Rush Limbaugh Program - July 23, 2007, Monday, Hour #2

All Episodes

Previous Next

July 23, 2007 - Rush Limbaugh Program

36:18

July 23, 2007, Monday, Hour #2

Large

Audio Only |

Scroll

Time	Text
	And we are back.
	Greetings to you and welcome, Rush Limbaugh.
	Talent so much.
	I wish I could share some of it on loan.
	Unfortunately, I can't.
	From God.
	And as usual, in order to make things fair, I again perform today's excursion into broadcast excellence with half my brain tied behind my back just to make it fair.
	Looking forward to chatting with you today.
	800-282-2882, the email address rush at EIBNet.com.
	A couple more thoughts on this CNN YouTube debate tonight.
	They're hyping this YouTube thing as the CNN has been all last week as something brand new.
	Never before seen public participation in these debates and so forth.
	It's going to be nothing but pandering.
	This is nothing new.
	You remember in, gosh, wait, this is 199, I guess, two, the Richmond, Virginia debate.
	We had Perot up there.
	We had Bill Clinton up there, and we had George H.W. Bush up there, the incumbent.
	And this ponytail guy stands up and he says to the candidates, which one of you is going to treat us as your children?
	And that's when Bush looked at his watch, was bored, and Clinton leapt to the mic.
	He just couldn't wait to get to the answer first.
	And what I'm thinking would be great if a candidate wants to separate him or herself from the pack.
	The first one of these questions from YouTube that's thrown out there, if it's a stupid, dumb question, a candidate ought to say so.
	You know, I appreciate the public being offered the opportunity here to ask these questions, but the fact of the matter is, all we're going to end up doing is pandering.
	We're going to get questions like this all night, and we're going to pander because we're going to be afraid to answer the question or answer what really needs to be talked about in these debates and this kind of thing.
	And the ponytail guy's question is a great illustration of that.
	That guy should have been knocked out of a ballpark.
	A responsible candidate should have said, what?
	We are not your parents.
	We're not your father.
	And we're not going to treat you that.
	Of course, that's right up Clinton's alley, and he did.
	But if George H.W. Bush would have said something like that, he would have cleaned up.
	Because despite the fact that people are afraid of offending these public participants and the members of the audience in these debates, the real audience is people watching.
	And there are ways to distinguish yourself as a candidate.
	Maybe you don't have to insult the questioner, but the YouTube submitter or so forth.
	You can say, look, this doesn't really get to the point.
	We appreciate the fact the public is asking our questions, asking us questions and so forth, and then launch and not get into a bunch of pandering.
	But these debates are really not debates.
	They're clearly pandering.
	However, this one may be different tonight.
	Based on something that happened on CNN yesterday, it was on, where was this?
	It was a TV interview.
	I'm having a tough time.
	It was Blitzer.
	What am I thinking?
	It was Blitzer's late edition.
	And this interview was billed as a preview of the debate tonight.
	And David Bonyer, the Pitt Yorkie, John Edwards' campaign manager, said that Hillary Clinton's record on healthcare issues was an absolute disaster.
	An Alabama congressman a few minutes later speaking for Senator Obama, guy's name is Arthur Davis, said that a vote for Mrs. Clinton would resurrect the disputes that tarred the presidency of her husband.
	Larry Sabatov from the University of Virginia said it's past time to take the gloves off on the Democrat side.
	It's amazing we've made it so far without seeing more of it.
	And of course, Bonya was out there saying with all due respect that Clintons did not deliver on health care.
	They had a very important choice to make back in 93, NAFTA or healthcare.
	They chose NAFTA.
	They botched it and so forth.
	It could be a harbinger of things to come.
	And what's interesting is that he's the campaign manager for the Brick Girl, for John Edwards.
	And Edwards is vying to be the first female president.
	And Hillary wants to be the first female president.
	Along these lines, Esquire magazine.
	Have you seen this?
	We got a shot of this and put it on our website or maybe link to the Esquire site.
	In their latest cover, I've got to show you people on Diddle Cam watching this.
	I'm going to see if I can zoom in here.
	Look at that photo of John Edwards.
	Look at that pose that he is engaging in there.
	What you may not be able to read is what it says above his head.
	And I don't know if this was intended or not by the people at Esquire.
	The sexiest woman alive.
	In a little red banner with a yellow font, the sexiest woman alive.
	This is the cheesiest pose I have ever seen.
	And it's read, the camera's shot from below, the angle's below Edwards, so it's looking up, and he's gazing off in the distance, the sexiest woman alive.
	And the cover story is, can a white man still be elected president?
	So, yep, yep.
	Can a white man still be elected president?
	Well, Esquire gave us Monica's view of the Clinton.
	Wasn't it also Esquire that gave us Monica's view?
	That's right, Monica's view of Clinton sitting there, legs spread, tie-tied long, all the way down to the nether regions, the Monica view of Bill Clinton.
	So these guys, they love to break new ground, or at least plow old ground.
	Anyway, as I mentioned earlier, there's a full court press on now to wear down the public into believing that impeachment is proper of the president.
	And as I reminded you in the first hour of the program, I predicted back before the elections of 2004 that if Bush were to win, that the Democrats would head down this road, at least talking about impeachment and censure and so forth.
	The New York Times today, just what the founders feared, an imperial president goes to war.
	The nation's heading, it's a piece by Adam Cohen.
	Nation heading toward a constitutional showdown over the Iraq War.
	Congress moving closer to passing a bill to limit or end the war.
	But the president insists Congress doesn't have the power to do it.
	Now, this piece indicates that Congress does and that the president is being defiant.
	And as such, censure or impeachment certainly understood, maybe called for.
	Here's the last paragraph.
	Members of Congress should not be intimidated into thinking that they are overstepping their constitutional bounds.
	If the founders were looking on now, it's not Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi who would strike them as out of line, but George W. Bush, who would seem less like a president than like a king.
	Which takes us to the Meet the Press yesterday.
	Tim Russert talking to Senator Russ Feingold.
	And Russert says, President Bush determined to continue the war in Iraq.
	He's made it very clear.
	Is there anything Democrats can do to get him to pay attention or to hold him accountable in their minds?
	Russ Feingold is one of the real thoughtful members of the Senate.
	He's a Rhodes Scholar, Harvard graduate, very brilliant man.
	And he shows the frustration of the American people, and I'm sure the Senate.
	Hey, that's Harry Reid.
	Wait, an engineer just admitted a mistake.
	That doesn't happen.
	An engineer just admitted it.
	Usually I, as host, have to take the hit on these things.
	All right.
	Well, that's good.
	Engineer takes the hit, admits it.
	Here is Senator Feingold answering the question.
	Well, I'm shocked by the administration, and in particular, the president's response to the November election.
	Usually when presidents are repudiated in elections, they say, well, maybe I ought to reassess.
	Instead, he did just the opposite.
	He did this surge, which went contrary to the will of the American people.
	Stop it, Ryan.
	I think we need to do something.
	This is a hoax.
	It is something they know is not true, although they may internally believe it.
	The election results last November were not about getting out of Iraq.
	The Democrats didn't run on that.
	They claimed that as a mandate after the election.
	This election outcome had nothing to do.
	Besides, even if it were, so what?
	The president is the commander-in-chief.
	He was not on the ballot.
	I mean, the Democrats love to run around and say they listen to the votes of the American people.
	And now, you remember back when the Democrats were the minority in the U.S. Senate, and they kept harping and harping and harping about the rights of the minority.
	Now that the Republicans are the minority and are skunking them in their efforts to get us out of Iraq, they're complaining about the 60-vote rule, which is nothing new either.
	But to characterize the election results not being followed by the president, who wasn't on the ballot, and then to, well, here, let's listen to the rest of the bite, see what he says.
	Something serious in terms of accountability.
	And that's why I will be shortly introducing censure resolutions of the president and the administration.
	One on their getting us into the war of Iraq and their failure to adequately prepare our military and the misleading statements that have continued throughout the war in Iraq.
	And a second, on this administration's outrageous attack on the rule of law, all the way from the illegal terrorist surveillance program to their attitude about torture, which we heard a little bit about today on this show, this administration has assaulted the Constitution.
	They just aren't going to give up on this.
	This is nothing new.
	They've been saying this kind of stuff.
	Censure, just the next step.
	His proposal here in harassing the president.
	But they're getting serious about it now, and I predicted that they would.
	Now, interesting are two other stories on this.
	Washington Post on Saturday, fight over documents may favor Bush, experts say.
	And this is the illegal, well, the firings of the eight U.S. attorneys.
	And then the Los Angeles Times says in a story on the primer on executive privilege, as Tuesday's deadline nears for former White House counsel Harriet Myers to comply with a House subpoena, this is July 16th, by the way, a look at the issues and how it might play out.
	And the conclusion here from the experts the L.A. Times talked to is that the scales tip in favor of Congress.
	So what do we have?
	I think what's happening here, the Democrats are just making up trouble and trying to cause chaos and create angst in as many people as possible.
	But this serves to provide a valuable lesson in drive-by-ism and experts, which we talked about a little last week.
	On Saturday, the Washington Post runs this headline, fight over Democrats may favor Bush, experts say.
	And they note in that story, by the way, that the Clinton administration's own arguments will bolster Bush administration efforts not to surrender documents to Congress about the firings of U.S. attorneys.
	But last week in the L.A. Times, they had, as I point out, experts seem to believe the scales tip in favor of Congress.
	So what can we learn between these two little drive-by gems?
	It is to be very, very careful when journalists start citing experts.
	It all depends on which experts one chooses to cite on any issue, be it global warming or anything else.
	At any rate, look at the clock.
	It's time to take an EIB profit center time.
	I said we'll do that.
	We'll come back.
	And if you want to read the definitive piece on all this, by the way, what Feingold's pursuing here, the censure and contempt, Congress, this sort of thing, John Yu has a piece at opinionjournal.com today, the Wall Street Journal's editorial site.
	And it is the best that you will read.
	Yu is smart, and he's got this down paid.
	Basically, says that the Democrats' attack on executive privilege shows a blatant disregard for the Constitution.
	And he points out the differences here between the executive privilege claims during the Clinton years and this fight.
	The issues are light years apart.
	Clinton was fighting claims of sexual harassment brought by Paula Jones, an independent counsel corruption investigation into Whitewater and his Lewinsky thing.
	Clinton asserted executive secrecy to protect his personal affairs.
	And this is legally important because the federal courts of appeals have held that the privilege only applies to communications between the president and his advisors on official government matters.
	And trying to protect the secrecy of your little flings here with the sexual harassment or with Monica Lewinsky comes nowhere near qualifying for executive privilege, whereas the Bush administration's claims clearly do.
	I mean, the Democrats are asking for detailed records of his conversations with his personal lawyers, which are protected.
	The Democrats are standing in quicksand on this, but the drive-bys can go out and find any number of experts or editorial contributors in the New York Times to suggest that it's Bush that's in quicksand when he's not.
	Be right back.
	Stay with us.
	I think the real reason behind this censure proposal that Russ Feingold is talking about, and the real reason behind the trumped-up talk of impeachment here, is really based on the polls of Congress.
	What is it?
	86% of the people in this country hate Congress.
	They do not like the job it's doing.
	86%.
	Only 14% approve of the job they're doing.
	They think, I'm sure the Democrats think the reason that this is happening is because they haven't succeeded in getting Bush to pull the troops out.
	That's not the reason, but I'm sure that's what they think it is.
	I don't care what the polls say the reason is.
	I will guarantee you it's not a rock, not totally.
	It's the attitude, it's the never-ending criticism, the constant negativity, the doom and gloom, and the not getting anything done.
	And so you bring up the impeachment talk, you bring up the censure talk to mask the fact that you haven't gotten anything done.
	And the Democrats in Congress, do you realize the approval numbers for Congress right now are lower than what the Republicans had going into last November's elections?
	I don't, I think, well, they may not, Mr. Sterling just said the Democrats don't fear that.
	I think you may have a point in some way.
	I know what you mean.
	They're arrogant and they're condescending.
	Well, the drive-by media is, I know, which is a point I made last week.
	The drive-bys continue to do stories, puff pieces on the Democrats and make them think if they read their own press that they're loved and adored and they're doing great.
	But they know, they know that their approval numbers are lower.
	They just, you know, Congress is an institution, so they probably don't take it as personally as a president's numbers because the president's numbers are very personal.
	Congress numbers are institutional.
	But they are not able to get done what they claim is their mandate.
	And they can't get Bush to agree with them.
	So they know they're failing here.
	So they've got to change the subject.
	And censure and impeachment are, I think, ways to do it.
	But two more in their minds, two more soundbites here from Feingold, and we'll get to Dingy Harry in the second one.
	Russert says, you think the American people will look on this saying, here go the Democrats trying to create something sensational by censuring the president rather than trying to solve the problem of Iraq.
	Well, there's a lot of sentiment in the country that even the polls showed for actually impeaching the president and the vice president.
	I think that they have committed impeachable offenses with regard to this terrorist surveillance program and making up their own program.
	What I am proposing is a moderate course, not tying up the Senate and the House with an impeachment trial, but simply passing resolutions that make sure that the historical record shows the way they have weakened our country, weakened our country militarily and against al-Qaeda, and weakened our country's fundamental document, the Constitution.
	I think that's a reasonable course and does not get in the way of our normal work.
	But the American people are outraged at the way they've been treated.
	They are outraged at the dishonesty that they have been subjected to.
	The American people, we deserve better.
	This is unbelievable.
	If he means what he says, he's made up his own convenient set of lies and is living them as though they're reality, which is psychopathic.
	Tell a lie often enough and believe it.
	Torture, the illegal spy program, impeachable offenses.
	It's like everything else these people are doing.
	All right.
	Well, then let's see something.
	If the president has really done this, if he's really violated the Constitution, if he's violated his oath of office, if he lied to the American people, if he lied to you, if he did all of these things, then censure is zilch.
	It doesn't accomplish anything.
	It's gutless.
	It's just like getting out of Iraq.
	If you guys on the Democrat side really wanted out of Iraq, there is a simple constitutional way to do it.
	And that is to defund it.
	And you've had ample opportunity to do that.
	But for some reason, despite the American people being so outraged and having been lied to, the American people in a blind rage out there at the dishonesty that they've been subjected to.
	Why in the world, if that sentiment is as widespread as you believe, Senator Feingold, why can't you defund the war?
	And then why can't you proceed with impeachment?
	I mean, you're not getting anything done anyway.
	Proceed with your normal work.
	What's your normal work?
	Your normal day's work is harassing the president, harassing the administration, trying to secure defeat in Iraq, trying to demoralize the American people.
	Well, what better way to do that than to go ahead and launch these impeachment proceedings and defund the war?
	You want to really do something?
	Do it.
	But you're just engaging in symbolism here, placating who knows who, raising money for your primary campaign in the presidency and all up in the general elections coming up in November of 2008.
	I mean, do nothing, do nothing good, Congress, is what this is.
	But your normal day hasn't been interrupted, and it won't be interrupted if you go ahead with any of these plans that you've got, but you don't have the guts to really do it.
	And here we are having more fun than a human being should be allowed to have, hosted by me on the EIB network.
	Let's go back.
	Democrats continue to say that the November elections are about getting out of Iraq and that the president needs to be censured or impeached because he's not listening.
	He's not listening to the American people.
	And the Democrats, we're trying to get him out, but he won't listen to us either.
	And they won't pass the bills to make it happen.
	If they had a mandate, or not a mandate, but if they had a campaign of issues, remember they had slogans.
	They didn't run on anything specific.
	And remember, their slogan was six for 06.
	What were the six?
	Remember?
	National security, jobs and wages, energy independence, affordable health care, retirement security, and college access for all.
	Those were the things they were talking about as a party before last November's election.
	And the national security talking point was about following the 9-11 Commission and inspecting all cargo and everything.
	And at the time, you know, after the election, everybody knew that the reason that the Democrats won the Senate was Macaca and George Allen.
	And the reason that the Democrats won the House was Mark Foley.
	Everybody knew that that's what turned the election, and of course, Republican voter dissatisfaction with their own representatives.
	It had nothing to do with getting out of a rock in that last election.
	So now that the Democrats are putting forth this myth because that's what their kook fringe base wants, but they can't get it done.
	And they tried the culture corruption theme, too.
	That was all part of what they were doing.
	But during the campaign last November, it had nothing to do with getting out of Iraq.
	Tina, in Baton Rouge, Louisiana, it's nice to have you on the phone.
	Welcome.
	Oh, my God, Rush.
	I can't believe I'm speaking to you.
	24-7-0 from liberal Utopia, Louisiana.
	Thank you very much.
	Great to have you here.
	Okay, well, my question is: since these experts are always wrong, why can't we name names and get some new ones?
	Well, sometimes the experts are named, and sometimes they are not.
	But that is the question.
	When the experts are wrong, they continually are used.
	But the point that I was trying to make about the experts, you can find an expert that will tell you anything.
	You can find an expert that will have an opinion on anything, and then you can call him an expert, or he can call himself an expert.
	It's like in lawsuits in court, both sides go out and find expert witnesses that will be bought and paid for to tell your side what they want the jury to hear.
	And it's no different than the drive-by media.
	But it's most prevalent in the global warming reporting and economic reporting, especially in economic reporting, because for six consecutive months now, the experts used by the Associated Press have been admittedly surprised.
	So why are you still using them?
	And they're using them because they want them to predict bad news and expect bad news when Republicans are running the show.
	Chip in Cleveland, you're next, sir, on the EIB network.
	Hi, Rosh Omega, third time.
	Caller Dittos, and thank you for taking my call.
	You bet, sir.
	Started listening to you 18 years ago in Overland Park, Kansas.
	Mike Wallace asked Mitt Romney, have you had premarital sex?
	Do you think that question will come up tonight in the Democratic debate?
	No, in fact, we've been discussing that.
	Earlier today, the question was posed in one of these YouTube submissions that we're wondering here if it'll be used.
	Some guy from Las Vegas wants to ask Mrs. Clinton if her husband is still having extramarital affairs.
	And we're debating whether or not CNN will use the question.
	Sternly doesn't think so.
	I think it's a long shot, but I think it's a possibility.
	Especially since it's being talked about now on the most listened-to radio show in America.
	Speaking of questions, we have some more questions that we have culled here from people who have submitted them via YouTube to CNN.
	Let's grab audio soundbites 20 and 21.
	The first one is a question for the Democrat debate tonight.
	The YouTube user identifies himself as Johnny Silver.
	My question is: what are we going to do about global warming?
	If we don't act soon, we're going to end up trying to swing to the mall.
	Would you love to have that question?
	I don't know what this looks like.
	We just have the audio.
	Here's another YouTube question for the Democrat debate tonight from Point Hope, Alaska.
	And it's video, and the question is asked by a snowman with his lips moving.
	So somebody has concocted a snowman here, and the snowman's asking this question of the Democrat candidates.
	Hello, Democratic candidates.
	I've been growing concerned that global warming, the single most important issue to the snowman of this country, is being neglected.
	As president, what will you do to ensure that my son will live a full and happy life?
	No, people are trying to be creative and be funny with these things.
	And it's obviously attracting.
	What is the use rate here?
	I bet the use rate for every 1,000 entries they get, one of them is usable.
	Steve in Savannah, Georgia, welcome to the EIB Network, sir.
	Hello.
	Hi, Rush.
	How are you doing?
	Fine, Steve.
	You know, I get bothered anytime I hear anybody on Capitol Hill point the finger at the president and say he didn't train the military when the Pentagon was begging for bases to be closed under the BRAC Commission, but you had self-serving senators and congresspeople out there saying, oh, don't close these bases.
	Don't save millions and millions of dollars and put that towards training.
	Well, the idea here that Congress exempts itself from any responsibility for things is not new.
	And look at, what do you think Feingold's real purpose here is?
	To stay in office.
	You know, anytime you can blame someone else and say, hey, well, don't make us work any more than we absolutely have to, and let's let somebody else take a look at this.
	Taking away from himself by keeping himself in office.
	Professional politician.
	Well, I mean, beyond that, I mean, there's a political purpose here beyond his own reelection, which, of course, is the first thing these guys are concerned with.
	What they're trying to do here is secure defeat in Iraq, any which way they can.
	They're trying to force Republicans into fading away from their support for the president.
	They're trying to make it untenable for Republicans to support the president on this.
	And they're trying to get Republican votes for future resolutions to pull out of Iraq so they can saddle Republicans and Bush with the eventual defeat and bloodbath that would happen.
	They haven't the guts to do it on their own.
	They do not have the guts to actually defund the war with a majority of Democrat votes.
	They can't get it done without Republican votes.
	And this is what they're trying to do: isolate the president, make him a pariah that no Republican can support.
	And it hasn't been working so far.
	In fact, each one, each time they try these resolutions, they lose support for them.
	And so Dingy Harry has pulled a whole defense authorization bill.
	Speaking of that, Robert Novak's piece, his column today, for those of you who voted in 2006 to get rid of Republicans because you thought they had become corrupt and because of earmarks and so forth, wait till you hear what Novak has uncovered.
	And this is something you will never see in the rest of the drive-by media.
	He writes this, when Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid went home following his staged all-night session last week, he saved from embarrassment one member of his Democrat caucus, Senator Ben Nelson from Nebraska.
	Reform Republican Senator Tom Coburn had ready a defense authorization bill amendment to remove Ben Nelson's earmark funding a Nebraska company whose officials include Nelson's son.
	Such an effort became impossible when Reed pulled down the bill.
	That Reed's action would have this effect was mere coincidence.
	He knew that Senator Carl Levin's amendment to the defense bill mandating a troop withdrawal from Iraq would fall short of the 60 senators needed to cut off debate, and he planned from the start to pull the bill after the all-night debate designed to satisfy anti-war zealots.
	But Reed also is working behind the scenes with Nancy Pelosi in the House to undermine transparency of earmarks and prevent open debate on spending proposals such as Ben Nelson's.
	Now, these antics fit the decline of the Senate, writes Novak, including an unwritten rules change requiring 60 votes out of 100 to pass any meaningful bill.
	This is interesting.
	Novak says, when I arrived on Capitol Hill 50 years ago, Lyndon Johnson, like Reed today, confronted a slim Democrat Senate majority and a GOP president, but he was not burdened with the 60-vote rule.
	While Johnson used chicanery, Reed resorts to brute force that shatters the Senate's facade of civilized discourse.
	Harry Reid is plotting to strip anti-earmark transparency from the final version of ethics legislation passed by both the Senate and House with tacit support from Republican senators and the GOP leadership.
	What this means is when they talk about anti-earmark transparency, you know, everybody was upset about earmarks, and there have been a bunch of proposals that would make all these earmarks debated and publicly known before they were voted on.
	And Reed and Pelosi are trying to strip that.
	They want to go back to the culture of corruption.
	And the example here is Ben Nelson had an earmark that was going to fund a Nebraska company whose officials include Nelson's son.
	Now, in requesting this earmark, Nelson did not disclose his son's employment there.
	Well, there's no requirement that he disclose that, a Nelson spokesman told Novak.
	But frankly, in this case, we didn't disclose it because it's so public.
	An April 24 letter from Armed Services Committee Chairman Carl Levin giving all senators instructions on how to request earmarks makes no mention of the Reed Amendment passed by the Senate three months earlier, but requires only certification that no senator's spouse will benefit from an earmark.
	Inclusion of Nelson's son, however, would be required if and when the ethics bill provision passes.
	They're trying to kill the ethics bill provision.
	Exactly what they said they were going to fix when they ran against the so-called Republican culture of corruption last November.
	Novak talks about he has never seen the Senate behave the way it's behaving in his 50 years in Washington.
	In his six and a half months as majority leader, Harry Reid's tended to suppress free expression in the Senate.
	He last week cut off an attempt to respond to him by Senator Specter in an abrupt way that I had not witnessed in a half century of Senate watching.
	Neither had Specter.
	When he finally got the Senate floor, he said, nothing's done here until a majority leader decides to exercise his power to keep the Senate in an all-night, in all-night on a meaningless, insulting session.
	Last night's performance made us the laughing stock of the world.
	That's Specter.
	After Reed wouldn't let him respond to something Reed was saying.
	And Novak concludes by saying it may get worse if plans to eviscerate ethics legislation are pursued.
	They are being pursued.
	This is why I say, I think the Democrats are just, they're putting a noose around their necks.
	Now, admittedly, the Drive-By Media is not interested in the details of this column by Novak.
	They will not report what is happening on the ethics side, but people will find out about it.
	I got to run.
	Quick timeout, folks.
	Be back and continue here on the EIB network right after this.
	All right, here's Dingy Harry.
	He was on the Today Show yesterday.
	Bob Schieffer said, look, your colleague out there, Senator Feingold, said that he wants to introduce a resolution to censure the president for his handling of Iraq and other things.
	Would you go along with something like that?
	Russ Feingold is one of the real thoughtful members of the Senate.
	He's a Rhodes Scholar, Harvard graduate, very brilliant man.
	And he shows the frustration of the American people, and I'm sure the Senate.
	The president has done a lot of things that have been very, very negative.
	Bruce Fine, a Republican constitutional scholar, has said that he's done more things to take away power from the people in the Congress than any president in history.
	And he thinks the president should be punished in that regard.
	In fact, he goes so far as to say he should be impeached.
	We have 17 months left in this presidency, 17 months.
	He's violated the rights of the Constitution in many different ways.
	He's been here as part of a culture of corruption.
	He's spying on Americans.
	The Justice Department is now a hiss and a byword.
	And I'm sure Russ Feingold will try to find a way to offer that amendment.
	But the Republicans won't let us vote on it.
	They'll block it.
	Those rascally Republicans won't let us do this.
	He won't let it do anyway.
	Here's a guy talking about culture corruption who's attempting to get earmarks back in a hidden, you know, under the cover of darkness matter.
	Feingold guy, where have I heard that name other than today?
	Oh, McCain Feingold.
	That was the assault on free speech, disguised as campaign finance reform.
	And of course, now that the Democrats are $100 million ahead of Republicans in fundraising, there's no problem in the campaign fundraiser system at all.
	No, I mean, it's flawless.
	It's perfect.
	You know, if anybody deserves to be censured, it's Feingold.
	Feingold violated the Constitution.
	Well, he did with the authorization of the authorship of that bill, and then the president signs it and so forth.
	But, I mean, if anybody has done damage to free speech and the American people, it's Feingold because he's part of McCain Feingold, tried to limit what people can say about incumbents during precious few days before general and primary elections.
	The center of the president...
	No, of course it doesn't.
	If Sturley said, does this have much of an audience beyond...
	Wait a minute.
	Are you suggesting I am boring the audience talking about this stuff today?
	Yes, are you telling me that you think that I am boring the audience here by when you ask me if this has much of an audience beyond beyond these guys?
	No.
	Here's the, it does not resonate with people.
	The people don't want the president censured.
	They don't want him impeached.
	If they did, Dingy Harry would move it and he would have the votes for it.
	It's just like the American people do not want to lose in Iraq.
	If they did, Dingy Harry would move it and he would get the votes in a vast majority.
	He could beat the 60-vote rule.
	He would have a veto-proof resolution and he could defund the war.
	What these guys are doing does not have much of an audience beyond the drive-by media, which is playing it up all over the place, and their kook fringe base.
	And that's why I'm spending time talking about this, because the drive-bys are pummeling it out there, and they're getting it out into as many people's heads as they can.
	And it's just, it's creating an overall or adding to what's already been created, is an overall feeling of angst and chaos and unsettledness in a country that's actually rolled along pretty well.
	And they're just trying to create this attitude, and I'm trying to fight that with it.
	But no, I don't think it has much of an audience beyond their own voices.
	In terms of the American people, one of the reasons is me.
	Headline Ritalin stunts growth.
	Details coming up in the next hour.
	In the meantime, ladies and gentlemen, from Reuters, human activities that spur global warming are largely to blame for changes in rainfall patterns over the last century.
	According to climate researchers today, report released is record rains cause deadly flooding in Britain and China.
	What a coincidence.
	They released the report when there are deadly rains in China and in Britain.
	For the first time, climate scientists have clearly detected the human fingerprint on changing global precipitation patterns over the past century, researchers from Environment Canada said in a statement.
	Writing in the journal Nature, they found humans contributed significantly to these changes, which include more rain and snow in northern regions that include Canada, Russia, and Europe, drier conditions in the northern tropics, and more rainfall in the southern tropics.
	Now, human activities that spur global warming largely to blame for changes in rainfall patterns over the last century.
	Really?
	Well, what the hell were human beings doing back in the days when Noah had to build a damn ark?
	Tell it to Noah.
	They don't know enough about precipitation patterns and they can't even study it accurately because they don't know how much falls each and every day.

▲