All Episodes
Previous Next
Feb. 21, 2008 - Rush Limbaugh Program
36:32
February 21, 2008, Thursday, Hour #1
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
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 uh, 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 El Rushball 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 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.
If if if uh 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 episode?
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 gonna turn on you.
They are snakes.
And if the right lesson is not learned from this, uh then it will have proved to be of no value.
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.
Uh and if you want to get mad, you know, Senator McCain says that uh uh he's disappointed here uh 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.
Uh people who opposed campaign finance reform as people unwilling to clean up corruption and so forth.
Uh I I just you 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 yep.
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 wouldn't be 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 a pencil here after the heart surgery.
Oh yeah.
It's a, you know, I don't understand why it's so hard for the people on a 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 tiptoing around, don't want to make them too mad because Senator McCain denied everything.
He had a press conference today, denied everything.
Uh that better be right.
You gotta ask yourself this about the New York Times.
They put this story out as as a singular story, or is there follow-up?
You gotta figure they knew what was going to happen.
You have to figure that they were aware of the fire storm that this would create.
Do they have any more?
Is there any more to the story?
Other people gonna now start working it, will they find anything?
Will Senator McCain's denials uh 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.
Uh, 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 uh New York Times.
Let's not forget that during immigration battles, illegal immigration battles, uh uh this whole Abu Ghrab situation and the uh 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 Ghab?
And guess who was right there?
Agreeing with everything they said.
The New York Times favorite Republican John McCain.
I'm I'm sure he's disappointed.
Question is he gonna 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 I look, folks, I understand.
I've I've I've read my email today, and I've I had uh conversations with people last night uh when the story first came out.
Uh and the in fact, the theory last night, most most people's prediction last night what this was gonna finally rally conservatives to McCain.
The McCain couldn't do it himself, but that the New York Times could, and the uh 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 gonna send him some money now.
I'm I'm not gonna 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 can we play audio soundbite number one?
I'm gonna 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 this, McCain.
Let's say McCain gets a nomination.
And of course, Hillary gets a nomination for the Democrats.
And the New York Times is going to write an editorial endorsing who.
You gotta 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 gonna vote for any of us.
Or our guys.
So who cares what they say about them ever?
The more they praise them, the more suspicious you gotta get.
Because they do not want our side to win.
I don't care.
There is not one of them from Matthews.
you, I don't care who it is in the drive, but 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 a 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 uh 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 uh I think that's what the American people are very interested in hearing about.
Again, I'm very disappointed in the New York Times uh piece.
It's not true.
In the previous soundbite from Senator McCain that we just played, another section of his uh press conference this morning in Toledo, Ohio, he again reminded us that he has served the nation honorably for more than a half century.
Uh when he was 17, he raised his hand to supported uh and to defend and protect the nation, had the honor of serving the country ever since.
What?
Uh military spur uh service is supposed to uh uh 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 Crystal, 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, uh, my children and I not only trust my husband, but know that he would never do anything to not only disappoint our family, uh, but more but disappoint the people of America.
Uh he's a he's a a man of great character, and and I'm very, very disappointed in the New York Times.
Well, it seems to be the um 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 would 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 terrorist suspects.
Now 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 should veto a bill that would bar the CIA from using waterboarding.
He voted against the bill, uh 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 CAF bound by the manual and its prohibitions.
He said I knew I'd be criticized for it.
I 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 uh 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 uh kickstart his once faltering presidential campaign,
David Mason, the chairman of the FEC in a letter to McCain this week, said that uh McCain needs to assure the Commission that he didn't use the promise of public money to help secure a four million dollar 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 four million dollar line of credit.
McCain's lawyer said Wednesday night that McCain is withdrawn from the system.
The FEC can't stop him.
Uh lawyer said that uh 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 uh 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 dollars, 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 sealing 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 that's what this thing is all about.
This little snag here regarding public money and whether or not McCain is promised or used the assurance that that's coming in order to get a four million dollar 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 lacrosse case lawsuit Thursday afternoon.
Thirty-eight players this afternoon, thirty-eight players and their parents are gonna 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 and appellate attorney and litigator will discuss the suit at the press conference.
The exonerated players are going to allege that uh Mike Nyphong, the DNA laboratory hired by NIF 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.
Was unclear today what allegations the 38 players would bring against the city and Duke.
The lawyers plan to wait till 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, my Naifong is filed uh fighting for bankruptcy, and that's it may be bankrupt, but it's also to protect him from or to insulate him from being uh liable in circumstances uh like this.
All right, well, we I'm gonna get take a break here coming up.
I know that a lot of you want to weigh in on the uh 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 uh Blendia.
Belinda, Belinda in uh in Alexandria, Virginia.
Welcome to the program, my dear.
Nice to have you here.
Well, thank you very much, Rush.
Uh I just called to say that uh any number of candidates could save some money by listening to your show uh 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 uh shoved down our conservative throat that they'd begin to tear him apart.
Yes.
Utterly predictable, which what's it it makes this whole thing disappointing.
It's I don't know.
It just saw this story last night, uh reading the details of the story it hit me real soon.
The story is not the story.
No.
The story is uh 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, and I but by the way, I want to read you uh because I'm getting all kinds of email.
I'm getting this is this is an email from a uh I want to see what you think of this, uh Belinda.
Uh email this is from uh from Jackie Albers' subscriber, Rush 247.
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-agan 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, uh 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 what it the percent is.
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, uh, I think this is going to increase your audience because I'm gonna tell everybody I know.
But that's exact Rush.
This is exactly the reaction you get when you 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 what have I done at self-aggrandizing today.
Nothing.
You know, maybe maybe the self-aggrandizing is hey, folks, I told you.
You d yes, and you should say, I told you so.
You you you really should.
Hoorah!
Right again.
Uh 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, Diddles 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 team.
Yeah, I uh 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 uh to that effect.
So so basically what you're saying is, you know, uh we can attack McCain all we want, family.
But what those guys do, all right.
We're gonna we're gonna circle the wagons, and we're gonna let not gonna let them get away with this.
Exactly.
Well, that's fine.
You do what you want to do and and and you follow your gut and follow your instincts, and as I say, uh the person that really needs to learn a lesson here is Senator McCain.
Right.
Would you agree with that?
Absolutely.
I think I I am not a fan of uh Huckabee either, but the fact that he's making he's making McCain work for the votes, which is fine with me.
Um the Huckabee's a whole different matter out there.
Uh uh discuss him at some point.
Well, I'm no fan of him.
But the fact that we're just he's not being coronated as the as the nominee, and then he has to be able to do that.
But there's a there's an argument we just did the story about his uh financial troubles here uh with the Federal Election Commission.
It it it is 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, uh, just get out of this.
So McCain doesn't spend so damn much money.
Well, uh, I I agree with that too.
I I would actually I would prefer Huckabee to get out.
But the fact that there is the upside where McCain has to be.
Well, let me just after this New York Times story today, McIarnee you Huckabee's not going to get out.
Uh huh.
Because if you watch, if you watch the Did you watch any drive by's this morning discussing all this, having their orgasms over this story?
I was listening to Fox.
Well, I d okay.
Well, I was going back and forth to about well, PMSNBC and uh Fox CNN.
Uh, and and they're all you you got all opinions.
Uh, that story is baseless.
I can't believe it showed up the front page New York Times.
Page six is now on the front page of New York.
Can't believe it.
Then you 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?
Um nobody expects this to be over by the end of the day.
They expect there going to be shoes to drop.
Look at four.
We we've got a death match 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. L. 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 affair.
In fact, if you read the whole story, the Times didn't care about sex.
Uh the Times is outraged.
He was so close to a lobbyist.
Uh it looks a lot like his wife.
Did you notice that?
It does.
She looks a lot like his wife.
And uh anyway, the the the uh you get 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 gonna be saying, I told you I majored in miracles and not math.
No, I'm just saying that's why he with this story out there today, Huckabee's not gonna get out.
He is not gonna I just guarantee you that.
Uh 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.
Um 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 I'll uh it it doesn't.
The story's not the story basically is uh unsourced, a bunch of unnamed oh it's a source, but unnamed sources.
Um it's eight years old.
It is people uh who have uh 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.
Uh 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 Vicky 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.
Uh she's up in the office all the time, as is hanging around, she's too close.
She's a lobbyist, uh, threatening McCain's ethics reputation, so forth and so on.
But there there is nothing in it here that you can say is true.
It actually is a very, very weak story, but that's not uh uh you want to react to it, and I'll tell you what's important about this.
Well, it sounds like typical national inquirer stuff that the New York Times uh seems to have become uh uh a clone.
But uh 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 for telling me what what this one is.
I want to thank you too for all the leadership and the the inspiration that you have given to conservatives uh in this country and probably many abroad uh during all the years you've been on the radio.
Uh I have great admiration for you, and I think you're a very honorable and and forthright man.
Jerry, thanks very much.
Okay.
I truly do appreciate that.
As I, 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.
Think if they'd run this story before the New Hampshire primary, McCain would be our nominee.
Oh Uh uh not New Hampshire, Senator.
Not New Hampshire.
Not New Hampshire.
Moderates and independents voted New Hampshire.
But look, it it's it's argu it uh we'll never know.
It is 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.
Uh the idea that the New York Times would turn on the Republican candidate that it chose, should not surprise anybody.
Well, uh startling you're bringing up this new Republic.
See, here's here's 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.
Uh, Uncle Bob, a well-known defense and scandal lawyer.
The people wonder 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 uh 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 uh promoted him uh from media to this kind of story.
And there are four reporters on the story, and they were 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 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 bump 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 a conservative.
Put a different uh 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 s to uh to uh 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 vibe 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 you what 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 McCurian 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.
And there is a line in that movie where Sean Penn is the FBI agent who is in uh 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 remind me of Sean Penn saying, those are lovers' words.
Because it's almost as if uh 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.
And he or or slugging them or what have you, uh uh and 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.
Um you're 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.
not a single 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 gotta run here, but we're we're talking about, you know, uh uh pathological problems there on Clinton's case.
I don't think that's true of McCain.
Thanks for the call.
Our last caller, Tim in San Diego, made a brilliant point.
Say you're disappointed in something or somebody.
Those are lovers' terms.
Family terms.
▲
Export Selection