Rush Limbaugh Program - January 31, 2006, Tuesday, Hour #1

All Episodes

Previous Next

Jan. 31, 2006 - Rush Limbaugh Program

36:19

January 31, 2006, Tuesday, Hour #1

Large

Audio Only |

Scroll

Time	Text
	Welcome to today's edition of the Rush 24-7 podcast.
	Greetings, my friends, and welcome.
	Ha ha ha ha ha.
	The award-winning thrill-packed ever exciting, increasingly popular, growing by leaps and bounds, Rush Limbaugh program.
	I am America's anchor man.
	This is the Excellence in Broadcasting Network.
	It happened, ladies and gentlemen, just a few short moments ago.
	On this vote, the ayes are 58, the nays are 42.
	The President's nomination of Samuel A. Alito Jr. of New Jersey to be an associate justice of the Supreme Court of the United States is confirmed.
	Now it's time to bring on the next vacancy.
	We are on a roll, ladies and gentlemen.
	And take down those words, Senator Carey, for your next floor statement about me.
	Because I want those words echoing throughout the land.
	Bring on the next vacancy.
	We are on a roll.
	Let me tell you where this all began, ladies and gentlemen, because there are people out there debating this today.
	Where did this all begin?
	How did this this this quest to take on the challenge of uh of of reversing the direction and trends of the Supreme Court?
	It started years ago, years and years and years ago.
	The grooming of scores of young lawyers, getting them on the federal bench, educating the public about the Supreme Court, preparing to defend against these demagogues out there.
	This is how long it takes.
	This did not happen overnight.
	This is not simply the result of George Bush being elected president.
	That's crucial, don't misunderstand, but uh without having people like John Roberts and uh uh Samuel Alito uh on the bench, getting seasoned, uh deciding cases, writing opinions, and all the other Bush nominees without that project project that has been going on for years and years and years.
	Today would not have happened.
	Now there's another element of this that uh I would be remiss if I did not mention.
	And that is that this most recent episode actually began with the Harriet Myers nomination.
	The Harriet Myers nomination was a disaster.
	I mean, it's a good woman.
	Uh she stepped aside for a more qualified person.
	Uh this sparked what I called a conservative crackdown.
	At the time it was called a conservative crack up.
	When the nomination of Harriet Knight Myers was announced, the Liberals were giddy, they were happy, they thought that they had intimidated President Bush.
	And when the conservatives started bleating about it and mobilized to do something about it, the liberals thought that they were in the midst that we were in the midst of this giant crack up.
	When in fact it was a crackdown.
	I don't know whether Harriet Myers a conservative, none of us do.
	But by nominating in her place a known and brilliant conservative, President Bush helped give clarity about his own beliefs and thoughts about judicial philosophy, forced the country to have an intelligent and much needed debate, like we said all along.
	Flush the Democrats out, nominate somebody they despise, nominate somebody that they're going to demonstrate their actual beliefs in opposing.
	And it all happened.
	The Democrats today are in an embarrassing state.
	Their left-wing blogosphere is cracking up just as they thought we were cracking up for the Harriet Myers nomination.
	Except there this is no crackdown for them because they have uh the Democrats are in total disarray.
	They're fighting with each other now.
	Listen to Senator Kennedy screaming, this is yesterday on the Senate floor before the cloture vote.
	And how embarrassing is that for Senator Kerry.
	Here he comes back as a knight in shining armor from the ski slopes of Davos, Switzerland, after obeying the command from the New York Times.
	Filibuster this nomination.
	Carrie rides in to save the day and ends up.
	Well, how many votes did the cloture how many got 19 or 20 Democrat votes yesterday for cloture?
	218 everybody got barely about half their caucus.
	He got about half the Democrat caucus to go within the other half.
	And it was known in advance this was going to happen.
	What an idiot Kerry must be.
	His Democrat leaders had already said while he was in the air on the way back to lead the filibuster, his Democrat leaders, Dingy Harry and others had already conceded there was no hope.
	A filibuster would be pointless.
	And yet there is Senator Kennedy, along with his protege, Senator Kerry leading the way.
	It was the blind leading the blind, the tone-deaf leading the deaf.
	I mean, it was just incredible.
	This crack up that we are witnessing is historic, folks, and you are watching the midst of it.
	You are in the midst of it, and you are part of what's making it all happen.
	The Democratic Party and the American left have no clue how to deal with an informed opposition.
	They simply wait till you.
	I am so loaded in the stack today with examples of this Democrat crack up, and it is hilarious.
	And I want to give you one right now, Senator Kennedy on the floor before the cloture vote yesterday.
	Just a portion of his remarks.
	He's screaming here on the Senate for this a giant rush.
	See, I told you so.
	Senator Kennedy's screaming that it's the court, not the Congress or the President, where all progress, i.e., liberalism comes from.
	Our founding fathers failed the test when they wrote slavery into the Constitution.
	Abraham Lincoln pointed the way, and we passed the 13th, 14th, 15th amendment and had a civil war, but we didn't resolve this issue.
	It was only till we had the courage of those members of what branch of government.
	Not the United States Congress, not the United States Senate, not the executive, the judiciary, the Fifth Circuit.
	We're talking now about the Supreme Court.
	But they are the ones that change this country inevitably with what we call the march toward progress.
	And this is why they're so upset because the court is the last instrument they have had to advance liberalism because liberalism cannot win at the ballot box.
	It does not win legislatively.
	The things that they really believe in, the things they really want to move forward, have no prayer in an up or down Democratic vote, which is why the court and activist judges were so important to them.
	They have just now come to grips in the last week and a half with the final nail in the coffin yesterday, that they no longer are in control of things.
	That they have no control.
	They are helpless.
	That's why it's time bring on the next vacancy.
	We are on a roll.
	We've got uh little less than two years for another vacancy.
	I think there's going to be one sooner the better.
	Bring it on, and we will see where the next fight goes.
	Now, well, Mr. Sternley sending me a note saying that they're still insisting that Alito was pushed through by a small majority.
	Uh let's put Ed Whelan at uh at National Review Online today has uh has a good take on this.
	By pushing a and let's he calls this the achievements of the filibuster.
	By pushing a filibuster vote upon their fellow Democrats, Kerry and Kennedy have achieved quite a bit already.
	Here are the things.
	Absent the filibuster effort, a lot of attention would mistakenly have been focused on whether Alito would reach the filibuster proof level of 60 votes in his final confirmation.
	He didn't.
	5842.
	If he were to fall short of that, the media would proclaim the vote level sends a warning shot that another nominee like Alito could be filibustered.
	By forcing an actual vote on cloture, Carey and Kennedy have deprived the left of this pretend filibuster argument.
	Now they're going to go try to make it.
	They are trying to move 58 votes, why this is nothing.
	He squeaked through.
	This is us show the president.
	It doesn't matter.
	He's on the court.
	The media can continue to trumpet the Democrat Party line all they want.
	They can say that this does not show strong support.
	They can say he was pushed through, but we can always go back to their failed cloture vote, their embarrassing floppuster, as Deborah Orin called it today in the New York Post, to put the real truth to this rather than spin.
	The starting point now for analysis of the politics of any subsequent nomination is that a nominee like Alito can expect to receive more than 70 votes on cloture.
	That's the media spin.
	Not that he's only going to get 58, because all you need is 51.
	Who cares what the final vote is?
	It's nothing more than icing on the cake past 51 votes.
	But if if a guy like Alito is going to get uh uh more than 70 votes on cloture, that's the message, and The Democrats won't take it because they're still living in their spin world.
	Number two, Kerry and Kennedy have turned the wrath of the left against those 19 Democrats, nearly half the caucus, who voted for cloture.
	And let me let me share with you the illustrate the wrath of the left.
	There is this uh this this diatribe from uh the Daily Cause blog site.
	This is this is the leading left-wing blog that influences elected Democrats in Washington.
	And this is from one of the site's so-called recommended diaries.
	You go to the site and they say, read this.
	This guy's good, this guy's this guy's got it.
	Read this, live it, love it, learn it.
	Here's what this Democrat wrote at Daily Cause.
	What I want is a complete list of every scum-sucking bleeping Democrat bleeping senator who voted for cloture.
	That's what I want.
	I don't know what to do with that list, not yet, but I know for blank damn sure I won't be voting for any of them, let alone sitting there any blank damn money.
	Frankly, right now I'd like nothing better than to torpedo the entire lot of them.
	Just dump them like so much worthless leaden VC blast.
	I got nothing, folks.
	Don't look over here if you want comfort or a nice uplifting live to fight another day speech.
	I'm done with them.
	They're dead to me.
	Yeah, Cantwell and Bird and Landruin Bingham, and every last blanking one of them.
	I'm done with them.
	I'm registering independent tomorrow.
	You're welcome to join me.
	This is just a sample.
	Now, this, if you run into this today, you think, wow, this is a little unusual.
	No, that kind of language and that kind of vitriol and anger is commonplace on these sites, and that's what these Democrats have been treated to.
	Here's the third point that Ed Whelan makes about the achievements of the filibuster.
	By using the filibuster weapon against a nominee whom the public rightly recognizes to be superbly quality.
	He proved uh his approval polls, the Alitos were two to one in favor.
	Kerry and Kennedy have undermined the Democrats' future use of the filibuster.
	Crying wolf isn't a good way to build credibility.
	Of course, the left hopes to show overtime at Leto is a real wolf, but I have much greater faith in the public's ability to recognize good judging than the Democrats.
	That's uh that's Ed Whalen.
	I must take a brief time out, my friends.
	We will be back.
	We will continue.
	Lots to do on the program today, plus your phone calls, so sit tight.
	Brian, we got the dinno cam up and running, right?
	Yeah, we're good.
	Yes, Coco, the dinno cam is up and running.
	Uh, greetings and welcome back.
	Rush Limbaugh having more fun than a human being should be allowed to have.
	Our telephone numbers 800 282-2882.
	This was so funny yesterday during the closure vote.
	Gathered, and this is in the uh the New York Times today, uh gathered just off the Senate floor, were all the Lib Kook groups that write the questions for the members of the Judiciary Committee and run the ads, and they were there to threaten the liberals.
	You actually had Ralph Nees, president of People for the Liberal Way, uh, and leader of a giant liberal coalition opposing Judge Alito standing off the Senate floor, trying to intimidate Democrats into voting for the filibuster yesterday when it was all over.
	Ralph Nees said excruciatingly disappointing.
	Nan Aaron of the Alliance for Justice.
	Another coalition leader said the temper the 24 Democrats who voted against closing the debate showed extraordinary principle, but she faulted the rest as failing to make judicial nominees a priority.
	In the end, she said a leito is still on the court.
	Speaking of of something along the same lines, as you know, the press of State of the Union uh addresses tonight.
	Get this.
	Liberal activists, among them graying leftovers from the Vietnam era anti-war movement, plan to gather near the Capitol tonight, banging pots and pans to drown out President Bush's State of the Union address, which is going to be inside the Capitol.
	And you're going to have these 60s retreads standing outside the United States Capitol, banging pots and pans to try to drown out the State of the Union address.
	I can think of nothing more appropriate to illustrate the power of their efforts.
	Here is a nationally televised speech to be broadcast over American airwaves and cable.
	And a bunch of derelicts from the 60s are going to be hanging Around with pots and pans outside where nobody inside will be able to hear them, trying to drown out the president's speech.
	Yesterday, opponents of the Iraq War kicked off their latest round of demonstrations with an impeachment forum held downtown in a private dining room at Bus Boys and Poets.
	Featured speakers were 78-year-old former U.S. Attorney General Ramsey Clark, longtime war protester Marcus Raskin, who's 71, head of the Institute for Policy Studies, and Cindy Sheehan.
	The group's website has gathered endorsements from left-leaning celebrities like Susan Sarrandon, Jane Fonda, Harry Belafonte, and Sean Penn.
	It's unlikely that any stars will show up for tonight's protest.
	And I I kid you not.
	Attending yesterday's private lunch, about a hundred anti-war activists, many of them silver-haired, bespeckled veterans of the 60s.
	They were wearing linty sweaters and naturalizing.
	And get this, they were they were nibbling on vegan pizza and bean sprouts.
	And on the wall was a painted collage of slogans, make love not war and nostalgic faces such as the well-known communist sympathizer Joan Baez, Bella Epzug, and a younger and thinner Ralph Nader.
	This is who you people are afraid of.
	A bunch of wackos beating pots and pans tonight outside the Capitol, trying to drown out a nationally televised speech.
	A bunch of people who show up at something called bus boys and poets, put up slogans, make love not war, pictures of Joan Baez and Jane Fonda up there eating bean sprouts.
	This is who they are.
	These are the people that make up the American left today, or a large percentage of it on the fringe.
	Couple more sound bites.
	Ted Kennedy still on the Supreme Court speaking on the Senate floor yesterday.
	The 65 Act for voting, voting rights, 68 Act, the public accommodations, the 1973 Act to say that women are going to be treated equally.
	The Americans for Disability Act that said the disabled are going to be a part of the American family.
	All of that is the March to Progress.
	And my friends, the one organization, the one institution that protects it is the Supreme Court of the United States.
	Somebody, somebody get him a Prozac or something.
	I mean, it's it's this is folks, unhinged, totally unhinged, and as I've always told you, when it can become unhinged when they get really frustrated, they can't help but be honest, and they're telling you here, Kennedy, this is what the court is to them.
	This is a court, the court is for the advocacy and establishment of liberalism as law.
	That is what it because they can't get all these things that they so cherish passed democratically.
	And it's just killing, just killing Democrats at a Leto was confirmed in time for the State of the Union.
	Here's Chuck Schumer this morning on the Senate floor.
	Tonight, when the President announces to applause, the fact of Judge Alito's confirmation, what he should really hear, because of the partisan nature of his choice, is the sound of one hand clapping.
	While some may rejoice at Judge Alito's success, millions of Americans will come to know that the lasting legacy of this day will be ever more power for the president and less autonomy for the individual.
	While some may exult at the packing of the court with yet another reliable extreme voice in the mold of Scalia and Thomas, millions of Americans will be at risk of losing their day in court when they suffer the yoke of the discrimination.
	Keep talking, Senator Keeto.
	You are just making yourself out to be a member of Jurassic Park.
	You are an antique.
	You're every bit as much an antique as the mainstream media is.
	And in fact, I think I've made one of the great political discoveries of the new year here, folks.
	I have I have finally discovered Chuck Schumer's mainstream.
	You know, he's always talking about uh these judicial nominees when the president names them and Schumer says he's out of the mainstream, he's out of the mainstream, he's out of the mainstream.
	Well, I've always thought Senator Schumer has been very arrogant and condescending in assuming that he and his beliefs constitute the American mainstream.
	Now, I can not only identify the Schumer mainstream, but I can quantify the Schumer mainstream now.
	And I mean by that I can put a number on it.
	The Chuck Schumer mainstream is 25% of the Senate.
	Just check the filibuster vote.
	Chuck Schumer and 23 other liberals who think they are mainstream voted for the filibuster.
	The uh non-mainstream, that's three out of four senators voted the other way.
	The Chuck Schumer mainstream is twenty-five percent of the U.S. Senate.
	The Chuck Schumer mainstream is twenty-five percent of the country.
	So we have a new concept.
	And the new concept is that Chuck Schumer is not the mainstream, and we've all we can debate it intellectually and anecdotally, but now we can just put the filibuster vote, the cloture vote, to the test.
	Chuck Schumer's mainstream is what we've always told you it is.
	The minority.
	A small wacko fringe minority living in Cooksville.
	Must take a brief time out here, folks.
	More sound bites.
	Your phone calls right around the uh corner here after the break.
	I know a lot of you want to weigh in on this.
	Telephone number 800-282-2882.
	Sit tight.
	We're coming right back.
	And in the midst of all, I am your host for life.
	El Rushbow, having more fun than a human being should uh be allowed to have.
	Telephone numbers 800-282-2882.
	All right.
	Folks, those of you who are trying to access the uh the Ditto Cam video stream.
	It's been on since the top of the program.
	The audio stream as well.
	We are having some problems.
	Some people getting it, some people aren't.
	Uh our our engineers and our tech specialists are working feverishly now uh to uh to try to fix the problem, and uh we we have a high confidence level that uh we will get this fixed ASAP.
	And uh when I'm told that uh all these uh streaming problems that we're having have been corrected, I'll make sure and pass it on to you here.
	I I'm sorry to comment on this because you can't see it, and I'm not even suggesting that you try.
	I'm just looking at Bill Schneider on CNN, they're doing their big pre-pub on the State of the Union.
	Notice how quickly the Alito story has died.
	And I I first this guy goes to New Hampshire during a campaign, puts on a uh, you know, a landed Brezhned hat.
	Uh and now what what do you call that kind of hat?
	Tam O'Shatter?
	What do you?
	And an Applejack hat.
	Uh for those of you that watched uh the AFC championship game in Denver two Sundays ago, he's dressed identically to Shannon Sharp.
	And I said to Snertley, this why would anybody that that I bet he doesn't wear this outfit anywhere but television?
	And it just looks I don't know, overdone staged, sort of like the trench coat.
	Oh, this is not a trench coat, but it's just it's just it's laughable.
	All right, to the fallings, Jim and Raleigh, North Carolina.
	Glad you called, sir.
	Welcome to the program.
	Hey, Rush, I thought it was an interesting lead in your uh train running to the truth because yesterday on Rick Hume's news program, Major Garrett interviewed uh Harry Reid and asked him what I thought was a couple of really interesting questions.
	Of course, the Jack Abramov thing was part of it.
	But he the two the questions that really interested me the most was he turned around and he said, Well, who in the Democratic Party is leading or deciding, or I forgive me, I forget the exact wording, but the Democrats' domestic policy, and Harry Reese said, Well, I'm not going to answer that.
	And then Major Garrett followed up with a, well, okay, who is the leader of the party who is setting the agenda?
	And Harry Reach and I said, Well, that's just not a fair question, and I'm not going to answer that.
	I thought, well, very fair question.
	I mean, who in the Democratic Party is setting your agenda?
	Who's leading the party?
	Who's speaking for the party?
	And, you know, the the minority leader, the Democrat Senate leader, turned around and said, Well, that's just not a fair question.
	I don't feel like answering that.
	And I thought to myself, that's just a fifth grade answer.
	Well, there's the uh I have two or three observations.
	Number one, the the question is sort of irrelevant because there is no agenda.
	So Harry Reid can't identify who's leading it because there isn't one.
	I mean, there is, but I mean there's no policy initiative agenda.
	There's all the all it is is impeach Bush, criticize Bush, rip Bush, uh join sides with uh terrorists and uh and uh wrong side of the war in Iraq and a war on terror.
	That that that's you know that uh just scream, shout, yell, moan, complain, say no.
	That's that's that's their agenda.
	They don't have anything they can say they're for.
	Uh they do, they just won't.
	The second thing is uh the reason why Dingy Harry didn't say who is because they don't know.
	They don't know who's running the show.
	I think they've got a bunch of independent contractors, They're listening to these different groups.
	They're listening to the unions tell them one thing.
	They're listening to Daily Cause in a blogosphere tell them another.
	They're listening to Ralph Nees tell them another.
	They're listening to Nan Aaron from the Alliance of Justice, tell them another.
	They listen to Jesse Jackson tell them this.
	Al Sharpton tells them that.
	Cindy Sheehan tells them something.
	Caesar Hugo Chavez and Venezuela tells them to do something and they do it.
	There is no central figure leading this program because they are an amalgamation of a whole bunch of different coalitions.
	And all these special interest groups, one of the problems with the Democrats today is the special interest groups are single issue types, and none of them are happy.
	None of them are happy.
	It used to be this way.
	The way it worked was the Democratic Party was led by some powerful figures who defined the terms and determined who was going to sit at the table and have a seat at that table of power.
	The way it worked is Jesse Jackson would get a seat at the table if he delivered.
	Jesse would be given access to money and power and uh influence as long as the black vote came in.
	Same thing with the Union people.
	They'd get their seats at the Democratic table of power as long as their groups.
	Then the civil rights coalitions, the Ralph Neeses and the Nan Aaron's, as long as they did their jobs, they got a seat at the Democratic Party's table of power.
	It's now the other way around.
	These groups have the table of power, and they're telling the Democrats, you aren't going to be in our table anymore unless you vote the way we want you to vote.
	They have been emasculated in a sense.
	And what happens when you have a bunch of single-issue groups that you allow to get powerful?
	Because the tables have turned on the Democrats.
	And in one way of speaking, the Democrats don't have a seat anymore at their own table of power.
	They are henpecked.
	These groups literally are henpecking them to death.
	And that's why the New York Times tells them to do John Kerry drops everything at Davos, gets off the ski slopes, comes back and embarrasses the whole party because the New York Times demands it.
	This is just it's in it's incredible to watch.
	In terms of their agenda, make no mistake, folks, they do, as liberals, have very clear-cut things they believe in.
	They just know that they are losers at this point in time.
	They don't have the guts to be honest about it.
	They don't have the guts to actually say what they're for, and that's the third reason why Dingy Harry avoided the question.
	He doesn't want to get into the agenda, so he doesn't want to get into who's putting it together and who is leading it.
	But it is it is a pretty good observation on your part.
	Forget the whole question.
	You know, the question is who's who who's who's assembling the agenda?
	Who's leading the agenda Democratic?
	Who's leading the Democratic Party?
	Who would you say Mr. Snerdley is the leader of the Democratic Party today?
	Could you I mean, not a trick question.
	Who is the leader of the Democratic Party?
	I I it's you've got if this is this is uh you're really not going to have a presidential presidential candidate is by default the leader of the party, but that won't happen till 2008.
	Uh during the during the primaries, so who is the leader of the Democratic Party?
	They I mean, you can't say it's Howard Dean.
	They're just a they're just in a in a total mess.
	Uh we have a couple sound bites, by the way, from this interview, not the questions that Jim uh referred to, but uh one of them is about Abramov, uh well, they're both about Jack Abramov, and and uh it's fascinating here.
	Here's Major Garrett saying to Dingy Harry last night on Brit Hume's uh Fox program, Reed wrote a letter in March 2002 to Interior Secretary Gary Norton on behalf of a Louisiana India tribe who were trying to block federal approval of a casino sought by a rival tribe.
	The next day, a Reed Political Fund, the searchlight leadership fund, received five thousand dollars from the uh Kushada tribe, the Abramov client.
	And here's how Harry Reed responded to that.
	I have uh been representing Indians all my adult life.
	We have twenty-two different tribal organizations in Nevada, and so any letter I've written, they're public, anybody can look at if they want.
	Uh, I don't regret having written a letter on behalf of Native Americans.
	So Major Garrett then says to Dingy Harry, well, when the chairman of your party says any Democrat who wrote a letter is in trouble.
	Uh, do you uh you agree with that?
	I didn't see what he said.
	That's what he said.
	And uh, and I I I don't know who he's referring to.
	Certainly, I'm not in any trouble for anything dealing with.
	In your legislative context.
	Uh, well, I send letters all the time.
	On behalf of Native Americans.
	I have I have been involved with Native Americans and and uh some were represented by that thousand member law firm.
	Jack Abramov gave a quarter of a million dollars to Republicans.
	Not a single penny to a Democrat.
	This is a Republican scandal.
	I've never met Jack Abramoff.
	Never seen him.
	As far as I know, I've never been in the same building he's been in.
	It's uh this is the the Love this because they've they're just digging a hole to go in.
	Now it's any other pack leader, any other type of guy like Abram, he's gonna be okay.
	Abramov, though, is the only bad guy here.
	This is going to be a Republican scandal, and uh the bottom line is that for every Abramov, there's five or six others that do the same thing and they cross the the line and and deal with both parties.
	Now the American spectator, uh I want to expand a little bit here on uh Major Garrett's question to uh Dingy Harry about Howard Reed, or Howard Dean saying it anybody wrote a letter like Dingy Harry did is in trouble.
	It appears that the Democratic Party, this according to American Spectator, uh closer to imploding than the Republicans.
	How else to explain the ongoing attempts by Howard Dean to destroy Harry Reed?
	According to knowledgeable Democrat National Committee sources, Howard Dean about ten days ago, was shown opposition research documents generated by the Republican National Committee more than three years ago, which laid out facts regarding Reed and his family's lobbying and ethical conflicts.
	Howard Dean, according to the sources, was fascinated by the details in the Republican opposition research and asked that his staff research and independently confirm everything in the Republican documents.
	Basically, he oppoed a member of his own party, says a DNC source, loyal to Howard Dean.
	Basically, we were looking at three or four page documents that made Jack Abramov's lobbying work look like that of a rank amateur, says the DNC source.
	Between the minority leaders passed in Nevada and here in Washington, and the activities of his sons and son-in-law, which we have documented for you over the course of many weeks.
	The LA Times did the research on that.
	There probably isn't anybody in this town with more conflicts than Dingy Harry.
	The Reed family is the symbol of what's wrong with Washington.
	It's their behavior that enabled the culture that spawned people like Abramov.
	Dean then went public over the weekend, saying that Democrats with an Abramov problem would be in trouble, not only with voters, but with the Democratic Party.
	But why attack a senior member of his own party?
	Why would Howard Dean do this?
	Well, according to Democratic Party watchers and DNC staff, Dean has grown increasingly frustrated at how he's treated by the likes of Reed, Dick Durbin, Nancy Pelosi, and Ram Emanuel.
	They treat him like a lackey, not as an equal.
	Just last week they were all bad-mouthing his fundraising activities when clearly he's done a good job.
	What this comes down to is a fight for the soul of our party, and if the chairman has to draw a long knife on a few of his colleagues, he's more than willing to do so.
	And that's that that is uh a a DNC employee allowing him or herself to be quoted to the American spectator.
	So uh D Dean apparently got an enemies list out here, and the Republicans the interesting about this is that the RNC, apparently getting ready for whatever the Abramoff scandal has in store for everybody, is ready to unload on Dingy Harry and his own conflicts and his own ethical lapses, and that's what Howard Dean saw, and his eyes widened, his lips moistened, and he got all excited.
	Because make no bones.
	Howard Dean is everything to the ease, but I understand him not like uh enjoying being treated like lackey, these guys.
	Uh and if the chance to get even with them, I mean it's you know, human nature is human nature, party politics.
	They're already in a bunch of disarray.
	They can't have much more dissension in the ranks and they already do.
	Why not go for broke?
	So we'll keep a sharp eye on this, folks.
	But this is uh you are living in a historic times, a seminal moment.
	The actual implosion and self-destruction of what once uh was a major dominating political influence in this country, the Democratic Party.
	Back in just a second.
	We have the soundbite from uh Major Garrett and Dingy Harry that our caller from Raleigh referred to a moment ago.
	Major Garrett says To Dingy Harry last night.
	Who is the leader of the Democratic Party today?
	Well, I someone else will have to make that decision.
	How about on domestic policy?
	Who's the leader?
	I think that's really an unfair question.
	It's an unfair question.
	I don't know, folks.
	I I uh look, uh give you a caveat here.
	Anything can change overnight in politics.
	I've I've said this.
	I'm just telling you that the the state that they're in right now, especially when you contrast this with just seven or eight weeks ago.
	They thought that it was over for the Republican.
	They thought that they had already won the House back in 06 in the Senate, maybe, and in the White House for sure.
	And just look at where they are.
	Try try this.
	This is from the Des Moines Register today.
	President Bush, hoping to rally the nation's support for his policies tonight, has his work cut out for him in Iowa, where his popularity remains in a slump.
	A 61% majority of Iowans think the nation's gotten off on the wrong track, according to a Des Moines Register poll.
	Nearly as large a segment of the state's adults, 59%, disapprove of the Republican president's job performance.
	Well, I guess Bush won't be running in Iowa in 2008.
	I guess Bush isn't running anywhere in 2008.
	This is absolutely meaningless.
	I'm going to tell you one of the things that's taken the Democrats down to tubes is their stupid polling.
	They come up with these polls just to create the news that they want.
	Their polls are nothing more than an extension of the editorial page.
	And they buy these polls, they rig these polls, they get the answers they want, such as nobody likes Bush, everybody hates Bush, Bush approval lowered than everybody wants to get out of Iraq, and they run stories thinking that's what the American people actually believe.
	Bush keeps winning.
	We're still in Iraq, we're doing well in Iraq.
	We're not poor, we're not pulling out, we're not cutting and running, we're not doing anything the people in the polls suggest, and we certainly, uh, ladies and gentlemen, are not being affected by Bush's lack of popularity and getting Supreme Court nominees confirmed.
	So this parallel universe, it's astounding to me to watch this.
	Here's Kevin in Wilmington, North Carolina.
	Welcome, sir.
	Nice to have you.
	Yeah, Rush.
	Well, you know, now that you set up my question, uh, it's uh a very nice segue.
	Um my question was as your screener said, how in the world can uh the Democrats be doing so poorly when you know the polls are showing that Bush is doing so miserably?
	Because they believe their own rigged polls.
	They believe that that's their pro here.
	I've there's a story.
	Your your call is as timely as any today.
	Dana Milbank, Washington Post today, tasting victory.
	Liberals instead have a food fight.
	The ABC News Washington Post poll.
	Congressional Democrats in the best position they've held in 14 years, besting President Bush and Republican lawmakers on Iraq, the economy, health care, immigration, ethics, and more, all of which can mean only one thing.
	It's time for the Democrats to eat their own.
	Okay, so if if if if the ABC News Washington Post poll is out, and it says the Congressional Democrats are in the best position they've held in 14 years, besting the president and Republican lawmakers on a rock and the economy, health care, immigration, ethics, and more.
	How can this be that they keep losing?
	How is it that this most unpopular, despised and hated president keeps winning?
	And I'm telling you, Kevin, the answer to this question is they believe their own rigged polls.
	So the rest of the story is all about how the Democrats are eating each other.
	He covers the wackos that dominate his party, and he's not happy about it.
	Right on cue, liberal activists, including Cindy Sheehan and Ramsey Clark, gathered yesterday at this restaurant and bookshop at 14th and V Streets, Northwest, or what they build as a forum on the impeachment of President Bush and Vice President Cheney.
	They've got an impeach pack.
	Does the Democratic Party want to continue to exist or does it want to ignore what 85% of its supporters want?
	Impeach Bush.
	Sendy for Senate called out a moderator, Kevin Zees, a Ralph Nader acolyte.
	I mean, this story is replete with examples of why these people are not winning everything.
	And yet here's Millbank and these people running their polls, thinking a Democrats are in a best position they've been in in 14 years.
	Back in just a second, folks.
	Hard to digest, I know, but it's out there.
	Do you people uh see 24 last night?
	Whoa.
	We gotta take a brief time out here.
	We've got lots more straight ahead.
	This is the one and only EIB network.
	I am the uh harmless lovable little Fuzball El Rushbow.

▲