RUSH: I got an e-mail note from a friend of mine disagrees with me on my analysis of Newt getting together with Hillary on health care. I said yesterday that no matter what happens here — and you can take a look at the picture in the New York Times today and you see evidence of it. They’re running a big story on this “political odd couple” and there’s a picture of the two. Drudge has it on his site, too: Hillary smiling, looking outlet with vision across America in perfect, beautiful focus with Newt in the background looking adoringly, admirably at her out of focus. I mean, that just is little photo evidence of the way they treat these two.

My whole point was: Even if Newt is serious about this — which I’m sure he is about health care and solving it and bridging the partisan divide and all that — at the end of the day, if that were to ever happen, you know damn well who’s gonna get all the credit for it, and that’s Hillary, and in the New York Times today, in addition to the picture, is evidence of that. But I got this note from my buddy. He says, “Hey, Rush. I don’t know. I may have a mild disagreement with you on the Hillary and Newt odd couple assessment. I don’t think Hillary gets any benefit from this. Now, in fairness you may have said ‘if anyone gets some good out of this it will be Hillary and not Newt,’ but I was just thinking what John Kerry did when he saw Hillary and Newt plastered together in the New York Times and Drudge’s website.

“I’ll bet Senator Kerry called one of his soul mate kooks at MoveOn.org and ripped Hillary for dissing the far-left-fringe kooks by associating on anything with Newt, and I’m guessing the kooks from MoveOn.org then called the even kookier Howard Dean and asked him if Hillary was an un-American, pro-military traitor, as Kerry had suggested, and when Dean responded, ‘Yeah,’ Dean called Michael Moore and asked him to do a movie on the turncoat Hillary.” Anyway the guy’s point is exactly what you asked me yesterday: Will the left turn on Hillary because of this? That’s what my friend thinks. Do you think so? I don’t. I just don’t see the left peeling off from Hillary. You know, these people step in a bag of excrement when you put it in front of them.

They’ll step on it, and they’ll eat it now and then just if it means beating the Republicans — and if they think Hillary is the one to do that, they’ll just say she conquered Gingrich, that she’s further taken Gingrich out of play, that Gingrich is now one of us, and he’s been neutered and so forth. You know, I just don’t see it. I’ll give you an example. This is unrelated but we all know this big bash took place in Washington for Tom DeLay last night. There were a thousand people at this tribute dinner. One thousand people, and many of them got up and they spoke of standing behind DeLay.

When one of ours is under attack, we get behind them. We’re not going to let this fishing expedition go on — and it was the luminaries of the conservative movement, a thousand people. Read the press accounts of this. The press accounts of this, it’s almost like a bunch of aliens from outer space landed and took over a hotel ballroom in Washington. I don’t care what went on in there. I mean, after they tried to report it factually they just can’t get past the fact that it was a bunch of conservative and a bunch of conservatives to the Washington press corps, it may be an entirely different species. You can just see it.

It’s dripping with sarcasm, some of these reports. Now, when the libs all get together, when the libs get together to honor one of their own, be it Bill Clinton, you never hear that ‘a room full of Washington liberals’ or the ”liberal elite” or whatever got together, you just ready about it as though, “Hey, common, ordinary, everyday people got together to honor one of their common, ordinary, everyday people that they love,” but when the conservatives get together?

And Newt is a conservative and Newt’s been known as a conservative, and he’s always going to be known as a conservative, and the idea that he’s going to cross the threshold and become a normal person to these people simply because of an association with Hillary, it may cause John Kerry to upchuck, because he’s running for president already, and Hillary is his #1, in his mind, opponent.

BREAK TRANSCRIPT

RUSH: Bill in New Lenox, Illinois. You’re next on the EIB Network. Hello.

CALLER: Hello, Rush. Great to talk to you. Dittos.

RUSH: Thank you, sir.

CALLER: Listen, I’ll get right to the point. It’s my belief that Newt Gingrich has been the intellectual leader of this party since ’94 or just before then and that in a situation like this we need to give him the benefit of the doubt, wait to see what he’s going to do, what this proposal is, and in a lot of cases we cannot base what we’re going to do or what we’re going to try to undertake on whether or not we get credit for it. Sometimes what’s more important is what gets done.

RUSH: You’re misunderstanding me. I’m not suggesting that Newt is doing this to get credit for it. One of the things I suggested was that the reason that Newt and a lot of other people are trying to bask in the glow of Hillary Clinton is to have their reputations cleansed by the DC establishment. My only point is that if this were to work, and if the partisan divide were to be bridged, if that gap were to be bridged and so forth — you know, you can’t rule out the fact Newt is running for president or is thinking about it. I think he’s leaning towards it more so than not. You can just tell that in terms of having any boomerang effect, as far as the presidential run, that’s all going to go to Hillary, because the media is the one…

When you set out to cleanse a media-established reputation, and therefore you’re leaving it up to the media to reestablish your reputation and you’re doing it in the glow of Hillary Clinton, I just have to tell you: Whatever good happens at any association, it’s all going to be credited to Hillary, anything that happens. Now, as far as that impacts Newt’s desire to be president, it is relevant. In terms of getting the plan done or accomplishing anything, it isn’t, as you say. But the big thing here is I’m all for benefits of the doubt.

You know, I doubt benefits all the time. I’m sitting here looking at this, and I’m just analyzing from the standpoint of here’s — and the same thing with Chuck Hagel, and all there’s other moderate Republicans that want to be president. Who do they think is going to vote for them? And I’m just going to tell you, I’m just going to tell you right now that people are going to say, “I don’t care what the issue is. If you’re getting together with Hillary Clinton, Huh-uh, I’m washing my hands of this.” No amount of explanation, nothing can be said to make me change my mind, and another thing. People that I know about in the conservative grassroots are sick and tired of people trying to get legitimate by associating with any of the Clintons.

It’s just insulting to say that you legitimize yourself by associating with either of those two people — and you can say it’s all ten years ago but it’s not. This is one of these things that I would tabulate as a formative, formulative experience in people’s lives and I don’t see what there is to gain by it in a personal sense, but the benefit of the doubt is out there. I’m not definitely saying one way or the other but I’m not going to be surprised if this doesn’t accomplish for Newt what he’s hoping it does.

BREAK TRANSCRIPT

RUSH: Let me just ask you people a couple of questions out there. Did Democrats ever hold press conferences with Richard Nixon to advance any cause after he left the presidency? Noooo. They still dump on Richard Nixon. While I’m at it, did Jimmy Carter (Watch the Malaise Speech) embrace or praise Nixon the way that the Bushes embrace Bill Clinton? Nixon resigned; Clinton was impeached, but the Democrats do not do these kinds of things — and there’s a reason for it. They’ve got nothing to gain by it with their own media. They’ll only get creamed if they do something like this. You know, we join with the libs, and it seems as if it’s always to advance a lib agenda. Bush 43 and Kennedy on education; McCain and Kennedy today to advance amnesty for illegal immigrants — which is pretty close to the original Bush 43 plan on immigration.

You’ve got McCain and Kennedy, and every time Republicans get together with Democrats, it’s to advance the lib agenda. Here’s Newt getting together with Hillary on, what? Her issue. Health care. National health care. I mean, Newt was big in Medicare reform and this sort of thing, but every time these joint unions take place, it’s always to show the left that we’re not mean people, that we’re not bad people that. We’re human, too, and that we can work with them — but the thing is it never happens the other way around.

When is the last time a liberal joined with one of our people to advance a conservative cause? Now, the only example I can think of that might even come moderately close would be Lieberman when Lieberman supported Bush on the war in Iraq. But then you’ve got to say, “Okay, the war in a Iraq is a conservative cause?” Well, sadly it is a conservative cause, but it ought not be. This is a national security issue. You won’t even have the Democrats joining the Republicans on national security, and yet we go overboard here trying to join them for all the reasons I’ve stated. You know: reputation, rehabilitation, being loved by the media or what have you.

Let me give you an example. We had one the other day, Carl Levin talking about Hagel. “Now, that’s the kind of useful statement that we can use. That’s reasonable.” I want you to listen to Biden here. This is on Hardball last night with Chris Matthews. You know, when Biden is on it’s the only time Matthews never gets a word in. It’s incredible, but Biden has diarrhea of the mouth. He goes on and on and on here. Matthews’ question: “Are you going to lead the fight against John Bolton, or will George Voinovich? Who’s going to lead the fight against him on the floor of the Senate?”

BIDEN: I will be the one managing this nomination to use the jargon here, and in that sense leading the fight. But if I could say to my Republican colleagues just do one thing: Just read Senator Voinovich’s statement that he made in the committee. It was elegant; it was impressive; it was coherent, and it was profound — and I can’t imagine everybody in that side knows George Voinovich, as we do.

This is a guy who has real gumption, real character. This is a guy who is a stand-up guy, and for him to move in the direction he did with the ferocity with which he did it, and ordered argumentation that he presented has to be taken seriously by anyone who respects this process and respects this place.

RUSH: I’m sorry, folks, I just want to puke when I hear this. This is just BS. Voinovich slandered Bolton, then said he met with him, then said he was a nice, decent guy, and then he said he was going to vote for him out of committee because he didn’t think his views were strong enough to keep him from having a full vote in the Senate floor, and here comes Biden talking about, “This is a guy with character, this is a stand-up guy, to do it with such ferocity, he was coherent, he was impressive, he was profound,” all this because Voinovich was a peel-offable, all this because Voinovich agreed with them. Voinovich would have never had this said about him even though he’s the same guy, had he supported Bolton.

You would never have heard Biden talking about what principles Voinovich has, what character, what ferocity. You wouldn’t have heard him talking about how coherent Voinovich was or that kind of things. It’s all BS and smoke and mirrors. He only says this about Voinovich because Voinovich sandbagged his own party, and that’s what a valuable Republican is to the Democrats: a turncoat a peel-offable, somebody that will go against his own crowd. That’s why Biden thinks he’s a man of great character, but you never see, you never see the Democrats doing this kind of thing the other way.

Related Links
New York Times: Oddly, Hillary and, Yes, Newt Agree to Agree

        

                                

                                «Harvard Play Re-enacts Abu Ghraib
                        
                                        

                        Newsweek Lies, Who Dies?»