RUSH: I think the first thing we need to do out there, folks — well, not we, but the Republican Party, needs to just simply say that Jim McGreevey is now the official face of the Republican Party and end all this criticism. That way when McGreevey goes on Oprah as Mark Foley probably will not, then, you know, it’ll sort of balance the scales out there. I’m also looking at a new merchandising opportunity here, folks. You remember back in the early days of this program when the left was telling us that we needed safe sex out there and that safe sex equaled the condom, and I said let’s illustrate how effective that would be and I went out and did speeches and I put a condom over a microphone calling it “safe talk” trying to illustrate that the condom would protect the audience of anything offensive or rank that I might say.
I don’t think it’s too early here to start thinking about EIB e-mail condoms and instant message condoms, at least prevent your keyboard from being stained other than your dress. The only way for safe e-mails to be sent, the EIB keyboard condom. (Laughing) Let’s look at how the Democrats are playing this, first off. It’s sort of a pattern. You go back and you look at 2002 and 2004 in terms of these midterm elections and 2004 was, again, a year that they thought they were going to win big with Kerry and take back the House and everything. They started off in this campaign season with the culture of corruption. They were going to make real hay out of Jack Abramoff and Tom DeLay, a number of other things, and something came along and preempted that. William Jefferson, Congressman (Democrat-Louisiana), and Harry Reid and a couple of other Democrats came along and gave them a problem advancing the whole notion of the culture of corruption; so they dragged Jack Murtha out, and they started going after the war in Iraq, war on terror, and so forth and so on. They’ve been lured now back to the culture of corruption with the Mark Foley story.
They are all over the board, and let me just tell you one thing. I’m going to get into this in greater detail as the program unfolds today, but they do not find, the people this the Drive-By Media that you’ve been watching and listening to all weekend and the Democrats, they do not find what Mark Foley did to be repugnant at all. They have defended such behavior in the past, and they have gone out of their way to see to it that those who have engaged in such behavior might have been reprimanded and so forth in a perfunctory way, but aside from McGreevey they all hang on — Barney Frank, Gerry Studds, a number of these people. They don’t find what he did repugnant, and you don’t find one concern for the children. And we still to this day do not know what Foley actually did, if he ever met any of these pages, if he ever touched one of them, it’s merely an instant message and e-mail scandal.
Meanwhile, the attacks are totally coordinated. Sunday afternoon Harry Reid sent out a demand for the attorney general to investigate the Foley scandal. That was after the DNC sent out a demand asking why Tom Reynolds covered up Congressman Foley’s so-called sex crimes. Then this organization called C.R.E.W. as called for the House to appoint an outside counsel to investigate the Foley scandal. Then Democracy 21 called on the House Ethics Committee to appoint an outside counsel to investigate House Republican leaders and their handling of the Foley scandal. This is a pure coordinated assault, and I’m going to tell you what I think is going on. I think the Clinton war room is back up in full speed. How long has this Foley stuff been known by people? We’re talking about last year, earlier this year. Look how long they held the National Intelligence Estimate before leaking it during this campaign. The situation with Jeanine Pirro in New York, now all of her financial records have been subpoenaed by the US attorney’s office in Manhattan.
Tell you what I think about that just as a little aside. I actually think they got to Jeanine because they’re bugging Bernard Kerik. And I think they were bugging Bernard Kerik to get Rudy. I think they were bugging Bernard Kerik to find out some dirt on Rudy, because the Clinton war room strategy and the whole Bill and Hillary political strategy is not just defeat your political opponents, but destroy them. And so Foley is here being destroyed; DeLay was destroyed, not merely defeated; George Allen, they’re attempting to destroy; Jeanine Pirro they’re attempting to destroy. It’s a pattern. And of course the willing accomplices in the Drive-By Media are just salivating over this. Meanwhile, while all this is going on, Congressman William Jefferson (Democrat-Louisiana) will vote for the next speaker of the House after the elections. He’s not going anywhere. Pelosi did ask him to resign, but he said, “Nope, not going anywhere,” and they didn’t push. They didn’t force the issue. So they did a perfunctory little demand that William Jefferson (Democrat-Louisiana) hit the highway, but Congressman Jefferson said, “Nope. I’m going nowhere, and that’s that,” and he’s still there. The circumstances here with Foley are what they are, and they’re indefensible, and I’m not even going to try.
That’s not the point. I want to try to explain why this is happening, ladies and gentlemen. This is a circumstance here where everybody is saying, well, aren’t the Democrats being rather hypocritical? And the Democrats are saying aren’t the Republicans being rather hypocritical? This is the way this shakes out, and it’s always been the case. There is a different standard for Republicans, as far as the left is concerned. The left, the Democrats look at conservatives and Republicans in the following fashion: Well, these guys are family values types, they’re all for law and order, and they’re always judging everybody else. But in the liberal view, it’s not possible for them to be hypocrites because they eschew all judgment. They don’t like judgment against themselves, and whenever the people they look at as the judgers, the people engaging in judgment, have the normal human failings, the liberals and the left pile right on it and call them hypocrites.
You know, Republicans are said to be racist and sexist and bigoted and homophobic. The liberal policy, liberal philosophy is to assume bad behavior, bad human behavior. They assume it, they have a condescending look toward people in general. It’s what makes them liberals. People are incapable of doing the right thing without liberals’ guidance, people are incapable of making the right decisions to get ahead in life without liberal guidance, they’re incapable of earning a decent living. When these people don’t vote for liberals then those people also become stupid. Liberalism assumes bad human behavior and then coddles it as imperfect. After they coddle imperfect, bad human behavior, they are able to say those who judge imperfections in people and come out strong for right and wrong, the simplistic black and white, good versus evil, people who come out for law and order and so forth, they’re the sinners, because none of us are perfect. The liberals understand this, they coddle the imperfections, they create victims out of those who are imperfect, turning them into a cause c?l?bre, and blaming the right, these Draconian, intolerant, inflexible people who judge others while ignoring their own foibles.
This explains why the liberals are able to accept genocide in places like Iraq if it furthers their agenda. Because everybody is flawed. Saddam Hussein is flawed and he’s just a bad guy, we understand that, we need understand this about people. They expect the worst from people, and they want the worst from people tolerated, and that is a sign of compassion. When you look at the absolute dregs of society, worthless shreds of human debris, or other people who are simply imperfect in one way or another — which we all are, by the way — they want to tolerate this as a sign of compassion. Their view of conservatives and Republicans is that we are intolerant of anybody who is not like us, and so we must be made to pay the price for holding a standard that they do not. I’ll give you a quick illustration. When Clinton was elected, during the week leading up to the inaugural — I told you this story before. They had all these parties and ceremonies and little get-togethers on the mall in Washington, had people like Aretha Franklin in there to sing and other big-time entertainers. The list of songs they were singing were songs like We Shall Overcome, or We Got Out Of Jail Today all because a liberal Democrat had been elected after the 12 years of the judgmentalism of the Reagan and Bush years.
They actually felt freed from a straitjacket of judgment where they knew they came up short. They don’t want to be judged, and they love to go after those who do the judging when there are foibles among those on that side of the aisle. It’s as simple as what I have been saying: Power no matter what, is to get their way. Power, no matter what, nothing is to get in their way, nothing, of reacquiring it. The truth is that the people on the left who are acting all outraged and stunned and angry, they don’t see what Clinton or Barney Frank or Gary Studds did as repugnant. In fact, they view those things as private matters that didn’t affect anybody’s work and it’s nobody’s business what somebody does with their private life, particularly when it comes to sex. Now, we all think this is hypocritical on their part, but they don’t look at it as being hypocritical at all because the party of Mark Foley to them is the party of judgment, and who gave them the right to judge anybody? Even though the liberals are the ones that do all the judging and genuinely condemn most people to incompetence and failure.
As I say, they don’t find what Mark Foley did repugnant. They’re not upset about that. They just see this as an opportunity, folks. It’s an opportunity to once again gin up hatred and anti-voting patterns for the Republicans. In all of this they still can’t tell us what they believe in. They still can’t tell us what their policy in Iraq is. They still can’t tell us what they’re going to do about domestic problems such as immigration, they don’t dare. They still do not give people a reason to vote for them. They are on the warpath trying to get as much hate and vilification as they feel revved up in the general population for Republicans and George W. Bush. No accident that the Woodward book is out now. Woodward even admits his objective was not to get the truth out, his objective was to get the book out prior to the elections. And he’s done that. Remember, they can’t possibly find what Foley did repugnant. They have defended it before when on their side. On the other hand you’ve got Bob Livingston and Newt and a list of others who resign over such things the left celebrated for such things.
Clinton is still held up as a guy a lot of liberal Democrat women would love to have some private time with. As long as he’s good at hammering Republicans and hammering the GOP and now hammering Fox News. You think this is an accident they’re going after Fox News before the election? It’s kind of stupid, if you ask me, but they still are. Don’t forget Nina Burleigh who once said she’d give Clinton a BJ just for keeping abortion legal. So this idea that they find the behavior of Mark Foley repugnant and unacceptable is just BS. All this is is an opportunity that they’ve been waiting for. People have known about this obviously for a long time. You wonder how ABC got these e-mails five weeks before the election? You wonder why Jeanine Pirro is being subpoenaed by the US attorney? You wonder why George Allen is being destroyed on the front page of the Washington Post for two to three weeks while racial epithets uttered by his opponent go practically unnoticed? It’s a campaign. The Clinton war room is in full speed operation. They cannot afford to lose this election and ’08.
BREAK TRANSCRIPT
I have my suspicions about all this, because I know the liberals like every square inch of my glorious naked body, not just the back of my hand. What do we have here? Instant messages are the big deal, not the e-mails, the e-mails are sort of mild. It’s those IMs that got published, and how old was this page when those IMs were going back and forth? Sixteen or 17 years old? Now, I just have to ask the question because I don’t know, I’m not around 16- or 17 year olds. But how many of them save instant messages like that, just on their own? What I’m getting at is, it is not beyond the realm of possibility here at all that this was a setup from the get-go, because of what people have known about Mark Foley’s sexual orientation as they’re now saying, for many years. Here’s a supposedly, ostensibly safe seat, here we are in the election campaign with a Clinton war room in full-speed operation, and all of a sudden things that people have known for a long time suddenly surface, once again thanks to our old buddy Brian Ross at ABC.
Now, if you’ve got a 16 or 17-year-old page genuinely scared and frightened about all this, save the stuff. It’s embarrassing, what if somebody sees this outside of who you intend to see it? I’m just thinking out loud here. What if somebody got to the page, said, you know, we want you to set Foley up, we’ll do a little titillating thing, keep it and save it and so forth. How would you get a kid to do that? Who knows. You threaten him, you pay him, there’s any number of ways, given the kind of people that we’re dealing with and talking about here. Now, folks, I don’t want to be misunderstood here. I’m not trying to mount any kind of a defense. That’s a bad word. I’m not trying to get into a defense of what Mark Foley did. Please don’t misunderstand. I’m just telling you that the orgy and the orgasm that has been taking place in the media since Friday and with the Democrats is all coordinated, and it’s all oriented toward the election. There’s no concern about the kid, no concern about the children, there’s not even any real problem with what Foley did, as we’ve discussed.
In their hearts and minds and their crotches they don’t have any problem with what Foley did. They’ve defended it over the years. Now, according to the New York Times the FBI has begun a preliminary investigation into these e-mails of Mark Foley and the page and these instant messages. And the speaker of the House, Denny Hastert, has asked a question. Since the communications appear to have existed for three years, there should be an investigation into the extent that there are persons who knew or had possession of these messages but did not report them to the appropriate authorities. This is from a letter that Hastert sent to the justice department. He said, “It is important to know who may have had the communications and why they were not given to prosecutors before now.” Well, that’s a great point. I don’t know about you, but especially during a heated election season, I don’t believe in coincidence. Hastert is raising the point himself in his letter to the justice department. The timing of all of this — I mean, who benefits from the timing of all this? You always look at that, or I always do. Who benefits from this?
This has more to do with helping Nancy Pelosi and the House Democrats than protecting teenagers with whom Foley was communicating. If they’ve known about this, as people are saying, for all these years, then where is the concern for the children? Where is the concern for what was going on with this page? Unless they knew. There’s just too much happening here — and folks, I tell you what, this is not anywhere near the end. We’ve got five weeks to go, and I am sure that there are other things in their hopper that they are going to be, whoa, looky here, breaking news, that has been planned for months. I have no idea what. There’s a coordinated assault on Fox News now. David Bauder, the Associated Press, has a hit piece on Fox News. And there was the most ridiculous piece in the New York Times Week in Review section on Fox News yesterday. It’s all about how Democrats are fighting back finally, fighting back at Fox News. The premise of that is mind-boggling to me. They’re trying to rev up their base. They’re going to end up revving up the Republican base as well at the same time.
BREAK TRANSCRIPT
I had a great weekend with some friends, talking about all this stuff, and I made the point that I think the Clinton war room is back in action. I think Carville and Begala are out there with their new book, acting juvenile wherever they go, and it’s a pure, 100% smear and destroy machine. Somebody said, where are the Republicans on this? You know, how come the Republicans don’t have a war room type operation? And I said, come on, you’re asking this after all these years that this kind of stuff — the Republicans couldn’t smear a bagel with cream cheese if they had to. It’s not who they are, it’s not how they play the game. Look, they’re not circling the wagons around Foley. They’re on the cutting edge of hounding the guy out of town just as much as the Democrats are. And you can’t help but think about this stuff, like Clinton.
I mean, if Clinton had a fraction of a sense of responsibility, such as DeLay or even Foley, he would have resigned within an hour of the allegations of Lewinsky or the Kathleen Willey revelations, maybe even the Juanita Broaddrick revelations. And if Mark Foley behaved the way Bill Clinton behaves, Foley would still be in the House trying to smear the ABC reporters and threatening to revoke the broadcast license. He’d be calling Bob Iger at ABC trying to get the story retracted, and he would get as many of his cronies in his office in the Republican Party helping him out, getting that smear. Instead he just quit, he said I’m outta here, and — one of the things — I actually think his resignation has angered the Democrats, because by quitting, he’s gone. I mean, they can’t talk about him anymore. Now they have to make this a Republican-wide scandal. If Foley were still there, and if Foley were fighting this the way Clinton would fight it or Congressman William Jefferson (Democrat-Louisiana) would fight it, why, he would remain a huge target, and they’re still digging deep into his past, the FBI looking at all this. But he’s sort of taken himself off the radar, checked into rehab supposedly here because of an alcohol problem.
You know, I mean, it’s sort of comical to watch this. The liberals show all this mock horror at the comparison because the pages were underage. But I don’t know if he ever touched one. Am I missing something here? Has there been a story yet that he ever met the page or touched the page in any of these suggestive ways made public in the instant messages? Now, this group CREW, I forget what this stands for, they’re part of the coordinated effort, C-R-E-W, they have had a crucial role in the revelation of what Foley’s instant messages were. And this is pretty well timed. I know, as I say, like Hastert, I don’t believe in coincidences. It turns out that this group CREW has been behind the demands for investigations of Curt Weldon, Tom DeLay, Sam Johnson, Richard Pombo from California, Santorum, Roy Blunt, Bill Frist, Saxby Chambliss Richard Shelby, Charles Taylor, a lot of other Republicans. And then they also demanded an investigation of Congressman William Jefferson (Democrat-Louisiana) after it became clear the guy’s a crook. But of course that allows them to say, hey, we are not partisan here, we’re nonpartisan people.
Now, this outfit CREW is an IRS designated 501(c)(3) not-for-profit group. That means it’s tax exempt based on its representation to the government that it isn’t political. But they’ve gotten money from George Soros’ Open Society and a lot of other extremely wealthy leftists. The bottom line with all this is, once again, don’t be fooled. They don’t find what Foley did the slightest bit wrong. They just see it as an opportunity to trash — yeah, Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington. That’s what CREW is. I was having a mental block out there. Nevertheless, this is just an opportunity for them to point fingers at the people they think are holier-than-thou, yeah, the party of law and order, the party of right and wrong, the Christian right, the moral minds — and as such, as I say, there’s a different standard. The liberals never make themselves out to be clean and pure as the wind-driven snow, they never set themselves out to be anything superb in any of those areas, so when they have their failings, nobody can really accuse them of hypocrisy.
Hypocrisy is their main weapon that they’re using in this effort to discredit the entire Republican Party, and they’re really feeling their oats. I’ve seen some of their people on TV over the weekend and they are energized to the point of being angry. But we’ll just see. You know, the Abramoff scandal was announced last week — there was an update in it. Somehow 400 and some odd contacts in the White House with Karl Rove. I don’t think anybody cares. The Abramoff scandal has sort of worn itself out. The emotional reservoir that people have for that sort of thing is pretty narrow, and it’s not deep, and it’s already been spent. I didn’t get the impression that was a big deal. They tried to make it a big deal. I think when it comes to Abramoff type scandals, most people that vote in this country assume that that’s standard operating procedure in Washington. I mean, when was the last time lobbyists were popular? Really. Yeah, when was the last time lobbyists were popular? They haven’t been popular in a long time. The idea that there are people like Abramoff running around is a shock? Of course sex scandals in Washington, not new. Page scandals, not new. I think they’re in the process of overplaying their hand here. Because once again in all of this we still don’t hear what they’re for, we still don’t hear what they’re going to do when they reclaim their power, other than they’re going to do things smarter. But they don’t have an agenda that they dare announce. Let’s go to the phones. Cynthia in St. Louis. You’re first. Nice to have you with us on the EIB Network today. Hi.
CALLER: Hi, Rush. I just want to say, as a conservative Democrat who’s been disappointed with both parties for a long time but still votes Republican, I’ve actually considered sitting it out this year because I began to see distinctions without much of a difference. I’ve become disillusioned with the Republicans also, until now. There are so many implications about this, most of which you’ve covered. The one that really stands out in my mind, which is why I voted for Republicans in the first place, which is the hypocrisy of the Democrats when all this was going with Bill Clinton as far as Kathleen Willey, Juanita Broaddrick, Paula Jones, they were trailer trash, drag a dollar through a trailer park, nuts and sluts and all this stuff, that’s what the Democrats did to what I believe were real victims of Bill Clinton. However, you don’t hear a peep out of the Republicans saying anything about these angelic 16- and 17-year-olds, which I doubt very sincerely. They’re not standing behind Mark Foley, I don’t think he did anything criminal. That remains to be seen. It was tawdry. I applaud them for not doing both of those —
RUSH: That’s an interesting point —
CALLER: — the victims and not standing behind Foley.
RUSH: That’s an interesting point. I remember James Carville made the comment, you drag a dollar bill through a trailer park, you never know what you’ll pick up, i.e., Paula Jones. They did try to destroy the reputations of any of the — well, they had a whole bimbo eruptions unit that Betsy Wright headed up early in the 1990s into the campaign of 1992, and any time these women came up, it was search-and-destroy. It was destroy ’em and there were a lot of them, and the ones that they did destroy sent a message to the other ones to stay quiet, look what will happen to you. If the Republicans were the same, we’d be trying to find this page, drag him through the mud, find out everything about this kid, talk about how he was this or that and the other thing, set poor old Congressman Foley up. Why, all these people telling lies about Congressman Foley. Why, this is unconscionable, you’re right, excellent point. The Republicans are not circling the wagons around Foley and are not going after the accuser like the Clintons make a habit of doing. Excellent, excellent observation out there, Cynthia, I appreciate it.
CALLER: Thank you.
RUSH: Dennis in Chicago. You’re next, great to have you with us today sir, as we kick off a brand-new broadcast week.
CALLER: Hi, Rush. Proud to be one of your over 20 million loyal, well informed listeners. I agree with your analysis, but you’re spending it a little. I mean, we should expect more from Republicans than this, and you and others that have a lot of influence should go after whoever covers this up. I mean, we expect the Bill Clintons to go and do what they do —
RUSH: Wait, wait, wait, who’s covering it up?
CALLER: I’m not — well, there are probably people within Hastert’s office. They are saying that Hastert’s staffers may have known about this for quite some time, and we should expect more. The Democrats we expect this behavior from, and we don’t expect it from Republicans.
RUSH: I don’t think you’re getting it from Republicans. That’s the point. Cynthia in St. Louis I think made a great point. There’s a tremendous difference. Now, I saw Newt, right before the program started, I saw Newt was on one of the cable channels and they asked him about this. I think that they didn’t know the extent of this. I think a year ago somebody was dispatched to talk to Foley, to shut this down, it was dangerous, it was improper, and they thought they had it handled. We’ll have to wait and see who knew what, when. But don’t forget, Democrats new a lot, too, about what was going on, and the timing of all this, you know, it can’t be divorced from the circumstance. The Republicans are not trying to cover this up and they’re not trying to back out of it and they’re not trying to — I mean, they’re leading the call for the investigation into all this.
CALLER: Well, you don’t think they were forced into doing that? They’ve known — like you said, they’ve known about this, and shouldn’t tolerate it. This is a party that’s in charge of national security, and people expect no plan from the Democrats, they expect the Democrats to behave like this. It’s part of just who they are, but the Republicans and the staffers should not tolerate this.
RUSH: Well, this is why, you know, when I said at the very beginning of the program there is a double standard for Republicans because they do portray themselves as the party of loyalty and law and order, and they portray themselves as the party of morality what with the Christian right and so forth. But I think, if you look at this, it seems to me the Republicans are not being tolerant of this at all. It’s quite a comparison between the way the Democrats deal with all this and the way the Republicans do. And in the context of what’s happening here, going into the election, don’t look at this as spin. I mean, the Democrats are trying to create an impression about Republicans that isn’t true, as they always do.
They’re engaged in personal seek and destroy smear missions here, and they’ve got willing accomplices in the Drive-By Media that help them do it at each and every turn. And this is an opportunity here, well, it’s a circumstance I think that demands Republicans to be the right thing morally, which they’re doing here, but understand the game that’s being played. We’re going to learn more about the timing of all this in the coming days. I want to warn you, Dennis, this is not the last of these so-called revelations, breaking news stories. I think the entire campaign season from here on out is going to feature a number of things like this. I think they’re laying in wait. I think they’re categorized, they’re on a list, they’ve been doing opposition research, have this stuff ready to go, and it’s going to be released in a systematic way, timed to just overwhelm the voting population with negative ideas and thoughts about the very existence and humanity of Republicans.
BREAK TRANSCRIPT
Folks, you have to understand, this thing that’s happening with Foley is not happening in a vacuum. George Allen, DeLay — there’s a political indictment, pure and simple — Jeanine Pirro in New York, National Intelligence Estimate. This is what the Democratic Party exists to do. It exists as this kind of an operation. It’s not a party that puts forth ideas. It’s not a party that’s willing to debate those ideas. They can’t afford to. They have to destroy, discredit, smear their opponents who they feel will beat them, embarrass them, humiliate them or what have you. Now, on the other hand, you people, some of you people out there think that I’m spinning — you miss the point. Let’s take a look at the case of Congressman William Jefferson (Democrat-Louisiana).
How long did it take for Nancy Pelosi and a couple others in the House to make a superficial, perfunctory request that he resign, and what did it take? It took finally a government document that he had $90,000 in cold cash in his freezer. But remember how that document came out. Remember that the justice department raided his office. What did the Republicans do? Sided with the Democrats, sided with Congressman William Jefferson (Democrat-Louisiana), rather than rammed William Jefferson down the throats of the libs and demand that he get out of the House for activity that is embarrassing and beneath the dignity of the House of Representatives, whatever the hell they want to say, they’re just too damn stupid. They join with the Democrats to whine about the justice department getting the records of Congressman William Jefferson (Democrat-Louisiana), all on the basis that the House is sacrosanct, separation of powers, we can’t have the justice department coming in here, executive branch, or what have you.
That’s why I said they couldn’t smear a bagel if you gave them the cream cheese. It’s just not who they are. It’s never going to happen. Republicans are not going to recruit a bunch of lawyers who do nothing but go out and try to destroy Democrats. They’re just not going to do it. Republicans have this quaint little old-fashioned notion that elections are about issues and they’re going to run on those.
END TRANSCRIPT
*Note: Links to content outside RushLimbaugh.com usually become inactive over time.