done anomalous pieces here and of course, I'm just being who.
I am bomb thrower, what have you.
It's amazing, after all these, and it's a communications professor, and these guys still don't get what happens here.
It I, all of these experts, all of these learned people, and they still don't understand why this program's success and why you're there and how we connect with each other.
They just don't get it, which is fine.
I just I just find it amazing.
These are supposedly informed and learned people anyway.
The?
Uh.
They asked some professor about my remarks from a communications point of view.
Now, why don't these same stories, why don't these same journalists brought on scientists who can attest to the fact that the ad misleads about embryonic stem cells?
Why don't they do that?
Why don't they go out and ask somebody about the sub?
You heard Diane Sawyer on Good Morning America yesterday with Sean Hannity.
Well, if he believes it, if Michael J Fox believes it, doesn't he have the right to say it?
Yes, nobody's denying that.
But when it's wrong and misleading, it's going to be called on, particularly in the political arena.
Why don't they go out and get some scientists and, by the way, they are all over the place.
I have uh, ladies and gentlemen, in the um, in the stack here.
Where did I put?
I have?
I have a list of.
I wish I could show this to you.
I'm going to show it to you in the doodle cam, just to get the effect of it.
Let me and there's three pages of this let me zoom in here as best I can.
All right there now.
On on the left side, this is benefits of stem cells to human patients.
On the, as you're looking at it, on the left side, there is just one of three pages of diseases where adult stem cells have shown progress on this side.
All the diseases that show progress on embryonic stem cells, zip zero, nada.
Not one disease has been impacted by stem cell, embryonic stem cell research.
Three pages of this, ladies and gentlemen, a total blank slate here.
These are all the diseases where adult stem cells have proven beneficial.
Some of the diseases, like uh, nerp i'm sorry, Brian's saying, don't shake it around, it doesn't matter.
Why is it?
Because of distorting.
You can see a blank slate versus the text.
I'm not getting them.
I don't want them to read the text in there.
Brain cancer, ovarian cancer, skin cancer, testicular cancer tumors, abdominal organs lymphoma, Non-Hodgkin's lymphoma, Hodgkin's lymphoma, acute lymphoblastic leukemia.
I'm just, that's just some of the cancers adult stem cells are showing promise.
Zip zero, nada.
Three pages of these things, in fact, are a total of 72 diseases, 72 afflictions that have shown promising uh results with adult stem cells.
Uh zero, um.
This is uh Stemcellresearch.org a fact sheet.
Stemcellresearch.org fact sheet, adult stem cells versus embryonic stem cells, effectiveness on various afflictions.
Now my question is, why haven't the media brought on scientists who can attest to the fact that the ad misleads and misrepresents, that embryonic stem cell research, as opposed to other stem cell research areas, not only not going anywhere, is potentially very dangerous, as it has been creating tumors in animals?
Now why can't the media find these scientists?
Why can't the media find these scientists to attest to the misrepresentations that are in this ad?
Because they don't want to, ladies and gentlemen, because that's not the point.
The point is not whether the ad is true or not.
The point of the ad is to elect Democrats, because the ad also claims that Republicans are not interested in curing these diseases.
That's the point it tries to make.
Vote Democrat, you who suffer, might find a cure, might be cured with Republicans.
You have no prayer now.
I don't care who you are and I don't care what your ideology.
If you have any kind of a heart, if you have just a shred of a heartbeat, that ought to repulse you.
Like you can't believe, you ought to understand how cruel it is to advance the notion that there are cures on the horizon when there aren't.
I know we all need hope, but false hope is just plain mean, all for the purposes of electing a, a Democrat.
And let me admit something now, since we played the audio sound.
In fact let's let's, go get it number seven.
Can you play number seven again, because I want to make an apology?
Here you have number seven from the audio soundbite roster ready to go.
All right, let it rip the symptoms that I had in the ad that I did.
That's called dyskinesias and that's actually from too much medication.
Okay I, I need to apologize.
I was wrong uh, because I speculated, either didn't take his medication or he was acting.
Never said the word faking.
Now, if you got, if you, people in the left, want to equate acting with faking, I mean, go ahead.
George Clooney will be a faker.
All your favorite actors will call him fakers.
I never used the word, but I was wrong.
He did take his medications and now he took too much medication.
The point is, he did something differently to appear in this ad than when he appears on Boston Legal, and that was my first human reaction, whoa, i've never seen this.
I have not seen this before.
Now I gather from the past three days that we are to believe that this is the normal condition that poor Mr Fox has to live with each and every day.
That's the impression that they're leaving, is it not?
That this is how his life is now?
Uh, but he himself said he took too much medication.
He didn't do that when he goes on Boston Legal, but it happened for the taping of this ad and I think the reason for that is so.
You would really really hate Republicans because Republicans don't want to cure it.
Jim Talent doesn't care, Michael Steele doesn't care.
Nobody in the Republican Party cares.
They don't want to cure these things.
They're happy, in fact, to see people suffer like Mr Fox is in his ad.
Now, the Drive-By Media has painted a bullseye on our old buddy here, Mark Halperin of ABC NEWS.
Mark Halperin, the political director of ABC News.
He's one of the writers of the daily publication ABC News, The Note.
And Mr. Halperin has a book out there co-written with a reporter from the Washington Post.
And Mr. Halperin appeared on the O'Reilly Factor earlier this week, in which he said the National Press Corps is justifiably looked upon with suspicion by conservatives, and the national press corps is in dire need of reform if it wishes to regain their confidence, especially since reform is a sound business strategy.
Those are the words of ABC News political director Mark Halperin on the O'Reilly Factor earlier this week.
He said, in this country, we've got these old news organizations, the major networks, ABC, the New York Times, the Washington Post.
These organizations have been around a long time, and for 40 years, conservatives have looked with suspicion at them.
I think we got a chance in these last two weeks to prove to conservatives that we understand their grievances.
We're going to try to do better, but these organizations still have incredible sway, and conservatives are certain that we're going to be out to get them.
We have to fix that.
I think everybody in the old media better be saying, are we being fair to everybody involved in the American political process?
Even if you don't believe the argument that we make in our book, that there are some examples over the years pretty significant of showing why conservatives are aggrieved.
Even if you're a liberal and you don't believe that, you believe that half the country feels that way.
And as an economic model, if you want to thrive like Fox News Channel, you want to have a future, you better make sure conservatives find your product appealing if you're going to do the right thing.
You have to do it.
So not only has he, he's broken the code here, he's broken Omerta.
He broke silence.
He's admitted there's a liberal bias in the media.
And then he compounded it by saying if they want to fix themselves, they better do the Fox News model.
And they are out to lynch this guy now.
And he is one of them.
He also said this.
If I were a conservative, I understand why I would feel suspicious that I was not going to get a fair break at the end of an election.
We in the old media, we've got to make sure we do better so conservatives don't have to be concerned about that.
It's just it's not fair.
Mark Halperin.
Now he's selling a book.
He's got a book out there.
And it's about this subject.
But even Mark Halperin, I know he takes shots at me in the book.
He takes shots at me.
Everybody takes shots at me sturdily.
I mean, everybody points up when they shoot.
Nobody points down.
I mean, I'm the target.
Yet's another thing.
I've got people have sending me emails.
Rush, they made fun of you when you lost your hearing, and they made fun of you when you announced your addiction to pain pills.
I know.
I'm fully aware of it.
I expected it.
You know, folks, I know the league I'm in here.
I know what they think of me.
I know they hate my guy.
I know they resent me.
My gosh, I've got three hours a day without an editor.
None of them have that.
I can say whatever I want.
And I got 20 million people right along with me.
They are so jealous, they can't see straight.
And they're also upset because they don't control the whole universe anymore.
I mean, I'm not going to sit here and whine about being made fun of.
That's my point.
When you get in a political arena, that's what happens.
Ever seen a political cartoon for crying out loud?
I mean, nobody that gets in this game has any expectation of never having to take a hit.
Now, I think a lot of Democrats think they're going to get kid glove treatment from the left, and when they don't get it, really they're upset about it.
They're probably the closest to a group of people that have hands-off treatment, but it's just part of what that is another reason why I say you enter the political arena.
I don't care who you are.
You have to know it ain't beanbag, as they say.
And the Democrats are trying to get around this by parading this bunch of victims in front of everybody as infallible and as unassailable.
And they've gotten away with this most of my life, but not anymore.
I'm not following the script, as I have been saying.
And that's just sent them into an hysterical tizzy.
A brief time out.
We'll be back.
Stay with us.
Okay, let's go to the phones.
Again, people have been patiently waiting.
We'll start in Cleveland.
This is Bruce.
Nice to have you on the program, sir.
Hi.
Good afternoon.
I listen to you every day, and so does my wife.
And something caught my ear just a little while ago.
You were a little incredulous about Michael J. Fox saying that too much medication may cause Parkinson's symptoms.
I wasn't credulous about that aspect of it.
This is how this stuff gets started.
Well, no, it just caught my ear, and so I called in, and my wife has Parkinson's Plus.
And it's a more virulent form of Parkinson's, and it's quite, it's criminal, as a matter of fact.
But a lot of people don't understand what it is, and so I just thought I'd pass some information along, like it all has to do with dopamine.
No, wait, we've been through this.
I mean, I don't, I mean, I don't, sorry, I don't mean to cut you short here.
No, that's fine.
But the shortage of dopamine or the absence of it, I know, is one of the problems.
What were you going to talk about medication-wise?
That's what I thought you were going to talk about.
Okay, the medication that they use, if you use too much of it, it's toxic, and it does cause tremors by itself.
And if you use too little, what happens?
And if you do the same thing.
Okay, well, here's the I'm I think I mentioned this yesterday.
I'm being inundated with emails and doctors and neurosurgeons and a number of people.
And I don't often share emails because anybody can write and claim to be anybody and anything.
So these emails run the gamut.
But I'm hearing what you have said.
Too much medication.
And Michael Fox admitted that he had too much medication when he shot the ad.
All I know is that the way he appears in the ad, I've never seen him anywhere else.
In fact, when he went up to do the public appearance for Tammy Duckworth, he didn't appear that way with her as he does in the ads.
We observe what we observe, ladies and gentlemen.
And as I said mere moments ago, and I will happily repeat it, I apologize for saying he didn't take his meds.
Instead, he took too much medication.
But he didn't do this when he went on Boston Legal, and he didn't do this when he was with Tammy Duckworth later or earlier this week on a public appearance fundraiser.
Here is Gene in San Diego.
Welcome to the EIB Network.
Hi.
Hello, Rush.
Hey.
How you doing?
Fine, sir.
Thank you.
18-year list there.
I'm watching you on the diddle cam smoking that spooky, and this is a call I hate to make.
Rush, I'm so concerned, so concerned.
You're 100% right on this.
Your reaction to the Michael J. Fox commercial, I'm so concerned that it's going to be a call to action to get more Democrats off their butts to go out and vote.
And they're going out to vote against Rush.
They're not going out to vote against the issues.
They're going to go out and vote against Rush.
And I'm afraid that it's going to hurt our efforts.
What's your response to that?
I think it's well, no, they're not.
See, this is the thing, and this is why I can't drop this.
They're not reacting to me.
They're reacting to the lies and distortions in the mainstream media about what I have said and what I am doing.
They're not reacting to me.
They are reacting.
They don't even listen to this program.
They're not even listening.
They watch whatever they watch.
They read whatever they read.
They get outraged.
And they run to the computer and they fire off their emails or what have you.
But they haven't listened to the program.
They don't really know what is being said here.
And of course, since I'm not the editor of the Drive-By Media, I can't control what the Drive-By Media does.
All I can do is come here and disavow it and claim that it is what it is.
What would you have me do, Gene?
Well, first of all, Rush, you're a pro.
First, I think we should have anticipated this.
It might have been a better choice to lay law on this stuff.
Can't do it.
Gene, Gene, we live forward.
We live in reality.
Can't go back.
This is not a TVO world.
We can't pause it and rewind it.
Well, what do you think about keeping it going?
Maybe we ought to let it die down.
I mean, what can we do?
I just believe the second name is.
Gene, don't worry.
Jane, don't worry.
Don't worry.
Next week, there's going to be another October surprise somewhere down the line.
Something's going to happen.
And you have to have more faith in our side on this.
You're falling into the trap that everybody fell into for so many years.
Oh, no.
Oh, no.
Democrats motivated it.
We're sunk.
As though we have no role in this.
You don't think the same thing might be true of conservatives?
You don't think the same thing might be true of Republicans?
You don't think maybe they might be rallying over what they are seeing here, and especially when they are told the truth about the misrepresentations and lies in these ads and all these other Democrat ads, by the way, that are running.
You don't think that this all has a rallying effect?
You seem to think that only Democrats are going to be affected by this.
And that's a fear-based, negative reaction and attitude that you're having.
You got to have faith.
You got to look forward.
You got to be positive about this.
There's still essentially a week and a half to go here.
And something's going to come along and supplant this.
And if it doesn't, they are going to blow it.
They've got nothing new to say.
If they're just going to run the video that is a total lie about what happened on this program, they're going to continue to say, I made fun of Michael J. Fox.
Every day they do it.
I'm going to come here and I'm going to set them straight.
This is all about informing and educating people.
This is what the political process is all about.
As I said in my brilliant monologue in the first hour of the program, Gene, they're not going to get away with these lies and distortions.
And if I sit down and if I drop it now out of fear that I'm just rallying the enemy, they're going to get away with it.
And they're not going to get away with it with me here.
They're not going to get away with it with me.
Others can do what they wish, but they're not going to get this stuff angers the hell out of me.
As I say, it's cruel as hell to promise what they're promising.
It's not true.
They're lying to sick people.
A man, a living legend, a way of life.
You're on the EIB network.
Nice to have you with us, my friends.
800-282-2882.
All right.
I imagine many of you have the same thought that Gene hit.
Rush.
I wish you hadn't done that since you've just let it die.
Rush.
I mean, you're stoking the fire of all these Democrats.
I thought these Democrats' fire were stoked anyway.
Bottom line is this, though.
Let's go back.
Let's do a TiVo moment.
Let's rewind Monday.
And then let's move forward.
And I don't say a word about what I think about the ad.
And the ad runs.
And the ad runs in St. Louis.
And it runs in Maryland.
It runs in Wisconsin.
By the way, I hear the ad is now been bought in Virginia.
They're going to take the ad, the Fox ad, and run it against George Allen in Virginia.
Well, let's suppose that I had not said any of this.
What would be going on in these states?
Jim Talent, Michael Steele, George Allen, the others, they'd be on complete defense taking hit after hit about being against fixing illnesses.
Nobody would have challenged the substance of the ad, not loudly, not significant, because they would have been afraid to because of Michael J. Fox's appearance in the ad.
Nobody would have challenged this.
They would have been perfunctory responses, and there wouldn't be any focus on television about dirty ads and this and that.
There wouldn't be any focus on this at all.
And it would just be another late-inning Democrat hit piece that would have been successful.
Those of you who agree with Gene think I should just, you know, cut it out.
Drop it.
Not enough, Rush.
Let it go.
You're ripping up the enemy.
That's what the left and the drive-by media want all of us to do, which is essentially take it on the chin.
And I'm just not in the mood.
Ladies and gentlemen, New York Times today, liberal gay rights group, we knew this, didn't we?
We had our suspicions.
A liberal gay rights group, the Human Rights Campaign, said yesterday one of its employees, acting anonymously, had created the website that first published copies of unusually solicitous email messages to teenagers from Mark Foley, which led to his resignation.
A spokesman for the group, the Human Rights Campaign, said that it first learned of its employees' role this week, immediately fired this guy for misusing the group's resources.
After the messages appeared on the web at stopsexpredators.blogspot.com, the website of ABC News followed with its own independent report.
The ABC News report resulted in the disclosure of more sexually explicit IMs, instant messages that Foley sent to other former congressional members.
He wasn't fired for outing Foley.
He was fired for misusing the resources of the human rights campaign.
Now, this leaves a lot of questions.
How long did this guy have these emails and where did he get them?
And did the human rights campaign not know that he had these emails from Foley?
We know that these emails are being shopped 11 months ago.
But the bottom line is we're not surprised it was a liberal group or somebody working for one that, again, this is politics.
This was not about protecting children.
This was not about protecting kids from predators or any of that.
It was a political hit piece.
And notice how effective it was.
Man, the Republicans turned tail and ran for the tall grass before the first instant message had even been read in its entirety.
And they weren't held by Foley's instant resignation.
Now, you got to love New Jersey.
You just have to love New Jersey.
The New Jersey Supreme Court has signaled they will pass same-sex marriage legislation, but they're not going to write it.
They demand that the legislature write it.
And the legislature can call it whatever they want, but they better do something.
They've got to take care of either gay marriage or gay civil union to do something.
Now, this is different from Vermont and from Massachusetts, where the Supreme Court there in both those states, especially Massachusetts, actually wrote it and told the legislature, you pass it.
Everybody applauded.
Yes.
If you have any doubt, I mean, these are McGreevy judges.
A lot of them are Jim McGreevy judges.
By the way, Jim McGreevy said, how get married?
He said that he will get married.
Ladies and gentlemen, if this does become law, I don't know if he'll be the bride or the groom, and I don't know if his ex-wife will show up or whatever.
Maybe Oprah will cover that wedding if it happens.
Madonna's new adopted little boy could be the ring bearer.
All kinds of potential here.
Denying committed same-sex couples the financial and social benefits and privileges given to their married heterosexual counterparts bears no substantial relationship to a legitimate government purpose, the New Jersey court found.
The court ruled that it's up to the democratic process.
They remember that in New Jersey.
This is reason for hope.
They remember the democratic process.
It's up to the democratic process to determine how marriage rights are given to same-sex couples, whether through allowing them to marry or by applying some other term to their unions.
It gave the legislature 180 days to act.
Legal analysts said the ruling is similar to Vermont's 1999 Supreme Court ruling that invalidated the state's marriage law, but allowed legislators to grant same-sex couples equal status through civil unions rather than marriage.
The legislature created civil unions effective in 2000.
And, of course, they don't like this.
It's like kissing your sister.
Civil union?
No, we want marriage.
We don't want the civil union business.
Joseph Groden, a former California Supreme Court justice who now teaches at Hastings College, said the New Jersey court majority appears to accepted a separate but equal status for same-sex couples, much as the U.S. Supreme Court did for racial minorities in 1986.
Now, that's the San Francisco Chronicle reporting on this.
The Washington Post editorial, this is classic.
New Jersey's step forward, a court's order on same-sex partnerships leaves plenty of room for democratic decisions.
Now, get this.
What role judges should play in that process is always a difficult question.
And yesterday's decision will no doubt spark controversy.
Yeah, the idea of legislators writing laws is no doubt controversial.
The judges said that it's a difficult question.
The Post is controversy.
What's controversy?
They said the legislature has to do it.
What they said, hey, our Constitution says this is okay.
You guys got to go write the law.
To the Washington Post, that's controversial.
I guess writing laws no doubt does spark controversy.
What's more, the court specifically declined to require that marriage itself be available to same-sex couples, provoking a dissent from three justices who would have gone further and simply mandated marriage rights.
Instead, the judges distinguish between the right to marriage and the rights and benefits flowing from marriage.
They argued it makes no sense on the one hand to give gays and lesbians full civil rights and their status as individuals, and on the other to give them an incomplete set of rights when they enter into committed same-sex relationships.
So what's the impact on the election of this?
Not just in New Jersey, but around the country.
This is going to be national news.
I noticed that the brave and courageous Thomas Kaine Jr. issued a press release in which he deplored all this, said that marriage is reserved specifically for one man and one woman, and demanded to know where his opponent stood.
Now, As Menendez responded, as Menendez said, yeah, find what Menendez said because our brave Republican candidate up there, Tom Kaine Jr., demanded it.
Depending on what Menendez says, Kane can always change his mind because his air, his feet are firmly planted in the air.
This man's very flexible.
He's going either way on this, depending on what he needs to do to help himself.
David in Chicago, you're next on the EIB network.
Hello.
Yeah, Rush.
Multi-dennis from the Chicago area.
Thank you.
You know, my point is basically this.
This whole Fox situation is just another fully evasive tool.
In the time of a major election, the Democrats are going to stick on this, just like they have on the Foley issue for the last month, to try to get the attention away from the real issues of which they have no stance, a valid stance that people really believe in.
And this has become another evasive tool to basically divert our attentions away from the most important things at this time.
Let me tell you something.
For all this talk about how the Democrats are happy that this has happened, I'm not sure.
They're having a tough time keeping a rock on the front page.
They've lost Foley.
Now, this story with me and Michael J. Fox in this ad seems to be captivating a lot of the drive-by media.
And I'm guarantee you, the Democrats are not favored in that.
They wanted these to be little hits, local action stories, these ads running in states and it's just specific cities.
Quick hits, get in, get it, get out, move on to the next state, do the thing, and hope the impact is contained there.
This goes natural, national.
And now this raises all kinds of attention on the substance of the ad.
This is not what they wanted.
They had no desire for the substance of this ad, the message of this ad, to be examined.
But you nailed it.
This is a political ad.
This is not a public service ad, public service announcement.
It is not even about Parkinson's disease.
It's not paid for by the Parkinson's Disease Foundation or any Parkinson's disease group.
It's paid for by Democrat candidates.
It's a political ad.
And it has a political purpose, and that is to convince voters that Republicans aren't interested in curing disease.
That's unconscionable.
I'm sorry, I can't lie down on it.
Lay down on that.
Let it just go by unchallenged.
Be right back.
All right.
Diligent research has pointed out the striking differences between our man, Tom Kane Jr. in New Jersey and the Democrat Bob Menendez.
Menendez opposes gay marriage, as does our guy, Tom Kane Jr.
But Menendez says he will not support a constitutional amendment to block it.
So while he opposes it, he won't do anything to oppose it.
But our guy, Tom Kane Jr., he says he would not support a constitutional or would support a constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage.
I love our guy.
For now, I know for the heat.
If it got hot there in the kitchen, he would cleverly modify his position to protect himself and us, ladies and gentlemen, at the same time.
So that's where the two senators, the candidates in New Jersey stand on this.
You know, this Michael Fox ad's not the only flap out there.
The ad that the Republican National Committee ran against Harold Ford for a while, just hilarious.
And it was really great in illustrating where Harold Ford Jr. is and the issues.
But the Democrats, racism!
It's racism!
It's racism!
You can't do that!
You can't say that black guys marry white women!
You can't get it, it's racism.
It's a southern challenge.
You can't do it.
Republicans said, oh, okay, okay, we'll pull it.
So they pulled the ad.
The RNC has pulled the ad.
Well, they got enough days out of it, but they've pulled the ad.
But here, remember my monologue in the first hour, what this is really all about.
This is about squelching opposition to liberalism.
This is about making sure that people who fight back against the liberals pay a price for it.
The truth is, the libs don't get away with it any longer.
They are going to pay a price for the ways in which they go about running these campaigns and everything else.
Now, listen to this last night.
This is a montage of Susan Estrich, Paul Bogala, Tim Russert, and Mike Barnacle.
I showed my current students the old Willie Horton ad, and then I showed them this ad.
My students looked at me as if the 1988 Willie Horton ad was kids' stuff.
It's scurros.
It's worse than Willie Horton.
It makes the Willie Horton ad look tame.
The spot resurrected visions of the racially charged Willie Horton ad.
Hey, guess what we've got here?
We have got Gravitas all over again.
We got Democrat talking.
Why this is worse than a Willie Horton ad.
They're banking on the fact nobody will remember the Willie Horton ad.
The only problem with the Willie Horton ad was it was true.
And that's my point.
The Willie Horton ad, that's 1988.
If some of you may not know what the Willie Horton ad, well, if you tell you what the Willie Horton, Willie Horton was a multiple murderer in the Massachusetts prison system.
The then governor, Michael Dukakis, had this furlough plan because he thought murdering prisoners should get out now and then to see people, help them in their imprisonment, I guess.
Anyway, the guy escaped.
He's in Maryland and he's at a gas station and he killed a couple more people, right?
What was it about?
He raped a woman.
He raped a woman in front of her.
It's a violent crime.
A violent crime.
And of course, an independent Republican, it wasn't the Bush 41 campaign or even the RNC, an independent Floyd Brown was the guy that ran the spot, put together the Willie Horton ad, which basically told the truth that liberals are soft on crime.
And still true today.
I mean, they want to let terrorists out of Club Gitmo.
The only problem is the countries where the terrorists are from don't want them back.
The Brits are saying, you can't hold those prisoners.
Let them out.
Well, we don't want them, by the way, but you let them out.
So nothing's changed.
liberals are liberals the the that was in fact it was it was it uh no what it was it was it was it might have been gore against them i it would Gore or Cuomo was the first to dig.
It might have been Cuomo.
Governor Cuomo was actually the first to dig out the Willie Horton ad or the Willie Horton.
I think Gore used it.
Gore also, by the way, accused right-wing conservatives, Ollie North supporters, of being an extra chromosome crowd in a Down syndrome.
They never make fun of people, folks.
So now this Harold Ford ad is worse than Willie Horton.
See, they never get over it.
You're not supposed to challenge these people.
You not get away with it.
The liberals get away with whatever they want.
They are above it all.
They are immune from challenge.
And when somebody does it, they launch both barrels.
And that's what has happened here.
One was totally absurd.
Chris Matthews saying that the Democrats don't have the stomach to run dirty ads anymore.
Number nine.
I read a couple years ago.
Somebody said, it's not that the Democrats don't know how to make these ads.
They just feel they've gotten above it.
That this is really bad stuff.
It's like they're like Michael Carlotta.
They've gotten out of the business of running dirty ads.
It's the Democrats' attitude.
We're not going to run that kind of campaign.
Is it the mentality?
I think they just don't have the stomach for it.
I can't believe when I listen to these liberals talk about themselves, they don't have the stomach to run these kinds of ads.
They're running an ad now that purposely misrepresents stem cell research.
Embryonic stem cell research.
They don't have the stomach for it.
No, they don't have the stomach for any of their mean-spiritedness or their extremism.
And so these guys are worried.
Oh, no, man, we're not in a dirty ad business anymore.
Is it going to hurt us?
We just don't have the stomach for it.
My stomach's not able to take this much longer.
Back here in just a second.
Well, now I'm hearing that our guy, Tom Kane Jr., does not support the amendment to ban gay marriage.
I thought he put out a statement yesterday saying he did, but now I'm hearing he doesn't.
So which makes sense.
▲
Export Selection