All Episodes
Previous Next
Aug. 28, 2007 - Rush Limbaugh Program
36:34
August 28, 2007, Tuesday, Hour #1
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Welcome to today's edition of the Rush 24-7 podcast.
You know, I'm really glad I'm not a liberal today.
I suppose you could say I'm glad always that I'm not a liberal, but being liberal is easier than being a conservative.
It means you don't have to think, it means you just simply react on emotions.
You say whatever makes you feel good, and you get to walk around with an air of moral superiority.
So there's a lot of upside to being a liberal.
The only problem is if you're a smart person and you think and you use your brain, you realize that you can't be a liberal.
But this more than any other day would be a really difficult day to be a liberal, especially if you're a talk show host.
It's a bad day for liberal talk radio.
I know what you're saying.
When have they ever had a good day?
But this is an especially bad day.
The reason it's a bad day is they want to keep beating up on Alberto Gonzalez, and he's gone, and they're just going to sound stupid.
You know what they're all saying.
In fact, I'm starting to pick it up a little bit.
New York Times editorial page is always the tip off.
It's kind of the official thought process for the American left.
Well, yeah, you know, he's gone now, but that doesn't mean that the questions can't have you shouldn't be answered.
That doesn't mean that we're not going to hold hearings.
We still have to get to the bottom.
So there's they're hanging on.
They're hanging on.
The fact of the matter is, the left needed Attorney General Gonzalez more than President Bush did.
Just in doing my own program in Milwaukee, there has been a tremendous ambivalence to even talk about Gonzalez.
The conservatives that listen to my show didn't really want to defend him.
And if they did defend him, it was simply, well, he's getting a raw deal, but he doesn't appear to be the best attorney general in the world anyway, and in the end, who really cares?
So that's been the conservative reaction to the Gonzalez story, and from really the beginning of all of this, is the conservatives haven't wanted to defend him as much as liberals wanted to attack him.
The only real defense that came from the right for Alberto Gonzalez was simply a response to the attacks that he was receiving from the left.
Here's why they hated him.
The left, in order to survive, needs to have a right wing demon.
There's always somebody.
And if there isn't someone, they literally invented.
And they'll create it out of thin air.
And from the beginning of the Bush presidency, there's been a bad guy, a whipping boy, a guy that the left would just foam at the mouth about.
All of their pundits would obsess over whomever that person was, and there's always been someone.
It started, I know this seems like a long time ago, when President Bush came in, the guy they hated was Ashcroft.
The first attorney general.
They were caring out about Ashcroft.
He was going to rape the Constitution, he was going to violate civil liberties, he was going to do this, he was going to do that.
They were on him before he even took over as attorney general.
In fact, Ashcroft didn't do any of those things.
He in the end probably wasn't all that effective.
But the left built him up as this terrible bad guy, and eventually he left and they had to find somebody else.
Then it became Rumsfeld.
Rumsfeld was the guy they beat up on.
Rumsild was the guy they hated.
Rumsell was the guy they complained about.
Then Rumsfeld was gone.
After the 04 elections.
Suddenly they decided that the guy they really hated more than anybody else was Carl Rove.
I mean, they worked themselves into a frenzy over Carl Rove.
They convinced themselves that he was the guy that leaked the identity of Valerie Plain, even though he wasn't, and even though there was no real evidence that he was, they were so obsessed with Rove that they had him doing things that he didn't even do.
They hated Carl Rove.
Now Carl quit a couple of weeks ago.
That left them only with Gonzalez.
Alberto Gonzalez.
He's empowered.
Just a total violation of the civil rights of Americans.
Wiretapping, mistreatment of detainees.
And he fired those United States attorneys as if they cared about that.
They never cared about those United States attorneys who were being fired.
They merely needed something to rip Alberto Gonzalez about.
Now he's gone.
Well, who do they have left?
All of the members of the administration that Democrats hate are gone.
Partly because they succeeded in getting all of them, but they're all gone.
And they're going to have to find another one, and I guarantee you they will.
I can guess who it's going to be, but someone in that administration right now is sitting there and is going to be put in the crosshairs by the American left because they have to have someone.
They need to have a picture to put in the fundraising letters.
They need to have somebody to focus on with all of the venom that they have a need to dredge up all the time.
They'll pick somebody.
They don't really like her.
And they especially resent the fact that the Secretary of State of the United States under a Republican administration is a brilliant black female.
So it might be her, it might be somebody else.
See, they can't really make a Cheney because they know they can't get Cheney to resign.
The vice president doesn't resign.
They can't really make it be Cheney, so they've got to find someone else.
This goes back to before the Bush administration.
They've always found a Republican that they especially despised.
They did it with Nuth Gingrich in the 90s.
There's always someone.
And there will be someone here.
And I want to tell you why they do it and why they have a need to do it.
See, it was never really Ashcroft.
Before becoming attorney general, John Ashcroft was a senator from Missouri.
He wasn't even that prominent.
So why'd they pick him out of thin air to become the real bad guy?
Same thing with Rumsfeld.
Okay, he's the Secretary of Defense, and he was the architect of the war policy, and he certainly sneered at them condescendingly.
There are a lot of people that they could have singled out.
As for Rove, he was a campaign manager, he's a political strategist.
That's all Carl Rove was.
Why him?
And then Alberto Gonzalez.
The answer is this.
They're obsessed with Bush.
And the person in the administration that the left turns on with the with the most venom is always the person who seems to be the one who is doing the bidding of President Bush.
They've been bothered by the fact that Bush won in 2000, and they can't let go of it.
They consider him to be an illegitimate president.
They still think the 2000 election was stolen.
And they've had it in for President Bush from the very beginning.
They were laying for him all along.
But since you can't get a president to resign, and since their chance to beat, they lost to him twice, they couldn't beat him in 2000, they couldn't beat him in 2004.
They've been determined to go after whomever in the administration seemed to be the person who was doing the doing most what Bush wanted to do.
John Ashcroft came in as attorney general.
He didn't initiate anything that President Bush wasn't in support of.
Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld and the Iraq War.
It was President Bush's war.
Rumsfeld was the employee.
I mean, come on.
Kyle Rove was a campaign strategist and a political advisor.
In the end, it was President Bush who was elected.
Rove was merely the scapegoat that they created for Bush winning because Bush couldn't possibly win because the majority of the American public wanted him in.
It had to be something that Karl Rove did.
And now Alberto Gonzalez.
It's always someone because the guy they most despise is President Bush and they can't let go of that.
So in the end, they'll create another one until that person leaves, and then someone else.
Because the one guy that they hate the most, they could never get rid of.
President Bush is going to end his term in a year and a half.
He may end politically weakened, but he will have survived his presidency.
And because they couldn't do anything about that, they've had to create all of these other people to beat up on.
1-800-282-2882 is the telephone number at the Rush Limbaugh program.
Let's go to South River, New Jersey and Walter.
Walter, it's your turn.
Hi.
Hi, Mark.
How are you doing?
You know, I my point is I think this even goes further back than the Bush administration.
I mean, you can remember when the Republicans took over Congress, uh, how uh I believe it was Gephardt and Dashville just used to hammer Gingrich.
He became the, you know, their whipping boy for You should have seen the fundraising letters that they would send out.
Newt Gingrich this and Newt Gingrich that, when they ran against the Republican member of Congress in the mid-90s, they'd always show a picture of that Republican, and then they'd put up Newt Gingrich.
They turned Newt into the antichrist.
And all he was was the leader of the Republicans in Congress.
They had to make him larger than life.
They had to make him meaner than mean.
They need to always have someone like that.
Now you can argue that Republicans do the same thing.
I don't think it's as obsessive, and they don't tend to create one person who's so much worse than everyone else.
Now you can argue that Republicans are doing the same thing with Hillary.
I don't think that that's a fair analogy.
I think that with Democrats, what they do is they create a proxy because they can't win the war of ideas.
So they create a personality and they make that person more evil than you could possibly be, because they need to knock that person down because they keep wanting to avoid the real fight, which is the fight over ideas.
What we ought to be doing, how we ought to deal with the issues that are in front of us.
That's why they always have these bad guys.
And as I said, there's going to be another one, and you're right.
I think it really started with Gingrich, goes back maybe even a little bit farther than that.
But throughout the Bush administration, there's always been someone that they've singled out.
Now, as for Alberto Gonzalez, was he a good attorney general?
Was he a bad attorney general?
I don't know.
I mean, I think he was the kind of attorney general that President Bush wanted.
I think he probably mishandled the firings of the United States attorneys.
He should have gotten up and said, Look, they work for us.
It's our Justice Department.
We didn't like the job they were doing, so yeah, we got rid of them.
That's what they should have done.
Instead, there was this defensiveness, and well, we really didn't we really didn't fire and we didn't do this, and no, nobody knew about it.
And they were backing up from the very beginning.
I don't think he was the right messenger for a lot of policies.
On the other hand, he wasn't all that bad either.
He was targeted just because they have to have someone to target, because the guy that they really want to target President Bush, they can't get rid of.
Thanks, Walter.
Let's go to Palm Harbor, Florida, and John.
John, it's your turn on EIB.
Mark, thanks for having me on.
Major Ditto's from Florida.
Really enjoy it when you're on.
Um you know, I couldn't agree with you more.
Uh I guess what my concern is how come the Republicans don't get it?
And what I mean is is that you just mentioned it, that they kind of have this wishy-washy response when they're attacked.
And yet when Bush goes out on the the stump and he talks, he sounds great.
He sounds great.
But but the same thing happened in the election in November.
Well, are you referring to the failure of Republicans to defend Gonzalez or the failure of Gonzalez to defend himself?
Uh I would say more uh more so the Republicans to defend Gonzalez, beginning with Mr. Bush.
Um I I just I I use we all know, you know, Rush knows everybody in talk racism how aggressive that they're going to be realizing a Democratic.
I do think that there's at least a little bit Of fatigue out there, but Gonzalez brought a lot of this on himself.
I think that there's been a sense from some conservatives that he may not have been fully honest about the U.S. attorney firings.
The things that they really hated him for were the two things that he got right.
He was in favor of the wiretapping that was going on in the United States, and he was strong on terrorism.
Those are the things that the left really dislikes him for.
Those happen to be the things that he got right.
Thank you for the call, John.
My name is Mark Elling, and I'm sitting in for Rush.
I'm Mark Belling sitting in for Rush Limbaugh.
I don't intend to spend the entire program on the Alberta Gonzalez story because frankly, most people don't care that much.
And secondly, who the attorney general isn't that important.
These are staffers.
It's the left that's obsessed with assistance.
They're staffers.
They work for President Bush.
I understand that the president doesn't make every single decision, but on the really big stuff, he does.
Ninety-nine percent of the business of being the attorney general is administrative decisions.
You're overseeing all the federal prosecutors.
You're representing the federal government.
You're dealing with the solicitor general.
You're dealing with various political issues that come up.
You're overseeing big criminal cases.
You're talking about them.
If there's a legal opinion that's necessary, they may consult with you.
Most of that stuff is never seen.
It's on the big stuff, like the policy on terrorism, how we deal with the detainees, the wiretapping that was going on in the United States.
Those are Bush's decisions.
He's going to choose an attorney general that shares his overall general philosophy.
It's always worked that way.
The same thing with regard to Rove or Rumsfeld or any of the other people in the administration that they've been hammering on.
And I don't think this works both ways.
A lot of people on my side had a fixation and maybe even an obsession with Clinton.
But at least that was the right guy.
He was the president.
As opposed to worrying about the deputy undersecretary of state for this, that, or the other thing.
What the left is now going to do is use the confirmation hearings for the new attorney general designee to bring all this stuff back up.
Since they got control of Congress, it's clear that they don't want to do anything.
They haven't passed anything, they haven't created any policy on anything.
They've done absolutely nothing.
The one thing they want to do is beat up on Bush.
They want to investigate the Bush administration.
They're subpoenaing everybody on Pennsylvania Avenue.
They're hauling them all in.
They're looking into this, they're looking into that.
That's all they want to do.
And they're going to use these confirmation hearings to revisit all the stuff that went on while Gonzalez was the attorney general.
They're going to use the confirmation hearings to ask whomever is designated, what do you think about this thing that President Bush likes or that thing that President Bush likes, and bring it up over and over and over again.
And they'll drag it out forever.
That's what they most relish doing.
Which I suppose is fine because it's not gaining them any political support at all.
It's the reason that their approval rating is down around 8% or whatever it is.
Nonetheless, there is a strategy here for President Bush that I think he ought to follow.
We do have an acting attorney general.
He's the solicitor general Paul Clement, who happens to be from a suburb of Milwaukee where I'm from.
We don't care.
I know you don't care.
Clement is apparently a pretty conservative guy.
He's in there as the acting attorney general.
I think we ought to unleash him to absolutely go crazy.
We aren't doing enough wiretapping.
We're too soft on those guys in Guantanamo.
Have him issue all sorts of opinions that will drive liberals crazy.
They can't do anything about it because he hasn't even been confirmed as attorney general.
He's merely the acting attorney general.
Let's just unleash Clement to be the most conservative attorney general in American history.
They'll be rushing to confirm whoever is the real attorney general.
You've got 200 days, I believe.
He can serve as acting attorney general for 200 days, and then the clock starts Up again whenever someone else is named.
So if I'm President Bush, I'll sit on this lead.
He has an opportunity now to actually have an attorney general who can pretty much do whatever the president wants to do.
I'm not entirely serious about that, but it's not a bad strategy.
The other person I think that the president ought to give strong consideration to is the lawyer who represented him in the Florida recount battle, Ted Olson, the former solicitor general.
He is a brilliant legal mind.
He's been involved in several administrations.
And I really wonder if the Democratic senators would be willing to take him on with regard to terrorism policy and wiretapping given the fact that he lost his wife on 9-11.
They're probably able to go that low, but Ted Olson would be someone that would present a real challenge for them if they try to engage in their normal demagoguery.
My name is Mark Glenn sitting in for Rush.
I know you're going to find this hard to believe, but I guess it isn't hard to believe.
There's another Democratic fundraising scandal involving Asian donors.
I don't know what it is, but it keeps coming up again and again and again.
Today's Wall Street Journal has a major story.
It's on A3.
It's apparently the result of a lengthy investigation into contributions being made to the presidential campaign and originally the senatorial campaign of Hillary Clinton.
The headline of the story is big source of Clinton's cash is an unlikely address.
Apparently, Senator Clinton has received the maximum donation allowed under the law from a number of members of the PAW, PAW family, who live in Daly City, California.
I don't know a lot about Daly City, but I'm guessing that it isn't Beverly Hills or anything like that.
You know anything about Daily City?
Daily City.
They show a picture of the house here.
I wonder so anybody, but it appears.
Well, it looks like a shack.
Yet all of these individuals are giving members give giving contributions to Hillary Clinton.
This apparently raised some red flags, people who are looking at her campaign disclosure statements.
And there are some very interesting things about these donations.
I want to share with you a few paragraphs in the story.
They write, one of the biggest sources of political donations to Hillary Rodham Clinton is a tiny lime green bungalow that lies under the flight path from San Francisco International Airport.
Six members of the Paw family, each listing the House at 41 Shelbourne Avenue as their residence, have donated a combined 45,000 dollars to the Democratic Senator from New York since 2005 for her presidential campaign, her Senate re-election last year, and her political action committee.
In all, the six paws have donated a total of 200,000 to Democratic candidates since 2005 election record show.
That total ranks the House with residences in Greenwich, Connecticut, and Manhattan's Upper East Side among the top addresses to donate to the Democratic presidential front runner over the past two years, according to an analysis by the Wall Street Journal of Donations listed with the Federal Election Commission.
It isn't obvious how the Paw family is able to afford such political largesse.
Records show they own a gift shop.
They own a gift shop and live in a 1,280 square foot house that they recently refinanced.
William Pa, the 64-year-old head of the household, is a mail carrier with the U.S. Postal Service.
Alice Paw, also 64, is a homemaker.
The couple's grown children have jobs ranging from account manager at a software company to attendance liaison at a local public high school.
One is listed on campaign records as an executive at a mutual fund.
The paw, here's what the story gets interesting.
The Paws political donations closely track donations made by Norman Sue, a wealthy New York businessman in the apparel industry, who once listed the PAW home as his address, according to public records.
Mr. Sue is one of the top fundraisers for Mrs. Clinton's presidential campaign.
He has hosted or co-hosted some of her most prominent money raising events.
Now let me interject.
So what we have here is a family of very modest means, living in a neighborhood that could hardly be considered trendy.
It's under the flight path at an airport.
1,280 square foot house.
It is what it is.
It's a small little house that a number of people live in, none of whom appears to be of the kind of wealth that would give several hundred thousand dollars to Democratic political candidates.
But there's apparently a connection between this home and a major Democratic money guy.
I mean, this is Charlie Tree, Johnny Chung, and John Wang all over again.
Or the Buddhist monks who gave all the money to Gore in 2000.
They had taken a vow of poverty, but somehow, out of all of their names came all this money that was given to Al Gore's presidential campaign.
Now we have it happening again.
The story in the Wall Street Journal goes on to quote Howard Wolfson, who is the guy that Hillary's people prod out whenever.
Hillary has something she doesn't want to talk about.
A Clinton campaign spokesman Howard Wolfson said in an email.
Norman Sue is a longtime and generous supporter of the Democratic Party and its candidates, including Senator Clinton.
During Mr. Sioux's many years of active participation in the political process, there has been no question about his integrity or his commitment to playing by the rules, and we have absolutely no reason to call his contributions into question.
I guess that's the old nondenial denial.
Bunch of nice little sentences that don't have anything to do with this.
Kent Cooper, a former disclosure official with the Federal Election Commission, said the two year pattern of donations justifies a probe of possible violations of campaign finance law, which forbid one person from reimbursing another to make contributions.
There are red lights all over this one, Mr. Cooper said.
This is serious stuff.
In my home state of Wisconsin, a guy who was trying to develop a major Native American casino was charged with federal felonies for reimbursing, allegedly reimbursing members of his family for making campaign contributions to the governor of the state.
That was in his own family.
You can't give money to someone else to get around campaign finance laws.
It's a crime.
And if somebody is reimbursing someone who's giving money to a political candidate to get around those legal maximums, that is a crime.
Continuing with the story, there is no public record or indication Mr. Sioux reimbursed the Paw family for their political contributions.
For the 2008 election, individuals can donate a maximum of forty, six hundred dollars per candidate, and a total of one hundred and eight thousand dollars per election to all federal candidates and national political parties.
According to public documents, Mr. Sioux, that's the big money guy, once listed his address as the paw home in Daily City, though it isn't clear if he ever lived there.
He now lives in New York, according to campaign finance records, on which he also lists a half dozen apparel companies as his employer.
In the campaign finance forms, Mr. Sioux lists his companies as next components, Delini Management, Because Men's Clothes, and others.
He is on the board of directors of the new school in New York.
News stories in the mid-1980s said he criticized trade policies that made it harder to import goods from China.
Mr. Sioux is also a major fundraiser for Mrs. Clinton and other Democrats.
When Democrats won control of Congress in November, he threw a party at New York City hotspot Budacon with many prominent party leaders.
Press reports said that toward the end of the night he grabbed the microphone from the DJ and shouted, If you are supporters of Hillary for President 2008, you can stay.
Otherwise, get out.
Mr. Sue has pledged to raise 100,000 or more for Mrs. Clinton, earning the title of Hillraiser along with a few hundred other top financial backers of her campaign.
Earlier this year, he co-hosted a fundraiser that netted one million dollars for Mrs. Clinton at the Beverly Hills, California home of billionaire Ron Burkle.
He is listed as a co-host for another Clinton fundraiser next month in Northern California.
The Paw family, no, that's the family that lives in Daly City.
The Paw family is just one of one set of donors whose political donations are similar to Mr. Sue's.
Several business associates of Mr. Sue in New York have made donations to the same candidates on the same dates for similar amounts as Mr. Sue.
Now follow this.
On four separate dates this year, the Paw family, that's the group out in California, the Paw family, Mr. Sue, and five of his associates gave Mrs. Clinton a total of forty seven thousand five hundred dollars.
It's four separate dates.
You've got some people in California, you've got Sue in New York and Sue's associates in New York, and they all happen to give on the exact same dates in precisely the same amount.
The story continues.
In all, the family, Mr. Sue and his associates, have given Mrs. Clinton $133,000 since 2005, and a total of nearly $720,000 to all Democratic candidates.
The Paw's Daily City home is a one-story house in a working class suburb of San Francisco.
On a recent day, a coiled garden hose rested next to a dilapidated garden with a half dozen dried out plants.
The din of traffic from a nearby freeway was occasionally drowned out by jumbo jets departing San Francisco International Airport.
William and Alice Paw are of Chinese descent.
The entire family got their social security cards in California in 1982, according to state records.
All but one of the paws registered to vote as nonpartisan.
A San Mateo County elections officials said that members of the Paw family vote sporadically.
Now let me interject.
So they don't register to vote as Democrats, and they are only sporadic voters, but we're to believe that starting two years ago, they have become among the biggest donors to Democratic campaigns of anyone in the country, including some of the biggest donors to Hillary Clinton.
Even though they have no real history of being involved in politics at all prior to a couple of years ago, the story continues.
No one in the Paw family had ever given a campaign contribution before the 2004 presidential election, according to campaign finance reports.
Then, in July of 2004, five members of the family contributed a total of thirty six hundred dollars to the presidential campaign of Senator John Carey.
Five of the checks were donated were dated July 27, 2004.
About the same time, Mr. Sue made his first donations to a political candidate, contributing the maximum amount allowed by law to Mr. Carey and two separate checks on July 21st of 2004 and on August 6th.
From then on, the correlation of campaign donations between Mr. Sue and the Paw family has continued.
The first donations to Mrs. Clinton came December 23, 2004, when Mr. Sue and one Paw family member donated the then maximum $4,000 to her Senate campaign in two $2,000 checks, campaign finance records show.
In March of 2005, the individuals gave a total of 17,500 to Mrs. Clinton.
Since then, Mr. Sue, his New York associates, and the Paw family have continued to donate to Democratic candidates.
This year, Alice Paw and four of the Paw children have donated the maximum $4,600 to Mrs. Clinton's presidential campaign.
Does it ever stop?
In the mid-90s, Clinton's China Connection netted tens of thousands, hundreds of thousands of dollars for the Democratic National Committee, and we had all these shadowy figures that you had never heard of or seen before.
John Wong, Charlie Tree, those guys.
Then in 2000, you've got Gore out there raising money from people who apparently don't have a penny to their names, yet supposedly this is money is coming into their coffers.
Which party is the one that's always lecturing us about the need for campaign finance rules?
Yet they're the ones that seem to be caught violating them all the time.
There's something really smelly here.
Here's a family that lives in a tiny house near the airport runway in San Francisco, and they're giving what, two hundred thousand dollars to Democrats, including the maximum to Hillary at the very same time, some guy who once said that was his address and is now a zillionaire out of New York is making the exact same contributions.
This screens out for a federal investigation.
And the best we can get from Hillary is, well, Mr. Sue is a veteran political donor, and there's nothing here that would invite any questions.
Can you imagine if donations were made like this to one of the Republicans running for president?
My name is Mark Belling, and I'm sitting in for Rush Limbaugh.
I'm Mark Belling sitting in for Rush Limbaugh.
You know, if Hillary does happen to win the presidency, we can all just phone in our talk shows for the next eight years.
It's apparently going to be a repeat of what happened the first time around.
What do you know?
We have a number of we have a number of Asian Americans who don't seem to have any money, giving a lot of money to the Democrats.
Where have we heard this one before?
To Manhattan and Clark.
Clark, you're on EIB with Mark Belling.
Yes, uh, I'm reading uh actually I just finished the Clinton crack up at uh the boy president's life after the White House.
Yeah, Bob Terrell's terrore.
Sure, he's very good.
If if if everybody in in the United States, or every Democrat in the United States read this book, they would not vote for Hillary.
He has some kind of relationship when when he goes on these tours, these speaking tours, he has this relationship with this Chinese company and a contact guy that's like a go-between that uh you know gets money for him.
Well, there's been a China connection involving President Clinton from the very beginning, and we have debates in this country about how to deal with the incredible economic power that China is becoming.
I know the allegations, I know.
I know I know the allegations that were made in the books, and we and we also know what happened in the Clinton administration.
The point that I'm making is this.
If a number of influential Chinese Americans or even Chinese want Hillary Clinton to be president, that is their prerogative.
But there are rules here.
We put in all these nitpicky campaign finance rules that say you can't have one individual buying a candidate for president, yet going back to the beginning here, what they've managed to do is bundle all these contributions and send them in, and they apparently aren't even bothering to make it look good.
Let's imagine this Mr. Sue, the guy who's raising all the money for Hillary, wanted wants to look like a big shot by raising a lot of money for Hillary.
Wouldn't you think that he'd concentrate the donations on people of wealth rather than getting them out of six people who live in a small house next to the runway at the San Francisco International Airport?
You'd think so, but there's a braziness about all of this that just keeps coming back again and again and again.
Thank you, Clark.
West Virginia and Steve.
Steve, it's your turn on Russia's program.
Yes, Mark.
Thank you for taking my call, Mega Dudas from West Virginia.
I've been listening to the uh tour you've been talking about in the Wall Street Journal.
The one fatal fall to your argument is the question of when did the law ever apply to the Clintons that applies to everyone else, Republicans, even some Democrats, but never the Clinton.
Thank you.
Uh yeah, thank you for the call.
There is one difference here, and he's right.
Nothing ever seems to stick to the Clintons.
There is one difference here.
First of all, I don't think Hillary is as Teflon as Bill.
But secondly, she's running for the Democratic nomination for President of the United States.
There are a lot of other Democrats who want to win that thing.
Barack Obama, John Edwards, and others.
It's one thing for the so-called vast right wing conspiracy, which I suppose includes the Wall Street Journal, certainly would include me to bring all of this up.
Little Barack Obama brings it up.
You know, they've had a very difficult time criticizing him.
Other Democrats are going to latch on to this, and I'm not sure if there's something here that they're going to be able to wig, she's going to be able to wiggle away from this as they have in the past.
My name is Mark Belling, and I'm in for Rush.
I'm Mark Belling sitting in for Rush Limbaugh.
I'm going to do something that liberals never never do.
I'm going to be fair.
It's possible that if there's something wrong with these donations To Hillary Clinton's campaign that she didn't know anything about it.
Candidates get money all over the place, and they don't always know who the donors are.
It's very much like a college football team.
You have all these alumni out there who want to support the program.
Occasionally, some of them give money to a player.
The coach may not know anything about it.
And it's possible there's no connection here between this money and Hillary.
But those guys always talk about a culture of corruption.
This sort of thing with illegal money being given to Clinton and other Democrats keeps happening again and again and again.
▲
Export Selection