Welcome to today's edition of the Rush 24-7 podcast.
Would you give me a break?
You're surprised that page six type gossip is on the front page of the New York Times.
Where have you been?
How in the world can anybody be surprised at the New York Times?
I cannot believe how everybody's missing this.
I even sent, you know, got the guys from the Politico, Jonathan Martin, so you got any reaction?
I sent him a couple paragraphs, and it's being misinterpreted a bit.
I guess I wasn't clear enough.
Anyway, greetings, folks.
Here we are with another three hours of broadcast excellence at the Limbaugh Institute for Advanced Conservative Studies.
It's great to have you with us.
The telephone number is 800-282-2882.
The email address is ilrushbow at EIBNet.com.
What have I always said that today is proven beyond a shadow of a doubt?
It is this.
If you let the media make you, you are subjecting yourself to the media being able to destroy you.
Senator McCain, the important thing about what has happened here in the New York Times, the only important thing to me, I don't care what's in this story.
The story is not the story.
The story is that this paper endorsed McCain, sat on this story, and now puts it out just prior to McCain wrapping up the nomination.
And McCain says he's disappointed.
Why?
Why is anybody disappointed or surprised by this?
They are who they are.
A snake is a snake.
A tiger is a tiger.
The New York Times is the New York Times.
Folks, if you expect me to be angry about the story and angry at the New York Times, you have tuned to the wrong radio show.
I refuse to get mad when something I have predicted is going to happen happens.
I refuse to get mad when something I know is true is true.
It's a total waste of energy.
The important question for John McCain today is, is he going to learn the right lesson from this?
And what is the lesson?
The lesson is liberals are to be defeated.
You cannot walk across the aisle with them.
You cannot reach across the aisle.
You cannot welcome their media members on your bus and get all cozy with them and expect eternal love from them.
You are a Republican.
Whether you're a conservative Republican or not, you are a Republican.
And at some point, the people you cozy up to, either to do legislation or to get cozy media stories, are going to turn on you.
They are snakes.
And if the right lesson is not learned from this, then it will have proved to be of no value.
There's a great opportunity here for Senator McCain to learn the right lesson, understand who his friends are and who his enemies are.
And he's had that backwards for way too long.
He has thought the New York Times is his friend.
He has thought Chris Matthews and these other people in the drive-by media are his friends.
They aren't.
That's the lesson today.
And if you want to get mad, you know, Senator McCain says that he's disappointed here in the New York Times.
Of course.
I'm sure he's disappointed.
The question is, is he surprised?
If he's not surprised, positive.
If he's surprised by this, then we got a problem, Houston, because he doesn't understand who he's dealing with.
You know, Senator McCain has disappointed me a lot of times, accusing our intelligence officers of engaging in torture, calling people who opposed his amnesty bill nativists, supporting others who called us racists and so forth, people who opposed campaign finance reform as people unwilling to clean up corruption and so forth.
I just, you look at this and you see it for exactly what it is.
Now, here's an interesting aspect here.
You talk about the details of the story and how thinly sourced and all that.
Yeah, yada, yada.
It's the drive-by media for crying out loud.
It's the New York Times reporting about a Republican.
You know damn well a story like this wouldn't run about Hillary or Obama.
Even Bill Clinton, a story like this wouldn't run.
If it did, it would be fawning.
Oh, there's old Randy Bill out there still showing he got some lead in the pencil here after the heart surgery.
Oh, yeah.
You know, I don't understand why it's so hard for the people on the Republican Party side to understand who the enemy is and who they're dealing with.
And this is another clear-cut illustration.
But even now they're tiptoeing around.
Don't want to make them too mad because Senator McCain denied everything.
He had a press conference today, denied everything.
It better be right.
You got to ask yourself this about the New York Times.
They put this story out as a singular story as their follow-up.
You got to figure they knew what was going to happen.
You have to figure that they were aware of the firestorm that this would create.
Do they have any more?
Is there any more to the story?
Other people going to now start working it?
Will they find anything?
Will Senator McCain's denials be brought back into question?
Let's listen to Senator McCain this morning.
He's in Toledo, Ohio, with his wife Cindy.
And at a press conference, we have a couple sound bites.
I'm very disappointed in the article, and it's not true.
As has been pointed out, I've served this nation honorably for more than a half a century.
When I was 17, I raised my hand and supported, said I would support and defend this nation, and I've had the honor of serving it ever since.
At no time have I ever done anything that would betray the public trust nor make a decision which in any way would not be in the public interest and would favor anyone or any organization.
All right, so Senator McCain there says he's very, very disappointed in the New York Times.
Let's not forget that during immigration battles, illegal immigration battles, this whole Abu Ghraib situation and the ability to make our intelligence officers at Guantanamo Bay out to be torturers and so forth and the call to cut down or close down Guantanamo Bay, where'd all that stuff come from?
The New York Times.
Day in and day out.
You know how many front-page stories there were on Abu Ghraib?
And guess who was right there agreeing with everything they said?
The New York Times favored Republican, John McCain.
I'm sure he's disappointed.
Question, is he going to learn the right lesson from this?
That's a great opportunity.
If he can learn the right lesson from this and understand who his friends really are, then there may be a positive out of this.
Now, look, folks, I understand.
I've read my email today, and I had conversations with people last night when the story first came out.
In fact, the theory last night, most people's prediction last night was that this was going to finally rally conservatives to McCain.
McCain couldn't do it himself, but that the New York Times could and the drive-by media.
And I got some emails.
That's it, Rush.
I hadn't planned on voting for McCain, but I'm going to send him some money now.
I'm not going to sit here and let the New York Times destroy my candidate.
Well, you let the New York Times pick your candidate.
The media picked the Republican Party candidate this year, folks, whether you want to believe it or not.
They did.
Republicans didn't.
And so you see what happens.
I mean, can we play audio soundbite number?
I'm going to go back to the archives of this program.
January 25th, 2008.
This is what I said.
This is my prediction.
But you have to know now that when you get down to November, the New York Times has a choice.
Let's say it is McCain.
Let's say McCain gets a nomination.
And, of course, Hillary gets a nomination for the Democrats.
And the New York Times are going to write an editorial endorsing who.
You've got to get out of this mode here that our acceptance or our arrival or the fact that we're making progress can be tracked by whether or not Democrats like some of us.
Screw that.
Because when it comes to the meat cracking time down there in November at Election Day, they're not going to vote for any of us or our guys.
So who cares what they say about them ever?
The more they praise him, the more suspicious you got to get.
Because they do not want our side to win.
I don't care.
There is not one of them from Matthews to you.
I don't care who it is in the drive, but there's not one of them that wants McCain to become president.
He's just, if it happens, and if an accident happens and some, by hook or by crook, Hillary would lose, McCain would be acceptable, but they wouldn't be afraid of him.
But the last thing they want is for him to actually win any of our people.
Yeah, and of course, we have the New York Times story last night and on the paper this morning that clearly illustrates this.
Here's one more bite from Senator McCain.
I'm proud of my record of service to this country.
I'm proud of my service as chairman of the Commerce Committee, which has oversight of literally hundreds of issues, the largest committee in the United States Senate as in terms of jurisdiction.
And I will continue to serve, and I will focus my attention in this campaign on the big issues, on the challenges that face this country.
And I think that's what the American people are very interested in hearing about.
Again, I'm very disappointed in the New York Times piece.
It's not true.
In the previous soundbite from Senator McCain that we just played, another section of his press conference this morning in Toledo, Ohio, he again reminded us that he has served the nation honorably for more than a half century.
When he was 17, he raised his hand and supported and to defend and protect the nation, had the honor of serving the country ever since.
What?
Military service is supposed to inoculate you from criticism?
Ask General Petraeus about that.
When are we going to learn our lessons?
No, no.
When are some in our party going to learn the lessons that you and I have known for years and years and years and years?
David Brooks, Bill Kristol, write for the New York Times.
Their newspaper has attempted today to take out their boy.
What are they going to do?
Here's Cindy McCain.
She spoke also.
Well, obviously, I'm very disappointed in the New York Times.
And more importantly, my children and I not only trust my husband, but know that he would never do anything to not only disappoint our family, but disappoint the people of America.
He's a man of great character.
And I'm very, very disappointed in the New York Times.
Well, it seems to be the slug line.
I'm very disappointed in the New York Times, and I just, why?
Where are the honest, understood expectations here?
The story is not the story.
The story is the drive-by media turning on its favorite Maverick, trying to take him out.
The media picked the Republican candidate.
The New York Times endorsed that candidate while they sat on this story.
And now with utter predictability, they are trying to destroy him.
This is what you get when you walk across the aisle and try to make these people your friends.
Why should any of us be surprised or even angry at what the New York Times is doing here trying to take out John McCain?
Those of you who listen regularly should have been expecting this all along because it's utterly predictable.
It's as predictable as the sun rising in the morning.
It's as predictable as Ted Kennedy finding a bar at happy hour.
The views expressed by the host on this program documented to be almost always right, 98.8% of the time.
Looks like Senator McCain is trying to move right a little bit.
Republican presidential candidate John McCain said that President Bush should veto a measure that would bar the CIA from using waterboarding and other harsh interrogation methods on terror suspects.
Now, does that surprise you people?
Senator McCain's been railing against waterboarding and torture for quite a while.
Now, all of a sudden, he says President Bush should veto a bill that would bar the CIA from using waterboarding.
He voted against the bill, which would restrict the CIA to using only the 19 interrogation techniques listed in the Army Field Manual.
His vote was controversial because the manual prohibits waterboarding, a simulated drowning technique, you know what it is, that McCain doesn't want the CIA bound by the manual and its prohibitions.
He said, I knew I'd be criticized for it.
I think I can show my record is clear.
I said there should be additional techniques allowed to other agencies of government as long as they were not torture.
I was on the record as saying that they could use additional techniques as long as they were not cruel, inhumane, and degrading treatment.
So the vote was in keeping with my clear record of saying they could have additional techniques, but those techniques could not violate international rules against torture.
So I mean, we do detect signs here, ladies and gentlemen, that the senator is moving right.
In addition, the government's top campaign finance regulator says that Senator McCain cannot drop out of the primary election public financing system until he answers questions about a loan he obtained to kickstart his once faltering presidential campaign.
David Mason, the chairman of the FEC, in a letter to McCain this week, said that McCain needs to assure the Commission that he didn't use the promise of public money to help secure a $4 million line of credit that he obtained in November.
Needs to assure the FEC that he did not use the promise of public money to help secure a $4 million line of credit.
McCain's lawyer said Wednesday night that McCain has withdrawn from the system.
The FEC can't stop him.
The lawyer said that campaign did not encumber the public funds in any way.
Now, we all know that Senator McCain is a longtime advocate of stricter limits on money in politics that led to more money in politics.
Gave us the 527 organizations.
We also know that Senator McCain was one of the few leading presidential candidates to seek federal election commission certification for public money during the primaries.
The FEC determined that he was entitled to at least $5.8 million, but McCain did not obtain the money, and he notified the FEC earlier this month that he would bypass the system, freeing him from its spending limits.
But just as he was beginning to turn his attention to a likely Democrat opponent, Mason of the FEC, Republican appointee, essentially said, not so fast.
By accepting the public money, McCain would be limited to spending about $54 million for the primaries, a ceiling his campaign is already near.
That would significantly hinder his ability to finance his campaign between now and the Republican National Convention in September.
In his letter to McCain, Mason of the FEC said the commission would allow a candidate to withdraw from the public finance system as long as he had not received any public funds and had not pledged the certification of such funds as security for private financing.
And that's what this thing is all about, this little snag here regarding public money and whether or not McCain has promised or used the assurance that that's coming in order to get a $4 million line of credit.
38 Duke lacrosse players are going to file suit.
Duke University, the city of Durham, about to get hit with another Duke La Crosse case lawsuit.
Thursday afternoon, 38 players this afternoon, 38 players and their parents are going to hold a news conference at the National Press Club in Washington to announce the filing of a lawsuit against Duke and a number of other entities and individuals.
Charles Cooper, an appellate attorney and litigator, will discuss the suit at the press conference.
The exonerated players are going to allege that Mike Nyfuong, the DNA laboratory hired by Nyfuong and others associated with the case, conspired to falsely charge the former Duke students with rape.
The charges stem from a team party in March 2006, as you remember.
It was unclear today what allegations the 38 players would bring against the city and Duke.
The lawyers plan to wait until this afternoon to reveal the details of the case.
Go for it.
I mean, get everything this school has got.
I am not kidding.
Get as much out of this university as you can possibly get, you guys.
The utter travesty that happened to these players and their families.
You know, Nyphuong has filed fighting for bankruptcy, and that's it may be bankrupt, but it's also to protect him from or to insulate him from being liable in circumstances like this.
All right, well, I'm going to take a break here coming up.
I know that a lot of you want to weigh in on the McCain situation and the New York Times story.
I'll be fascinated to hear what you have to say about it now that you have heard what I have had to say about it.
And if you missed what I had to say about it, or if for some reason you didn't quite understand what I was saying or what my point was, just ask.
I, ladies and gentlemen, a professional broadcast specialist and communicator, will be happy to make it clear.
Ha, welcome back, Rush Limbaugh from the subterranean depths of the EIV Southern Command.
This is Blendia Belinda.
Belinda in Alexandria, Virginia.
Welcome to the program, my dear.
Nice to have you here.
Well, thank you very much, Rush.
I just called to say that any number of candidates could save some money by listening to your show and use you as a campaign manager.
I mean, this is why we love to listen to you.
This is why your audience is so big.
You told us exactly word for word that after McCain was shoved down our conservative throat, that they'd begin to tear him apart.
Yes, utterly predictable, which makes this whole thing disappointing.
It's, I don't know.
Saw this story last night, reading the details of the story.
It did hit me real soon.
The story is not the story.
No.
The story is the media picked our candidate for the express purpose of doing just this.
Exactly.
And we try to warn him.
Yes, you did.
So, well, it is what it is.
By the way, I want to read you because I'm getting all kinds of emails.
This is an email from a, I want to see what you think of this, Belinda.
Email, this is from Jackie Alberts' subscriber, Rush 24-7.
Stop with your ego BS on McCain.
Policy, yeah, but this isn't policy.
Maybe now we're wondering if we all heard the whole thing about your drug use.
You, of all people, need to shut the F up.
I'm a 24-7 member, and I'm sick of this.
It is time for you to get a grip and stop with the self-aggrandizing.
Enough.
I'm ready to check out on your rush after listening to you since 1988.
What in the world is this person talking about?
Well, that's the kind of attitude you get when you're right.
When you're right, Rush, you're right.
And you're right, 99-point.
I don't know how the percent is.
98-point, almost always, 98-point.
Almost always, almost always.
You tell us how it's going to be, and whether we listen or we don't listen, which a lot of people aren't listening, I think this is going to increase your audience because I'm going to tell everybody I know.
Rush, this is exactly the reaction you get when you're correct.
They can't stand it, so they're going to, you know.
Yeah, I understand that, but I don't even know what have I done at self-aggrandizing today.
Nothing.
Maybe the self-aggrandizing is, hey, folks, I told you.
Yes, and you should say, I told you so.
You really should.
Hoorah!
Right again.
Belinda, thanks for the call.
I appreciate it.
I'm glad you got through.
This is Heidi in Lake Ariel, Pennsylvania.
You're next on the EIB network.
Hello.
Hi, Ditto's Rush.
Thank you.
I was not excited about McCain.
But now that the left is attacking him, I want to defend him.
I'm getting back on his teeth.
Yeah, a lot of people are having this reaction, so much so that some people are thinking the New York Times did this on purpose to rally conservatives to McCain.
I have to laugh at that, but I've gotten some emails to that effect.
So basically what you're saying is, you know, we can attack McCain all we want, family.
But what those guys do, all right, we're going to circle the wagons, and we're going to not let them get away with this.
Exactly.
Well, that's fine.
You do what you want to do, and you follow your gut and follow your instincts.
And as I say, the person that really needs to learn a lesson here is Senator McCain.
Right.
Would you agree with that?
Absolutely.
I think I am not a fan of Huckabee either, but the fact that he's making McCain work for the votes, which is fine with me.
Yeah.
Huckabee is a whole different matter out there.
We could discuss him at some point.
Well, I'm no fan of him.
But the fact that he's not being coronated as the nominee, and then he has to go to the bottom of the city.
Yeah, but there's an argument.
We just did the story about his financial troubles here with the Federal Election Commission.
It's the argument that says, come on, Huck, get out of this.
I mean, you don't have a prayer.
You don't have a miracle.
Let's get out of this.
So McCain doesn't spend so damn much money.
Well, I agree with that, too.
Actually, I would prefer Huckabee to get out.
But the fact that there is the upside where McCain has to get out of the way.
Well, let me just, after this New York Times story today, I guarantee you Huckabee's not going to get out.
Because if you watch the, did you watch any drive-bys this morning discussing all this, having their orgasms over this story?
I was listening to Fox.
Well, okay, well, I'm going back and forth to a bunch of, well, PMS NBC and Fox CNN.
And they're all, you've got all opinions.
That story is baseless.
I can't believe it showed up the front page of the New York Times.
Page six is now on the front page of New York.
I can't believe it at all.
Then you've got people saying, yeah, but it's a story.
It's still a story.
And what's the fallout going to be?
And is there more to this?
Nobody expects this to be over by the end of the day.
They expect there are going to be shoes to drop.
Look at, we've got a deathmatch set up here.
You've got the Times and their story, and you've got an utter denial by Senator McCain of everything in it.
Now, that's, you know, that has.
What does that remind you of?
Mr. El Snerdbow.
Well, Gary Hart, 1984, talked about it yesterday, Bimini Island.
The difference here is, is that the Times has not alleged that there was actual sexual affairs.
In fact, if you read the whole story, the Times didn't care about sex.
The Times is outraged.
He was so close to a lobbyist.
It looks a lot like his wife.
Did you notice that?
It does.
She looks a lot like his wife.
And anyway, so you've got a deathmatch here.
You've got an utter denial of everything.
If the Times does have more, who knows if they've got more against Senator McCain's utter, total, complete, thorough denial, then Mr. Huckabee's going to be saying, I told you I majored in miracles and not math.
I'm just saying that's why he, with this story out there today, Huckabee's not going to get out.
He is not going to, I just guarantee you that.
Heidi, thanks much.
Jerry in Lexington, Kentucky.
Welcome to the EIB Network, sir.
Hello.
Hello, and thank you for taking my call.
Yes, sir.
I'm a listener since 1992, and this is the first time I've got through.
I'm thanking you very much and delighted to have the chance.
I've been out since 7.30 this morning in meetings.
I have no idea what the New York Times story is.
Well, it doesn't really matter, but it doesn't.
The story is not the story basically is unsourced, a bunch of unnamed, it's a source, but unnamed sources.
It's eight years old.
It is people who have said to be close to the McCain campaign, close to the staff of the Commerce Committee.
And here's how it starts.
Early in Senator McCain's first run for the White House eight years ago, waves of anxiety swept through his small circle of advisors.
A female lobbyist had been turning up with him at fundraisers, visiting his orifices, and accompanying him on a client's corporate jet.
Convinced the relationship had become romantic, some of his top advisors intervened to protect the candidate from himself, instructing staff members to block the woman's access, privately warning her away, and repeatedly confronting him, several people involved in the campaign said, on the condition of anonymity.
When news organizations reported that Mr. McCain had written letters to government regulators on behalf of the lobbyist's client, the former campaign associate said some aides feared for a time that attention would fall on her involvement.
Mr. McCain, 71, the lobbyist Vicki Eisman, 40, both say they never had a romantic relationship.
But to his advisors, even the appearance of a close bond with a lobbyist whose clients often had bidness before the Senate committee he chaired threatened the story of redemption and rectitude that defined his political identity.
And it goes on from there.
I mean, there's no substance to it.
There's no proof.
There are no pictures.
It's just some people saying, yeah, McKay, we had to get this babe away from McCain.
She's up in the office all the time.
She's hanging around.
She's too close.
She's a lobbyist, threatening McCain's ethics reputation, so forth and so on.
But there is nothing in it here that you can say is true.
It actually is a very, very weak story, but that's not – okay, you want to react to it, and I'll tell you what's important about this.
Well, it sounds like typical National Enquirer stuff that the New York Times seems to have become a clone.
But no, I've not been a McCain supporter.
There are always these rumors of some dark secret in the dim past.
We don't know what they are.
But I want to thank you for telling me what this one is.
I want to thank you, too, for all the leadership and the inspiration that you have given to conservatives in this country and probably many abroad during all the years you've been on the radio.
I have great admiration for you, and I think you're a very honorable and forthright man.
Jerry, thanks very much.
Okay.
I truly do appreciate that.
As I said earlier, the story's not the story.
The story, very simply, ladies and gentlemen, is that this is the paper that picked our candidate along with others in the drive-by.
They endorsed McCain.
They sat on this very story.
I think if they'd run this story before the New Hampshire primary, McCain would be our nominee.
Not New Hampshire, Senator.
Not New Hampshire.
Moderates and independents voted New Hampshire.
Look, it's argued.
We'll never know.
It is arguable.
But fact is they waited after sitting on the story after endorsing him.
We know full well the New York Times, after endorsing him, was never going to endorse him in the general, was never going to urge support for him in the general.
The idea that the New York Times would turn on the Republican candidate that it chose should not surprise anybody.
Well, start with you bringing up this New Republic.
See, here's all kinds of little high school things going on here.
The New Republic has been working on a story, trying to find out why the Times did not run the story back in December when it was first alluded to.
I mean, Drudge first heard about this story back in December, and that it was going to run in the Times.
He put it on his front page, and it said that McCain was trying to kill it and had hired Uncle Bob, Uncle Bob Bennett, to go out there to help him try to kill it.
Uncle Bob, a well-known defense and scandal lawyer, the people wondering, why go hire Uncle Bob for this?
So the New Republic was working on, and by the way, the reporters of the story were said to be seething that the Times wouldn't run it back then.
Jim Rutenberg, who, by the way, should say Rutenberg used to be one of their media radio writers.
And I always, I had no trouble with Rutenberg in my dealings with him.
I was never misquoted or taken out of context with Rutenberg, but they promoted him from media to this kind of story.
And there are four reporters on the story, and they're all just bent out of shape.
Supposedly last December that the Times had decided not to run it.
McCain also said today that he never asked the Times not to run it back in December.
But the New Republic is doing a story on why the Times killed it.
And so these journalists acting like high school are running around.
Is that why the Times came out with it today?
Because they were nervous about the New Republic and what they might...
Folks, think of the New York Times as Exxon and the New Republic as the two-pump gas station at a little quick shop in Enid, Oklahoma.
And ask yourself if Exxon would be concerned about the two-pump gas station in Enid, Oklahoma.
That's not why the Times runs stories.
It's right in front of us, folks.
Do not start making up all these possibilities and ancillaries that have no basis in fact whatsoever.
They ran the story now for a reason, and it certainly wasn't because they were afraid of what the new republic, which has a smidgen little circulation, could possibly do to hurt them or spare them or whatever.
If you want to go out and look for really fun, interesting conspiratorial reasons to explain why the New York Times ran its story today, try this.
Some people might think that the Times ran this story because McCain is conservative.
Put a different light on it.
Put a different tint.
How about saying the New York Times went with the story today because McCain's not liberal enough?
What has McCain been doing for the last three weeks ever since the Florida primary?
He has been trying to rally the Republican base.
He has been trying to cement his conservative Reagan conservative credentials.
The New York Times thought they had endorsed a moderate Republican Maverick.
And all of a sudden, McCain might, in their eyes, be poking them in the eye by screwing them and fooling them into making them think that he was some almost liberal, moderate Republican who's going to advance the liberal agenda.
And all of a sudden, now he's out there and he's kowtowing to the conservative base that the New York Times despises.
And so the New York Times says, wait, Senator, we endorsed you.
If you go this direction, there's more of this.
I mean, there's any number of things at play here, but when you strip it all away, what do you have?
You have the drive-by media trying to destroy a Republican.
And I ask you, what is the news?
What is the surprise?
When are we going to learn?
Not again.
When are so many in our own party going to learn that you do not advance your own party by walking across the aisle, making deals, and cozying up to these people?
It just doesn't happen.
It never has, and it never will.
All we're going to do is dilute and water down what we stand for and who we are in that process.
Tim in San Diego, you're next on the EIB network, sir.
Hello.
Hi, Rush.
You know, your theory just now about the New York Times almost being like his handlers telling him what to do reminds me of the movie The Manchurian Candidate.
Oh, yeah.
Where, you know, he was in captivity and he's programmed to do the bidding of his captors.
Well, to me, he's almost like Senator McCurion because he is programmed to walk across the aisle.
And when he gets into the White House, that's exactly what he wants to do.
But speaking of movies, I don't know if you ever saw the movie The Interpreter with Sean Penn and Nicole Kidman.
Yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah.
I did see that.
There is a line in that movie where Sean Penn is the FBI agent who is interrogating Nicole Kidman.
And he asks her what she thinks of a certain tyrant.
And she says, well, I was disappointed.
And that, when I heard John McCain say he was disappointed, it reminded me of Sean Penn saying, those are lovers' words.
Because it's almost as if with McCain, he had sort of a love relationship with the New York Times, and now they've hurt him.
They have wounded him somehow.
That's what you say when a family member or somebody that you love screws up, not when a liberal newspaper prints libel against you.
That's an excellent point.
John McCain today ought to feel like poking the New York Times in the eye or slugging them or what have you.
And, you know, rather than having his cadre of supporters like Larry Eagleberger continue to run around and attack conservatives in a far more strident way than they will ever attack the New York Times.
You're right on the money.
Now, you remember a minute ago you said it's a weak story, but it's an even weaker denial.
I mean, think about Bill Clinton.
You remember how he wagged his mother's daughter?
I did not have sex with that woman.
Not the second time ever.
Exactly.
He acted appalled by the allegations, and they were true.
He said, now, I want you to listen to me.
Well, I got to run here, but we're talking about, you know, pathological problems there in Clinton's case.
I don't think that's true of McCain.
Thanks for the call.
Our last caller, Tim and San Diego, made a brilliant point.