All Episodes
Previous Next
Sept. 29, 2005 - Rush Limbaugh Program
36:30
September 29, 2005, Thursday, Hour #1
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Welcome to today's edition of the Rush 24-7 podcast.
78-22.
78-22 is the final vote in the Senate to confirm John Roberts as the Chief Justice of the United States.
The swearing-in ceremony will happen after this program.
White House is scheduled at the conclusion of the EIB Network program today at 3 o'clock.
Greetings, my friends, and welcome.
Rush Limbaugh back at you and back with you.
Great to be back.
Telephone number is 800-282-2882, and the email address is rush at EIBnet.com.
We will have a dental cam at some point during the program today.
Just wanted to give you a heads up on that.
Yeah, it's just, it's crazy.
I leave.
I'm out for one day and all hell breaks loose.
And it's just, it's interesting, folks, to be away when something like the delay indictment yesterday happens.
But it's interesting for me.
It gives me a little different perspective than had it happened while I was here on the air.
I was able to watch some television yesterday afternoon aboard EIB-1 flying home from parts unknown.
And I was able to watch all this coverage.
And I could quickly see what was developing here.
And while we'll go through the details of this, it's clear to me that the Democrats have once again stepped in it.
They have overreached.
They can't help themselves.
And this is going to come back to bite them.
The media is creating already a false reality about this.
The media is saying things that are not true about this indictment and about delay and about Ronnie Earle, the prosecutor down in Austin.
It's classic.
I mean, the news cycle on this is really all about what it's always been about, and that's getting George W. Bush and paralyzing the Republicans.
The Democrats cannot win at the ballot box.
The Democrats cannot win at the ballot box.
This is, there's no question in my mind this is a coordinated move within the Democratic Party.
We know that Ronnie Earle is a snake.
We know that he has extorted corporations that he has indicted.
I don't know if you remember this.
Byron York had a long story on National Review Online some years ago, maybe a couple years ago.
I've got it here in the stack.
Ronnie Earle indicted some corporations and he dropped the charges, dismissed charges if they would contribute to some of his pet causes.
So he extorts people that he indicts, had five grand juries that would not return an indictment on delay.
He finally got a sixth grand jury to do it.
This conspiracy charge is the last gasp effort when you don't have any evidence on anything, charge conspiracy and try to make the case.
What this is all about is trying to establish something a Democrat said that they were going to do a couple years ago, folks.
The Democrats said they were going to study after the 2002 midterms when they took a shellacking.
They said they were going to study the way the Republicans overtook the Democrats in the House in 1994 and continued to add to their majorities every two years thereafter.
And what the Democrats concluded was that the Republicans succeeded by constantly criticizing Bill Clinton, never letting up and accusing the Democrats of being corrupt, accusing the Democrats of nothing but pure corruption, starting with the House bank scandal, then the post office in the House, and then up to the Clinton administration and so forth.
And the Democrats told us what they were going to do.
They told us they were going to follow the same model.
It's just going to be yip, yip, yip, nip, nip, nip at the heels of George W. Bush and try to slow down the Republican agenda on the basis that all Republicans are corrupt.
And if you've paid any attention since the indictment was announced yesterday, this has become the theme.
Now, we'll show you here in media soundbites.
Become the theme on television, in the media.
It's become the theme in the newspapers.
When you read about Ronnie Earle, you will not read Democrat prosecutor Ronnie Earle.
You will only read about Ronnie Earle.
You will read about what a gallant man he is and what he's just a sheepish, shy little guy, just trying his best to enforce the law, blah, But it really is just the next step.
The next thing to look for, what they really want, what they really want is Tom DeLay in handcuffs, in a perp walk, marching in to be booked and fingerprinted down in Austin, and they want the mugshot.
The media wants the Tom DeLay mugshot to use as the picture of Tom DeLay and by association, all Republicans for as long as they can get away with it.
In DeLay's case, the rest of his life.
That's what this is.
And this is the practice that the Democrats are doing.
Increasingly, their prosecutors have become partisan.
Their prosecutors have become political.
And the effort to go out and get Republican enemies fails at the ballot box.
What they really want to do, and this actually started with Reagan, folks, they want to criminalize conservatism.
They want to criminalize the fact that people are Republicans.
They want to establish the notion.
And you can see it here throughout the coverage of Delay.
They want to just try to convince as many people as possible.
If you're a Republican, you're criminal.
If you're conservative, you're criminal.
Conservative policies are criminal.
They're cold-hearted.
They're cruel.
They're mean-spirited.
They have no compassion.
Blah, blah, blah.
It's all just like they want to institutionalize liberalism via the Supreme Court and other high courts so that as to take it away from the ballot box, take it out of the arena of ideas because it loses every time it's tried there honestly and presented honestly.
That's what the game plan is.
They're practically admitting they can't win at the ballot box.
They're admitting they can't beat Delay in an election.
They're admitting they can't beat the Republicans in the House.
So this is their latest attempt and latest effort to do so.
One of the problems that they have here is that, and I don't mean this as an insult, please don't misunderstand, but prior to yesterday, how many years have we been hearing about all these criminal activities of Tom DeLay?
How many years?
I mean, if there ever was to be an indictment, wouldn't you expect this thing would be a laundry list of serious crime after serious crime after serious?
How long have we been hearing about this?
We've been hearing this for the longest time.
Delay is just a creep.
But even with all that attention, a national name recognition survey would indicate that very few Americans know who DeLay is, which is why the Democrats stopped their intense attack on him earlier this year on these ethics charges.
And remember how that backfired on them?
They started talking about ethics violations of Delay.
Then we found out all the other Democrats in the House who had done much the same thing, failed to file reports on time, failed to file reports, period, claiming ignorance.
Oh, I didn't know I had to do that.
I want to go in and revise my remarks.
I want to revise my reports and so forth.
Well, now they're going to get some name recognition on DeLay because this is, you know, an indictment is a national thing.
And so they'll have the opportunity here to educate the American people on who DeLay is.
I mean, it was sort of funny when they were going after DeLay, but nobody knew who he was.
I'm talking about in terms of the general population.
I guess what the Washington Post and Boston Globe, I don't know which it is today, refers to DeLay as the second most powerful man in Washington behind the president.
Whoa, I thought that was Bush or Cheney.
And I thought it was Rove.
Now, Delay, the second most powerful man in the world.
When did they decide that?
They decided it yesterday.
But I really, I expected this huge, long indictment.
I thought, well, this is going to be because I got an email, Blackberry message yesterday before I was anywhere near a television.
And just a little blurb, Tom DeLay's been indicted.
Well, this is going to be huge.
This indictment, I don't know about you, but I'm hearing nothing but intentional lies and misstatements about this indictment.
What have you heard?
Have you heard money laundering?
Oh, it's all over the place.
Yesterday afternoon, CNN's expert in legal matters, Jeffrey Toobin, said it's all about money laundering.
Yeah, what you do is you take these corporate donations and then you send them to the Republican Party and then you illegally send the same money back to a Texas legislator.
And that's money laundering.
The only problem is that's not what the indictment says.
The indictment doesn't say that.
This is not a money laundering charge.
There's no evidence of anything in this indictment.
He's not charged with money laundering.
The indictment says nothing about any role that Delay had in any crime.
It charges him with a criminal conspiracy in one sentence.
It never mentions Delay after that.
It says nothing about what he did or how he did it or what he do, what he knew, nothing whatsoever.
You know, if somebody's going to be accused, you have a right to know what you're being accused of.
And there's nothing specific in this indictment.
That's this conspiracy charge is sort of the way to understand a conspiracy at one count after all these years of hearing what a lowdown skunk Tom DeLay is, one count of conspiracy.
Conspiracy, the way to understand this is Ronnie Earle has thrown up all this stuff in the wall and hoped some of it would stick, and none of it has.
He went through five grand juries that couldn't get an indictment.
He threw all this stuff against the wall.
Well, all that stuff falls to the floor.
A conspiracy charge sweeps it all up and says, DeLay talked about this.
Conspiracy charge means DeLay was in on it.
He knew this was happening.
What this is going to uncover again is that if indeed this kind of thing happens, it happens at all levels of politics in both parties.
And this is going to come back and it's going to bite some people on the left as their tactics have been doing so in the process.
They're doing their best to destroy Tom DeLay and to shut down the conservative agenda in the House.
Make no mistake about that.
So that sort of sets the table here.
We'll take a brief time out and come back and continue.
Your phone calls are also welcome throughout the busy broadcast day.
We will continue in mere moments as America's anchorman returns.
Hi, welcome back on the cutting edge, Rush Limbo at 800-282-2882.
The email address rush at EIBnet.com.
In this indictment of Ronnie Earl's, Tom DeLay is not tied to any crime of any kind.
And I've been late yesterday afternoon, last night, this morning, I've been listening to news stories saying he's involved in money laundering or charged with money laundering.
He was charged with a criminal conspiracy, and not a single fact is provided in this indictment, not one.
Zilch, Zero, Nada.
It's a feeding frenzy, folks.
And the media is doing exactly what I have always told you they'll do.
They are creating their own reality here.
They want this to be true.
They want all of this corruption to be true.
And so they are creating that reality.
I have a question.
The New York Times today finally gets on board now.
This paper is so irrelevant now, but the New York Times gets on board and has a long story about all the errors, misreporting, rumors, all of this following the hurricane Katrina in New Orleans.
Now, we know that there were no rapes and there were no murders and that all of this anarchy at the Superdome and at the convention center didn't happen, and yet the media continue to report it, and they reported it relying on rumors, and we know why.
I went through this on Tuesday.
There are two primary reasons.
A, they wanted it to be true.
They love these kinds of disaster stories.
They wanted all this to be true.
There's a subset of them wanting it to be true because they just knew they could nail Bush with this.
Oh, yes, because most of the victims of this hurricane aftermath were black.
And of course, Republicans are racist.
The second thing is that you have to understand, even though none of that was true, even though all these horror stories of all the anarchy at the convention center and the superdome were not true, who believed it?
On the strength of rumors, the media.
Now, if they believed it on the strength of rumors, they must believe that that's possible among those people.
Why not question?
Oh, I can't believe that would be going on, somebody should have said.
I can't believe that's actually happening in there.
We haven't seen any pictures of that in there.
The reason is there aren't any because it didn't happen.
My question is this.
Why believe them at all?
It's the same thing with the Clintons.
I remember being on Nightline in 1993, and we were talking about the Clinton health care plan.
It was a big, one of these town hall discussions.
I was one of the participants.
And the Hillary health care plan was up for discussion and so forth.
And I made the point, you know, I've looked at the health plan here, Mr. Koppel, and there's some things in here that really trouble me.
Nobody's talking about.
But, Michael, why should we believe what the Clintons are saying about it?
We know that they lie.
And nobody really stood up to object to that.
They started acting.
Carville was on the show, and they started acting defensive in certain ways, but nobody challenged my point.
Why should we believe what the Clintons say is in the health care plan?
Why would she believe that they don't have any evidence they tell the truth about much?
Well, so why believe anything the media is saying?
There's a Gallup poll out, by the way, that says by three to one, the vast majority of the American people consider the media too liberally biased.
You haven't seen that yet?
I got it from newsbusters.org.
It's a Gallup poll.
I'll find it here.
I'm sitting the table here, so I got a lot to do here today.
I'll find it.
But three to one or something like that, far more people think the American media is more liberal than it is conservative.
But why believe what they're saying about this delay business?
Why believe them after New Orleans and after all of these things we know that they report, after Cindy Sheehan, after Bill Burkett, after the forged documents in the memos, after giving Dan Rather awards, after all the media circling the wagons and why believe them on anything they say, particularly when it is about a conservative?
There's nothing in this indictment, folks.
There's not one charge in the there's no money laundering here, and yet that's the theme that I keep hearing, because it sounds bad.
Money laundering sounds bad.
So they're creating their own alternative reality.
They want that reality to become the reality.
They talk about the future of the Republican Party, how it's in trouble because of this, among other things, which proves the point.
They're so eager.
The Republican Party is finished, by the way.
They've already defeated Bush.
Katrina did.
Now the Republican Party is finished.
They're already talking about taking back the House in 06.
They're going to have a landslide victory in the Senate.
Same thing.
They're going to win it all back.
To me, proves the point.
This was a political indictment being used by Democrat operatives and party officials, liberal media accomplices, for political purposes.
And I know some of you are going to call here and try to defend the indictment.
And I know some of you are going to call here and try to defend Ronnie Earl.
He's not part.
Because I hear your talking points as I listen to the news because the media is giving you your talking point.
What do you mean?
You want to call and defend this indictment?
I have a very simple question for you.
Can you tell me from this indictment exactly what Delay did in this supposed conspiracy?
You go read the indictment.
You want to defend the indictment?
You go read it.
And then you tell me what it says, what this indictment says exactly in regards to Delay and what he supposedly did in this conspiracy.
And I'm going to save you the time and trouble and the embarrassment.
It says nothing about his role in the alleged conspiracy.
It says nothing about what he did, nothing about what he said, not one word.
As to, hey, Rush, Ronnie Earl, why, he's not partisan.
Why, he's indicted 15 people, 15 political people, 12 of them are Democrats.
Oh, is that right?
He's not partisan.
Kay Bailey Hutchison.
He indicted her on the eve of her first campaign for the U.S. Senate.
It was thrown out.
It was a baseless indictment.
It was purely politically motivated.
As to these 12 Democrats that Ronnie Earl is indicted, many of them back in those days, you couldn't find a Republican in Texas.
That's really what they're upset with Delay about.
If you want to get down to brass tacks, Delay has led the effort to convert Texas to a Republican state, and they can't abide that.
That's criminal.
That's criminal.
Getting rid of Democrats at the ballot box.
Well, you can't do that.
That's criminal.
We're going to get you.
And the whole effort to get even with Delay is based on that and his effectiveness in the House as a Republican leader.
So, okay, 12 of the people that Ronnie Earl's indicted are Democrats, eh?
Bet you they were conservative Democrats.
I'll bet you back in the day where you couldn't find a Republican in Texas.
He's got to invite somebody, indict somebody, and he's going to indict some conservatives.
Make no mistake, the man is partisan.
The man is using the power of his office in an abusive way.
Many prosecutors do.
And the fact of the matter is, I mean, you want to defend Ronnie Earl.
Somebody call and defend for me, extorting corporations he has indicted.
He has indicted corporations, and if they have agreed to contribute to pet causes of his, he has dropped the indictment, dismissed charges.
You know where he is?
It's in Travis County.
Remember I once said all roads lead to Travis County.
It's where Bill Burkett is.
It's where the Forged document story started with Bush being a wall from the National Guard.
All roads lead to Travis County.
That's where Ronnie Earl is.
And in fact, Dan Rather's daughter has appeared at fundraisers for Ronnie Earl.
He's elected.
Dan Rather's daughter, Robin, has appeared at numerous fundraisers.
Don't try to tell me he's not a partisan hack.
Let's get on to real things back in just a sec.
You're listening to Rush Limbaugh on the Excellence in Podcasting Network.
Talent on loan from God.
Lots of stuff in the stacks of stuff today, too.
This is not going to be all Ronnie Earl or all Tom Delay all the time here.
We are scheduled to have Congress and Delay on the program tomorrow in the one o'clock hour.
Let me grab this phone call before going to the audio sound bites.
Crystal in Miami.
Nice to have you on the program.
Welcome.
Hi, Rush.
You often comment that politics have become more partisan over the last decade or two.
And I'm only 29, so I really have to take your word for that.
But I want to know what you think may have motivated that development.
And is there anything that we can do to affect some kind of change towards less partisan politics?
Now, the second part of that, I find, a fascinating question.
Is there anything we can do?
Partisanship is not a problem that we can all get together and solve.
Partisanship is a battle.
There's a myth here, Crystal.
And hang around here just a second.
Yes, it's true that things are more partisan, but it's not really by much.
See, I happen to love partisanship.
I think partisanship is natural and a perfect outflow from people who are committed to their core beliefs.
People who are, this is why I don't like moderates.
I mean, moderates, by definition, will not tell you what they believe.
They're wishy-washy.
They sit around and they wait to choose sides based on which side makes them feel better about themselves.
But partisanship has been around ever since the founding of the country.
Partisanship was worse in the founding days of the country than is today.
Partisanship, well, it's been vicious.
It has been mean.
The things that the tabloid press wrote about Abraham Lincoln in his day and others, it would make today's occurrences look like romper room.
You say you're 29 and you haven't followed this.
That's my point.
People's historical perspective begins with the day they were born.
But if you in school had been properly taught American history, you'd be able to a little bit better maybe put all this in perspective.
Now, having said that, let me acknowledge that for those alive today that have been alive for at least 50 years, it does seem worse than it has been in the previous 50 years, or 30 if you've been alive 29 or 30 years.
And there is a reason for that.
But if you go back to the 1970s, you will find that the Democrats in the media hated Richard Nixon every bit as much as they hated George Bush.
The parallels are amazing.
Nixon, in an attempt to make the liberals less combative, gave them a bunch of things that they wanted.
He created the EEOC.
Nixon created the EPA, the Environmental Protection Agency.
Nixon gave them a whole bunch of new government bureaucracies in an attempt to tell them, hey, I'm not such a bad guy.
Didn't matter.
They were out to destroy him.
And they were out to destroy him because of one thing, two things.
A man named Alger Hiss, a well-known communist spy, was uncovered and nailed by Richard Nixon, along with the help of a man named Whitaker Chambers.
The left never forgave Richard Nixon for that, and he compounded it by beating Helen Gahagan Douglas in an election in California.
From that point on, he was a marked man.
You don't expose communists and you don't beat Democrats.
Then Reagan came along, and they hated Reagan like they hate Bush today.
Reagan was just as hated, just as reviled, just as impugned, just as maligned.
The reason in those days that it didn't appear to be partisan is because in those days, the Democrats ran the House of Representatives.
The Democrats controlled the Senate for most of those years.
And the Republican power was centered and focused in the White House.
The conservative emergence had not yet occurred.
And in all of those days, and listen to me on this, Crystal, there was a media monopoly.
There were the three networks, there were two major newspapers and three major news magazines, and that was the U.S. media.
And whatever they said was.
Whatever they reported the news was the news.
There was nothing else.
If they didn't report it, it didn't happen.
They told us what the news was, and they told us what to think about it with their commentary and commentators.
Things began to change when Reagan took office.
A number of things were spawned, including the creation of a new media.
But the primary reason, and there are many, but the primary reason for the increased sense of partisanship today, as opposed to in the last 40 years or 50, is the Republicans winning the House of Representatives in 1994.
The House of Representatives is the seat of real power in this country.
It's where all the spending bills originate.
It's where much of the legislation that affects social policy via taxation originates.
And the Democrats controlled it for 40 years.
So they were able to stop Republican presidents.
They were able to stop a Republican-controlled Senate now and then when they had to deal with it.
When they lost the House of Representatives, that began the era.
Well, actually, one thing happened before that, 1988, 1989, they began to lose the media, although they didn't know it then.
But their media monopoly broke up.
We had the creation of this program, and then that spawned more talk radio.
Then the internet came along, and now the blogosphere.
And the left-wing media no longer has their monopoly.
They can't package the news as easily as they used to.
Well, they can package it as easily, but they can't persuade as many Americans of their version of events on a daily basis.
What you're seeing in the short version here, Cheryl, is a dominant American left and Democratic Party, which has been rendered basically a bunch of eunuchs.
They have lost their power.
They have lost their media monopoly.
And that's a huge thing.
When you lose the House and a media monopoly, that's an amazingly powerful apparatus, and they relied on it for so many years that they got intellectually lazy.
And they did not know how to fight intellectual battles with the conservatives that were working hard behind the scenes to triumph.
And that triumph began with Reagan and cemented itself with the House takeover in 1994.
And since then, this partisanship, this shrill partisanship is due to the fact that a bunch of Democrats and a bunch of liberals have lost their power.
They see it evaporating every day, and they don't know what to do to get it back.
They cannot believe that Al Gore did not win in 2000, so they've convinced themselves the election was stolen.
They can't believe John Kerry didn't win in 2004, so they've convinced themselves that Ohio's voting machines were screwed with.
They can't believe that somebody is as stupid and idiotic as they believe George Bush is could win in a landslide re-election in 2004.
They just can't believe it.
Since they cannot win at the ballot box anymore, and since they cannot control via a media monopoly the flow of news in this country, the only thing they have left is to take out their opponents via the criminal justice system or the ethics system or what have you.
That's what they've been reduced to.
The partisanship is simply the result of a bunch of people who've had lost their power who think it's been stolen from them and they're doing everything they can to get it back because their purpose in life is to have power.
Their purpose in life is to own Washington, to have this political power, to be able to exercise it.
And that's why the partisanship today, and it really, it's always been around.
The disdain that liberals have for conservatives has always been around.
It's just reached this fever pitch.
And for those of you who have not been alive that long and all this historical background of this, it's really about nothing more than the fact that the Democrats think that by virtue of their birth, they are entitled to power.
By virtue of their being liberals, they are superior to everybody else.
They are elites.
They can't understand being rejected by the American people.
They can't understand being rejected at the ballot box.
They can't understand the media being rejected by consumers.
They can't understand why this new media is triumphing over them.
And rather than blame themselves and rather than examine themselves, see what they might be doing wrong, what they're instead doing is simply going to whatever lengths they can to take out their enemies elsewhere because they can't do it at the ballot box.
And they really, they have no sense of humor.
They don't like being made fun of.
You never used to hear jokes about liberals anywhere.
It just didn't happen.
You didn't hear jokes about liberals from comedians or Democrats.
You hear jokes about liberals or anything in movies or so forth.
You didn't hear jokes about them, period.
Now they are a walking laughingstock.
And they become more so each and every day.
And I firmly believe this, folks.
I know a lot of you people are just scared to death of them.
And I guess that's somewhat healthy.
They're never going to go away and they're never going to be totally vanquished.
But this is a bunch of people that ought to be more scared of themselves than we need to be afraid of them because they are.
You know, a lion rules the four.
You corner a lion.
What's it going to do?
You take a king of the jungle, king of whatever, corner it, a rat, whatever.
It's got one chance to get away, and that's kill you.
That's destroy you.
That's where they are.
They are a bunch of cornered vermin, cornered rats, and their only way out of this is to destroy their enemies.
Crystal is the best I can sum it up.
Quick time out.
We'll be back.
Stay with us.
Hi, welcome back, Rush Limbaugh, the cutting edge of societal evolution.
Crystal in Miami.
I know you're still out there.
Two other things I want to mention to you in this regard.
The Democrats used to have a lot of conservative members in the South.
A lot of Democrats used to be conservatives.
And that kept the Democratic Party from going, you know, Trotskyite left.
It kept the party from becoming Shea Guevara, Fidel Castro, and all that.
Those conservative Democrats have become Republicans.
The Democratic Party moved so far left that they had no home.
They called it Reagan Democrats.
They finally become Republicans.
The Democrats don't have one state that they, about Louisiana, maybe the closest thing that they can say they still run and control.
And we see what it gets us.
The second thing that you need to understand here about partisanship, I don't want to mislead you.
I say I love it.
The Democrats' partisanship is not a partisanship born of honestly telling us what they believe.
If they did, they would be finished.
The Democrats do not.
You haven't heard an agenda from a Democrat in six years.
You haven't heard one thing from a Democrat running for office.
What he's going to do.
All he's done is criticize what the Republicans or conservatives are in his mind or do.
But you don't hear any agenda from these people.
They don't have the guts to be honest about it.
So they wear masks and they camouflage themselves.
And so the partisanship that we're getting is now really personal.
It's not the partisanship born of issues.
I mean, I love the partisanship where you get any arena of ideas and you debate them, but that's not what's happening.
We are presenting our ideas, we conservatives are to the American people, and they are buying it.
They are learning it.
They are accepting it.
They are discovering it.
And they know that it's all true.
The liberals don't dare debate liberalism.
So what they do is try to destroy the credibility of conservatives.
Well, this guy's a crook.
That guy's got ethics problems.
Now we've indicted Tom DeLay because they don't have the guts and they don't have the wherewithal nor the ability to win a partisan debate of ideas.
So the partisanship has really, really, really gotten vicious because the Democrats have made it personal.
Not about issues, but about personal.
And it's about criminalizing conservatism.
It's mean-spirited.
It's cruel.
Tax cuts.
Why that causes people to starve.
It's all a bunch of bogus charges and accusations, but it's the best that they can come up with.
The reason the media continues to create these phony realities, these false realities, like they did with Cindy Sheehan, like they did with Bill Burkett, like they're doing now with Delay, like they've done ever since 2001, and they did it many times before.
But there's a reason why an alternative, Iraq, they're trying to portray a picture of Iraq that's totally untrue.
And they know it.
Just like they gave us a picture of the New Orleans aftermath that was totally untrue, and they knew it.
They didn't care.
They wanted it to be true.
Here's why.
They're nothing but cornered rats, too.
And they've only got one way out, and that's to destroy their enemy, the opposition, the threat.
At the same time, the media, the big, what we used to call the mainstream media, the elite media, whatever, they are still trying to prove to themselves that they have that old power to shape opinion in America.
It's like the 44-year-old quarterback who still thinks he can take his team to the Super Bowl, still thinks that he can throw 30 touchdown passes in a season, still thinks he can throw the deep out, still thinks he can zip that ball into tight coverage.
It's like the athlete who will not admit he's over the hill.
The media will not admit that the day is different, the nay is new, it's a new era, and that they aren't a monopoly anymore.
And so, what you see every day in the media is nothing more than their attempt to prove to themselves that they still have it, that they still matter.
And that's why they're aligned.
It's why you can watch NBC, CBS, NBC, CNN, MSNBC, sometimes even Fox, depending on who the reporter is.
You can read the New York Times, and it's all the same.
It's literally all the same: delay, money laundering, delay this, delay this.
It's all the same.
And it's not going to change until they realize that they're the ones who are going to have to do the adapting.
Let me go to Vancouver, Washington.
Rick, we'll take you next.
We'll get on with things in a second here, folks, but I want to grab this.
Rick, hi, and welcome to the program.
Hi, Rush.
Thank you very much.
There's another factor on the partisanship that I think that just your modesty isn't going to allow you to cover.
Back in the 80s, when you hit the national scene, typically I would talk to friends of mine and things like that.
Have you heard of this Rush Limbaugh guy and stuff?
Maybe I've heard of him.
Maybe I haven't.
I like him.
I don't like him.
But for the most part, people were going along about their lives, didn't know anything.
All they knew is that the Democrats wanted to help the little guy.
The Republicans only wanted to help the rich guy.
And you educated the electorate, the populace, whatever you want to call it.
And the chips started sort of falling where they may as far as how people believed.
But you did cause people to become more educated in the world of politics.
And I think the left had to respond.
They started stepping up their attacks more and more as your popularity grew.
And I think.
Let me say, so what you're saying is that I am the reason it's more partisan out there?
It's your fault, yes.
I caused it by the opinion that people have.
We are able to express ourselves in ways that we weren't able to before.
We can come out and say, look, tax cuts cause the Treasury to get more money.
You kind of broke, or I should say, shattered the template that was always existing prior to that.
Well, I'll be glad to take some credit for this.
I know that, you know, they've got me in their crosshairs as well.
And they have had for, I can't tell you how long, trying to discredit me every year I have been doing this program.
Now, I don't listen to Limboy makes it up.
Don't listen to lies about this.
He's shaped things to be whatever he wants his world to be.
Accuse me of doing what they actually do, which is another thing, transference.
Listen to the liberals criticize Republicans, folks.
And when you hear these accusations, even on this delay business, he's corrupt.
He's this is just its ethic.
Talking about themselves, whether they know it or not, they are.
But I have no question that this program and what it spawned is a participant in why things are quote unquote more partisan.
But all that really means is this program and the things that it has spawned are the reason Democrats have been losing.
And of course, you corner a rat, they have only one choice.
You can't, if you're a rat, you cannot dig a new rat hole in the corner and duck into it.
You don't have the tools.
All you can do is try to fight your way out of it.
And you can only do that by wounding whoever it is that has you cornered.
That's why nobody likes to corner a lion or a sick animal when it's risky.
It's risky.
There is only one way out.
And that's where we are.
And that is today's lesson on partisanship.
We'll be back.
Stay with us.
And the monologue segment of the next hour, I'm going to get into some other things.
We got some audio soundbites, but I want to give you just the highlights of the Clinton legacy.
For those of you who are only 30 years old and may not be paying attention.
For those of you who are 70 and haven't been paying attention, for those of you who are 65 and weren't paying attention in the 90s, I just want to give you some bullet points of the Clinton legacy and just have you think about ethics and all of these so-called corruption charges that you've heard about aimed at Republicans.
It's all coming up.
Sit tight.
▲
Export Selection