All Episodes
Previous Next
Oct. 26, 2009 - Rush Limbaugh Program
35:28
October 26, 2009, Monday, Hour #3
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Very kind, very kind, thank you.
And all of you are very kind to tolerate me here during a fill-in day.
All yearning for the return of Rush, and I have good news.
That will be tomorrow.
But I'm always grateful when we get to hang out together and always grateful when the little email bleep goes, boop, can you fill in for Rush on this day or that day?
Because that's always, always an honor.
All right, if you're just joining the program, we've talked a lot about New York District 23, about the New Jersey gubernatorial race, and the interesting phenomenon of the insufficiently conservative Republican challenged from the right by the candidate who comes in and attracts two things.
Number one is praise and passion.
Hey, here's a real conservative.
Love that.
And the second thing that candidate is going to attract is derision, frustration, slings and arrows.
Hey, if you weren't running, we could get a Republican.
Aren't you going to split the Republican vote and give Democrats the seat, whether it's returning John Corzine to Trenton or whether it is handing the New York 23 seat from a Republican, the outgoing John McHugh, to a Democrat, Bill Owens.
And one of the storylines of the moment at this time in American history is that where the Tea Party and town hall passions, if you want to call them that, seem geared toward recapturing every seat we can.
And there was a time when one could look at this.
You know, an alien lands from space a few months ago and says, whoa, what are these people trying to do?
Well, it seems that they're trying to win back Republican seats any way they can in order to do battle against Nancy Pelosi.
Well, that alien would be wrong.
A little myopic there.
Because what seems to be happening is that the occasional congressional seat, maybe even the occasional governor's mansion, is something that many are willing to sacrifice in order to deliver a message.
A message that says that as Republicans, we want a return to consistent, unapologetic conservatism.
And if you continue to offer us a watered-down version of it, we will send those prospects packing.
And I suppose I'm here asking, how's that going to work out for everybody?
You on board for that?
Because I'll tell you, I will believe that Doug Hoffman can win when I see it.
I hope I see it.
I believe that the split vote between Didi Scozafava and Doug Hoffman may well hand that seat to Democrat Bill Owens.
Now, I don't go running off looking for sharp objects at that prospect for a couple of reasons.
It's one seat out of 435, but maybe Republicans come back in the elections of 2010, which will be here before you know it.
And then maybe Doug Hoffman can be the Republican nominee.
If Bill Owens wins, then maybe we get him with an actual R by his name.
And then maybe the NRCC can support him.
And I've mentioned my good friend Pete Sessions.
I love Pete.
And Pete is just getting pilloried right now.
And so are a number of Republican members of Congress who have chosen to cast their fate with Didi.
They are seeing it in a certain way that says, look at what's in their faces every day.
The battle against Pelosi.
And we're with them in that battle.
We want to help Republicans win that battle.
I want to see House majority leader attached to a Republican congressman again, please.
But at what cost?
And what these folks who are walking the halls of Congress and really want to make big Republican gains next year, November next year, they want it now.
What they're not seeing is a lot of you look out your windows and see the unfolding of your lives.
A long, long storyline that will play out over the next several elections.
And rather than just take a few cheap Republican wins with 50-50 conservative candidates or worse, you are willing to endure these trials and tribulations even a little bit longer if it means that the Republicans we wind up getting are the kind that are really doing the Reagan-like work that we need.
And it's not about searching for another Reagan.
There will never be another Reagan.
But we're looking for that upbeat, unapologetic conservatism that he brought to the table.
It'll be in all kinds of different looking packages.
Some male, some female, some white, some black, some Hispanic, some whatever, whatever.
What matters is the ideas in the head and the compass in the heart.
And you start giving us those, and we will line up behind them passionately.
And that's why people are willing to line up behind Doug Hoffman, even though most votes, well, I don't want to be presumptuous here, but please be honest with me.
Don't you know Doug probably cannot win that race?
And I know, I'm driving.
I think the guy, where was the guy driving from that we heard from last hour?
Driving from Cincinnati to be a pair of feet on the ground for Doug Hoffman.
I don't think he'd be making that trip if he didn't think that Doug could win.
And again, nothing would please me more than to be filling in for Rush again sometime and say, wow, remember that October 26th show when I didn't think Doug Hoffman could win?
Well, love the mulligan on that.
Give me the take back because he did.
Nothing would please me more.
But in the absence of that, do I want Dee Dee?
I mean, I use the same logic.
If Dee De does win this thing, Didi Scozafava, I'd want Doug Hoffman to go challenge her in the primary in 2010.
Let's see how that works out.
I mean, whether Dee De or Bill Owens win this thing, you ain't got to put up with either one of them for all that long a time.
But the big picture is what a lot of voters, a lot in the public are looking at.
And I think that a lot of the people in the Republican power structure are looking at right here, right now, looking at getting as just scraping and scratching and clawing for whatever kind of inroads we can make against Nancy Pelosi and one-party rule.
And I understand that.
I totally get that.
But they're just not exactly in the same sync as many of you whom I'm speaking with today.
Now, let me, this is interesting.
I found the arguments.
I was looking, we were talking about the arguments that the Doug Hoffman supporters are using.
And across the river there in New Jersey, there's Chris Daggett, who I would suggest also has no chance of winning.
But there he is positioning himself to the right of Chris Christie and answering some of the things that people say about third-party challengers.
So it's kind of an interesting page there on the Daggett for Governor website.
And it's a little Q ⁇ A. Not a wasted vote, he says.
It's sort of a they're attempting some myth explosion.
Myth.
My vote will be wasted if I vote for Chris Daggett.
And again, this is the gentleman running as an independent, his argument being Chris Christie's not conservative enough, so vote for me.
My vote will be wasted if I vote for Chris Daggett.
Fact, the only wasted vote is one in which you is the one you don't believe in.
One in which you don't believe in.
They need proofreaders at Daggett for governor.
This much I know.
A vote for the same old thing when you want change or a vote against someone rather than for someone.
Vote your conscience.
The truth is Daggett won't waste your vote, but his opponents would.
All right.
Myth number two, Chris Daggett is the best candidate, but I'm afraid he can't win.
Fact, if every supporter we've met on the campaign trail at headquarters or through the website just went out and voted Daggett, we'd win by a landslide.
As the Met said in 73, you got to believe.
Okay, that's lovely.
That's lovely.
Didn't the Met say that in 69, though, actually?
Notify Greg Chapin immediately.
Our Met historian back at EIB headquarters.
All right, the other myth in the view of the Daggett candidacy, a vote for Daggett is a vote for Christie, or a vote for Daggett is a vote for Corazine.
They offer the following rejoinder.
The idea that we are taking votes from one party or the other just shows an arrogance on the two parties' behalf that they own those votes to begin with.
Recent polling numbers confirm Christie is now only one point ahead of Corazine when Daggett is not included in the poll.
Okay, but he is.
And first of all, God bless Chris Daggett and God bless third-party people of any stripe who are out there trying to say, you know, let's try to peel away from this forced dichotomy of Republicans and Democrats.
That's all we got.
I mean, the Green Party's out there.
I mean, I think Ralph Nader is a nutbag on several things, but I just admire the guy on a couple of things, that everybody's just so hardwired to the existing status quo, the people with new and fresh ideas are just so shut out.
They're so completely shut out.
And listen, if we're going to invoke Brother Nader, we had an opportunity to have him on the show some weeks ago, the local show I do in Dallas, Fort Worth.
And one thing that Ralph Nader wanted to complain about was all this bailout nonsense and some of the stimulus spending.
Talk about weird bedfellows of the moment.
Anybody plugged your nose and gone to see Michael Moore's Capitalism, a love story?
I know me neither.
I probably will at some point, just so that I can be conversant on the man's body of work.
You know, I think that's probably an educated way to go, whether you're liberal or conservative, rather than just bagging on people that you don't like.
Go see and hear and read what they do so that you can at least tell people why you don't like them.
But when Michael Moore runs the Brinks truck up to some big financial institution because he wants America's American people's money back, that kind of resonates across party lines.
A rarity for Mr. Moore.
But these are real interesting times as we approach 2010 and 2012.
And the reason I bring this up going into the break here will come back and let me hear some audio from the Sunday shows and the sound I really want to hear, your voice on the phone at 1-800-282-2882.
But the reason I mention these things is that if we are going to make inroads and are going to put up some Republican candidates who are going to succeed, I want them to be unapologetic and down the line conservatives.
But here's the interesting thing.
They need to have ways to reach out to the disaffected Obama voter who is drowning in buyers' remorse.
And you don't do that by being more liberal, and you don't do that by moving toward the mushy middle.
I mean, if that's what you want to do, go do it.
And if that's where your heart tells you to go, see how it works in the electoral marketplace.
But what I would just love to do more than anything else, if speaking of the explosion of some myths, The myth perpetuated by so much of our culture that conservatism is about racism, conservatism is about cruelty, conservatism is about hatred of the planet, just BS, BS, and BS.
And what we need are people that can skillfully explode those myths.
What an interesting time to be alive.
I'm Mark Davis in for Rush.
Let's see.
Let me tease this skillfully.
Here in the world of talk shows, we have all kinds of people whom we are fans of.
Laura Ingram was on the roundtable with George Stephanopoulos.
I don't know if it was the first, I don't think it was the first time she was there.
May well have been have been the last.
I'll give you the audio of why.
And speaking of the morning shows, Bob Schieffer talks with John McCain about Dick Cheney.
And I want to talk to you about Vice President Cheney, too, and your thought.
I mean, we all, I don't know about you, my heart swells.
I love this man.
And when he, you know, flat out speaks truth at some lectern or another, the latest example of which is that the dithering over the Afghan surge is endangering American troops.
Part of what makes me love that so much is the degree to which others hate it.
But sometimes the truth is kryptonite to some folks.
And so there's a little bit of John McCain audio in there.
And actually, in Arizona, so Todd, a little closed circuit to you, probably coming to you next because you've got to think because when we talk about candidates trying to be all things to all people, batting only 500 or 600, if that on the conservative scale, hello, the Republicans' last nominee kind of falls into that category.
So it's all going to seamlessly fit together, I hope.
On the Rush Limbaugh Show, I'm Mark Davis filling in, and we'll be back with you in just a moment.
Well, you know, this is what you get for immersing yourself in New York Mets imagery because 69 was the year of the miracle Mets, the amazing Mets, but apparently it was indeed 1973 in that next burst of Mets success where you got the you gotta believe, I shouldn't be arguing with a guy in New Jersey about this.
So anyway, so the well, glad we cleared that up.
All right, let's let's take a listen to a couple of things.
This, I don't know how long it takes to clear this up.
So George Stephanopoulos is hosting this week on ABC on Sunday morning, and the subject comes up, as it did on just about all the Sunday shows, of this White House's interesting defensiveness in the face of its critics, whether they are in the media or elsewhere, Chamber of Commerce, health care industry lobbyists, or, of course, Fox News, the evil enemy to this White House.
So here's Laura Ingram's point.
And in so making, she invokes something that maybe etiquette doesn't really guide you to bring up right there in the ABC studios.
And that is the, I mean, shocking failure of outgoing anchor Charlie Gibson, who I've been around the man a lot, really good guy, pretty amazing career there, no doubt about it.
But when he was on the WLS and Chicago morning show with Don and Roma a couple of months ago, and Don asked him, hey, Charlie, how about this acorn story where all kinds of stories of skull duggery and malfeasance are coming up?
And Charlie treated that as if it was from the depths of bunker buddy conspiracy theories.
He didn't know about it, wasn't aware about it, and then derisively and dismissively said, well, maybe we ought to just leave that to the cable network.
Well, So here's Laura Ingram on, on with Stephanopoulos, invoking that and hearing her do that.
You can just feel George's discomfort and listen as George attempts to just recover a little bit for the Charlie Gibson legacy at the end.
I think, and again, I might not be invited back, George, but when Charlie Gibson didn't know what the Acorn story was all about, that was a collective gasp you heard across the United States.
Charlie Gibson is an esteemed journalist.
How do you not know about a story about a group where President Obama cut his political teeth that had been exposed to the extent that Democrats and Republicans on Capitol Hill were ready to pull the rug out from under them in their funding?
That's the kind of story that the White House doesn't want to have reported and repeated on other networks.
That's why they don't like Fox.
Charlie had an amazing career.
Let's set aside that moment.
Well, guess what, George?
Let's not set aside that moment.
I mean, let's not use that moment to define Charlie's entire career, but you can't set aside that moment.
It is moments like that, the evidence of the self-serving liberal bubble of Bernie Goldberg, no lifelong conservative, he is writing all these books about media bias lately and gave it a perfect sentence.
Does a fish know he's wet?
Does a fish know he's wet?
That's the default setting for these folks.
And they surround themselves with nothing but the like-minded.
And as such, stories that arise that try to suggest accountability for the Obama administration, as Laura said, which I think is what the media are supposed to do, those stories bounce off the bubble.
They bounce off the bubble.
And that's the double standard that we decry all the time.
Let me give you the McCain audio.
Let's move to CBS.
This is Bob Schieffer, whose brother is running for governor of Texas, by the way, Tom Schieffer.
And just learn a little something every time I guest host.
Thank you so much.
So here's Bob Schieffer on Face the Nation with Senator McCain.
And obviously, this is fresh off a week in which Dick Cheney has come down pretty hard on Barack Obama.
Do you agree that we're endangering our troops and that this is dithering?
I wouldn't use that language.
The fact is, as I said before, we already have men and women who are in danger there now.
The sooner we implement the strategy, the more we will be able to ensure their safety or the best way for them to pursue.
What did you think of the way that the vice president put it?
Well, I understand the vice president.
I have great respect for him.
But I think we ought to look forward, and that is to support the president.
I intend to, when he makes the decision, which I believe he will, to implement McChrystal's strategy.
All right.
So what is the etiquette when members of a former administration criticize the incumbents?
Let's talk a little bit about that as we begin our final half hour together in just a moment.
Mark Davis, in for Rush on EIB Network.
It's the home stretch half hour, working our way to the top of the hour when you have the rest of the day to yourselves.
Or to listen to whatever kindred spirits or whatever else you choose to do.
We're just thankful for these three hours.
I'm particularly thankful when I get to sit here in the chair, metaphorically speaking, Rush back in the chair that is properly his tomorrow.
Thanks for giving me an interesting Monday there, my friend.
Thank you so much.
Spending a lot of time in various parts of the country talking about various races and the attention paid to things like New Jersey governor and New York 23 and Virginia governor, of course, is very, very big.
And we're going to go to Virginia about that in just a second.
But having just played the audio of John McCain on with Bob Schieffer on Face the Nation, and you could just sort of feel Senator McCain's discomfort.
He is often made uncomfortable in the face of, and let me just offer up the insular comment, the insulating comment.
God bless Senator McCain for his service to our country and for the pretty good-sized list of issues on which he is dead right.
There are few people who have been more inspiring in their support of our troops, and that extends to right now.
As you just know, Senator McCain wants Barack Obama to do the right thing and give General McChrystal what he wants.
I don't know if that's going to happen.
And if it doesn't, I wonder if Senator McCain will continue to speak truth to that issue.
I hope he does.
Senator McCain is sometimes, and this goes back to the actual campaign.
The entire campaign didn't need to be about Jeremiah Wright, Jeremiah Wright, and more Jeremiah Wright, but at least step forward and say, look, the guy who's running against me has just rubbed too many elbows with wheels off radicals.
I mean, talk show hosts all over the country were saying that, and that'll resonate to a degree.
But the actual candidate needs to step forward and do this.
And I know that every campaign is split into a big pie chart.
How much time do you want to spend speaking well of yourself, your good ideas, and how much time do you want to spend giving people reasons not to vote for the other guy?
That's a delicate balance.
Usually, the most successful campaigns spend more time speaking positively of themselves than they do speaking ill of the opposition.
But when there is something in the opposition that is just antithetical to so much of what America is about and what many Americans believe, you got to go for it.
And the measuring stick that I use is, is it true?
Is it fair?
Is it appropriate?
You know, there are all kinds of negatives you can bring up about your opponent, and nobody cares about it.
It doesn't matter, whatever.
But have these nine months of President Obama given you maybe a little bit of some smelling salts here?
That it kind of does matter who you hang out with?
That by osmosis, some of this stuff travels from person to person?
And if you're spending your time around the likes of Jeremiah Wright and Bill Ayers and look at some of these nominees, Van Jones and Kevin Jennings and some of these bizarroids and creepoids and people from what deep annel of what kind of thought have some of these folks come from, that you're properly judged by that.
Imagine a Republican president surrounding himself with folks with these kinds of unsavory past connections.
Maybe some Klansman over here, some Nazi over there.
I wouldn't fly for a New York minute.
Now, let's go to some modern day etiquette involving people who are not in office anymore.
Dick Cheney can't talk enough for me.
And it's funny, I draw a distinction between him and President Bush.
I think there is, at least until Jimmy Carter shattered it against the wall, of a little bit of an etiquette of former presidents speaking ill of their successors.
I kind of like that.
I mean, Lord knows, you know, Various presidents of various parties could have had all kinds of juicy and appropriate criticism or whatever they wanted to say, you know, about the people who were president after their terms.
I think it's just a better country when we don't do that.
I don't need to hear George W. Bush or George H.W. Bush busting Barack Obama's chops, but I sure don't need to hear Jimmy Carter opening his foul mouth either.
So if that's one standard that I like, and maybe you do too.
Our vice president's different.
Al Gore has certainly been out, you know, beating the drums, or certainly was during the Bush years.
You know, it made my teeth itch, as the average comment from Al Gore does, but I thought, you know, dude, you were vice president.
That's a lot of difference.
That's a lot of difference.
So in order to be even-handed about this, if Dick Cheney going after the Obama administration is okay, that means that that would need to be okay for Al Gore to go after Bush 43.
And you know what?
It was.
I judge both guys by the content of what they say.
I don't throw down some big thing that says no former vice president should ever say anything about a sitting administration.
Nah.
Nah, free country.
Do what you want.
So let's go to the content.
And from the willingness to criminalize, criminalize interrogation procedures, things at Guantanamo, various domestic initiatives designed to keep us safe.
You can disagree with them if you wish, change them if you wish.
Obama won.
Fair and square.
He won.
He gets to change everything, do everything differently if he wishes, and even retroactively disagree and say, boy, I really think it was wrong when my predecessor did this, this, this, and this.
Hey, whatever.
But to chase these people down and terrorize them, pardon the verb, with the specter of prosecution, that just stinks.
And Dick Cheney has said so.
There's something else that he's not fond of, and that is this president twiddling his thumbs, trying to figure out what to do with something that has at least a likelihood of working in Afghanistan.
I'm not going to sit here and tell you it's guaranteed to work, but I think the success of the surge in Iraq gives it some credibility.
Afghanistan's not Iraq.
I know that.
Every country's different.
But why not try?
You have a guy who does know more about it than the president does saying, listen, give me some more troops.
Well, you better have an incredibly, profoundly good reason for denying him those.
And you know what?
If you are going to deny him those troops, could you please do it right now and maybe just pull us out of Afghanistan and just let the Taliban and Al-Qaeda have Afghanistan because that's what's going to happen anyway.
But if you are willing to give General McChrystal these troops, then get off your presidential duff and do it, please.
And don't tell me about this upcoming runoff with Karzai and Abdullah.
There's not a whole lot of difference between those guys in terms of their expected receptivity to additional American troops.
They'll be fine with it.
All they want is something that helps their country be a little less likely to be riddled with the pockmarks of IEDs.
So the notion of, you know, well, we're waiting for the elections simply does not hold water.
So Dick Cheney's out saying these things.
Good for him.
1-800-282-2882.
Let's take a pause, come back, put some more people on the radio before we wrap up today's Monday Rush Limbaugh Show.
I'm Mark Davis at WBAP Dallas, Fort Worth, filling in just today.
Rush is back tomorrow, and you and I are together again in just a couple of moments on the EIB network.
Let us move to a Congo line of calls, which will extend for about another 12 minutes.
And then this day is done on the Rush Limbaugh Show, and Rush is back with you tomorrow.
I'm Mark Davis filling in.
Appreciate you greatly.
Let us head down to the Tidewater area, Virginia Beach, Virginia.
Noel, Mark Davis in for Rush.
How are you?
Hey, Mark, it's a pleasure to speak with you.
Thanks.
Well, first of all, I'd like to say, you know, as far as term limits go, in Virginia, it kind of sucks because we're the only state that has one-term governor.
Yeah, Tim Kaine can't run.
No, no, that's only one term.
We're the only state, and they've tried to change it, and no luck.
It hampers the limits of Virginia on the national stage.
It makes it hard because one guy starts to get the programs going to make things better, and then a new guy comes in and says, oh, I don't like that.
It's not my idea, and scraps it.
When people thought of this, did they think that it would be great to have someone elected who instantly, the one good thing you say about a lame duck is they're not worried about reelection.
You get the real guy.
He's not posturing just to make himself attractive for reelection.
You get a look at his real soul.
Right, pretty much.
I mean, that's what they were thinking.
I mean, only one guy, I think, has ever done two terms, and only Miles Godwin only because he changed from Democrat to Republican, apparently.
Well, but, you know, it's not like Tim Kaine was invisible on the national stage.
I mean, he's the chairman of the DNC for crying out loud.
He's the DNC chairman now.
Yeah, exactly right.
So it apparently didn't cripple him too much.
So in the Deeds versus McDonnell thing, how's that working out for you?
Well, I'm all for McDonald's.
I've met the guy several times.
He's a great guy, and he's going to make a great governor.
Deeds is kind of, well, I don't know.
Well, this is a purple state smackdown.
What is Virginia going to be?
They're in the portion of the state where you are, it's going to be pretty decidedly McDonnell territory, as will most of the counties in Virginia, but the big population centers, those D.C. suburbs, man, that is deeds, deeds, and more deeds.
The White House wrote deeds off pretty much.
It's going to be kind of hard.
Yeah, nothing would please me more than because any governor's mansion that can head into Republican hands, I'm loving on that.
Thank you, man.
Appreciate it a lot.
You know, here's something that we didn't talk about much at all.
Speaking of Republican governors, how will it affect gubernatorial races if the public option, and I know you've seen a couple of these stories, are you hearing that we may see at some point a bill on health care reform that contains the public option, but also contains, and boy,
I need to hear 50 more things about how this would work, an opt-out for it.
An opt-out.
Can you see Republican governors from sea to shining sea and maybe Republican candidates for governor tripping over each other, crawling on broken glass to run so that they can run on a platform that says, oh, you can pass that public option if you want to, but it'll enter my state over my dead gubernatorial body.
So maybe this is something that takes flight a little bit this week.
Just do a little Googling of healthcare, public option, opt out, and you'll see the embryonic uh beginnings, the early embers of of something that may take flight.
Now my first choice is for this entire thing, to the entire idea of the public option the, the entire Obamacare concept, to simply be defeated fair and square by a country that's decided it doesn't want it.
But if we are doomed, uh to to fail at that level, lucky me, i'm in Texas, I I live in a state that almost certainly would opt out, and I wonder, you know, but if you're in the, the various purple states, from Virginia to Oio, to Florida, to to various others, how might that affect governor's races in 2010 and 2012?
If we wind up with a public option that contains an opt-out provision?
The first thing you hear is my skepticism.
The Democrats don't do opt-out, they don't do choice, they do sledgehammer.
You're going to do it our way.
Boom this notion of.
Well, let's see, some states will have it our way and we're willing to entertain a sort of a petri dish, an experimental playing field in which some states will have it our way and and other states won't.
Oh how in the world?
Harry Reed can't stand for that, Nancy Pelosi can't stand for that.
Barack Obama can't stand for an opt-out.
Don't you know that?
Just as patients are are are pole vaulting across the Canadian border to get into New York and Washington State and Minnesota just to get to American health care, you'd see a similar uh influx of people from the public option states into the non-public option states, and that that's a side-by-side comparison that no Democrat of consequence will allow to happen.
So i'm i'm curious about where, if anywhere that goes I know where I got to go into this final commercial break.
We'll come back and see what there's time for.
On the other side, i'm Mark Davis and for Rush.
Rush is back tomorrow, back in a moment on the EIB Network.
It is the Rush Limbaugh show.
I'm Mark Davis filling in for just a couple of more minutes and then we head down the road to tomorrow's Rush Limbaugh show containing Rush Limbaugh.
He will be back tomorrow and for that we can all be thankful.
Uh, in these last uh few minutes uh, the show's been filled with your words and my words.
Let me give you the words of a guy I just love, and it's on a subject that Rush talks about a lot, that all of us with talk shows have talked about a lot uh, and it's not just about FOX NEWS, FOX NEWS, FOX NEWS, but it is about, you know, a white house that that seeks to lecture people uh, without a a deserved basis for doing so, and that is the wonderful writing.
The most recent column by Charles Krauthammer.
He writes FOX and its viewers need no defense.
Defend FOX.
Compared to whom?
To CNN, which recently unleashed its fact checkers on a saturday night live skit but did no checking of a grotesquely racist remark that CNN, CNN falsely attributed to Rush Limbaugh?
Defend Fox from whom?
Fox's flagship 6 o'clock evening news out of Washington with Brett Baer, formerly Brett Hume, is to my mind the best hour of news on television.
Defend Fox from the likes of Anita Dunn?
She's been attacked for extolling Mao's political philosophy in a speech at a high school graduation, but the critics miss the surpassing stupidity of her larger point.
She was invoking Mao as support and authority for her impassioned plea for individuality and trusting one's own choices.
Mao is a champion of individuality?
Mao, the greatest imposer of mass uniformity in modern history?
This White House communications director cannot be trusted to address high schoolers without uttering inanities.
She and her cohorts are now to instruct the country on truth and objectivity.
Speaking of Rush, he's on Fox News Sunday this Sunday and back with you tomorrow.
I'm Mark Davis, filling in.
It's been great.
▲
Export Selection