RUSH: We’ll go to Randall in Silver Spring, Maryland. Randall, thanks for the call. It’s nice to have you with us.
CALLER: Mr. Limbaugh, what an absolute honor to get the chance to speak with you, sir.
CALLER: Thank you very much. I appreciate that.
RUSH: As to your first two hours today, I’d rather be in the nosebleed section at Qualcomm Stadium wondering whether my house was burning down than to be in my mansion in any other country on the face of this earth.
RUSH: Wow. Thank you, sir. You would rather be in the nosebleed section at Qualcomm Stadium wondering whether your house was burning down, than to be in a mansion on any other country on the face of the earth. That’s powerful.
CALLER: Absolutely, Rush, and the question I have for you pertains to my great local newspaper here, the Washington Post. But would it be possible to ask you a quick semi-related question first?
RUSH: Yeah.
CALLER: Yeah, you were being taken to the woodshed by conservatives at MediaReform.com. Have you ever been to MediaReform.com, Rush?
RUSH: Never heard of them.
CALLER: Okay, yeah, it’s a group of conservatives who think that you, and Hannity, and Savage, and Beck, and these other conservative talk show hosts aren’t doing enough to lead the conservative talk show listeners to take the country back from the media. Have you not been there?
RUSH: Uhhhh. What? No. I’ve not been there and I’m not going there. I couldn’t care less.
CALLER: Okay. All right, sir. Well, here was the reason why I called you. After your story came out Monday — and the auction was Friday and the auction was over — the first thing I did was I went to buy a Washington Post Saturday morning to see what the story was. I went through the entire paper. No story. So what do I do? I go Sunday morning down to the local convenience story, buy a Washington Post because I don’t get it delivered. I go through the entire Post. No story. So I’m thinking, ‘Okay, well, maybe they’re going to bring it back out on Monday when people are really reading the newspaper.’ I go buy my paper Monday, come home, go through the paper rushed and there’s one full page and three-quarter page story about Richard Mellon Scaife. Nothing about George Soros, nothing about Media Matters for America, but a full story about George Soros — and, Rush, I’m telling you —
RUSH: Was this about Scaife’s divorce? Is that what the story was about?
CALLER: Yes.
RUSH: Yeah, yeah.
CALLER: That’s what the story was.
RUSH: They’re all excited because they hope his divorce will bankrupt him. Richard Mellon Scaife is a piker compared to George Soros and what he’s done!
CALLER: Right. But my question is, do you think the Washington Post is trying to depress the conservatives, who would be going to their paper to find out what they were willing to say about your particular case —
RUSH: No.
CALLER: — with Harry Reid?
RUSH: They’re ignoring it because they’re protecting the stupidity of Democrats. The Washington Post… They don’t even think about conservatives at the Washington Post. ‘Conservatives, what are they? Conservatives read the Washington Times.’ No, Harry Reid made a blunder, a big-time blunder, and they’re trying to protect him. But the Washington Post did have a story — maybe it was in their Style section on Saturday, that I heard about — that was just outrageous. It perpetuated all the lies that Media Matters started, and it pooh-poohed the event, the money that it raised, and it was just a little tiff between a senator and a private citizen. They downplayed the whole thing and tried to make it sound like a joke. But the whole point of people, like the Washington Post, in a circumstance like this, story like this, is to protect and cover for the mistakes that Dingy Harry made. Look, we like to move forward here at the EIB Network, but I will explain something about this that I think is newsworthy. A lot of people like you, ask, ‘Why didn’t the Washington Post cover the original smear? Why didn’t the Washington Post cover Harry Reid and his statement from the floor of the Senate? Why didn’t the Washington Post or the New York Times do any of that?’
The Times didn’t get on this case for this story for seven days. Well, the answer is, they knew it was a loser story. They knew the premise was false. They knew that trying to make the case that Rush Limbaugh hates the military, or is critical of the military, is not going to fly. So they ignored it. The real story, however, is — and it could have been easily written in the headline — ‘Senate majority leader smears private citizen from floor of Senate with falsehoods.’ Why wasn’t that news? I’ll tell you why it wasn’t news, is because they cover. It’s not what they do report alone; it’s what they also don’t cover that constitutes their bias — and, in this case, they were not about to rip the Senate majority leader and, at the same time, give me any kind of credibility, or credence, or attention whatsoever, because they are waiting for when they think something said about me will stick, to go with that. They knew this one wouldn’t stick; they’re waiting for the one that they think will. It’s a long time between now and next November, folks, and so they’re just keeping their powder dry in the Drive-By Media.
END TRANSCRIPT
*Note: Links to content outside RushLimbaugh.com usually become inactive over time.