All Episodes
Previous Next
Feb. 3, 2006 - Rush Limbaugh Program
36:33
February 3, 2006, Friday, Hour #1
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Welcome to today's edition of the Rush 24-7 podcast.
Well, here we are on the one and only EIB network, the Rush Limbaugh program, and as normally we say it's the fastest week in media.
But this has gone kind of slow because I am so looking forward to the Super Bowl.
And I guess it's sort of like uh a mini Christmas, if you will.
At any rate, folks, it's great to have you with us.
It is Friday, so let's go.
Live from the Southern Command in Sunny South Florida.
It's open line Friday.
Telephone number if you want to be on the program.
What?
Ditto cams on.
Turn the I'm sorry, I forgot to told Brian Farr but Ditto Cam.
Yeah, I'm wearing my I'm wearing my Steelers Road jersey today.
You gotta have the Ditto Cam on.
Telephone number if you want to be on the program, 800-282-2882.
The email address is Rush at EIB net.com.
You know the rules for open line Friday, Monday through Thursday.
We talk about those things that interest me.
As I'm not gonna sit here, and I and that's been one of the problems this week.
Democrats and the Liberals have been flat out boring.
They haven't even really interested me.
But I I'm gonna talk about that.
Because there's a there's a piece today in the Wall Street Journal by Daniel Henninger, who is obviously a ditto head.
Uh and a friend of mine read this and had a great analysis of it.
And I want to I'm gonna share what my my friend shared with me about Henninger's piece at Opinion Journal.com in uh in an email.
Um but anyway, whatever interests you on Friday we will discuss.
Uh 800-282-2882, and the email address is rush at EIBNet.com.
All right, my friends, it's open line Friday.
It is uh Super Bowl weekend, and I'm I'm going to ask you to indulge me.
Because I want to I want to bury this once and for well, I don't think it's ever going to be buried, but I want to I want to put another nail in the coffin, nevertheless, as we attempt to bury this.
And this is about the uh the controversy that will not be allowed to die.
That is me, ESPN, black quarterbacks, the media, and Donovan McNabb.
Because something, you know, the McNabb came out and spoke earlier this week on ESPN about his uh problems with Terrell Owens, and this has spawned countless round table discussions on ESPN programs.
And uh yesterday on one such program, it's called Around the Horn.
It airs at five o'clock Eastern time.
My point was finally established and proved and admitted to by a member of the media.
Although he doesn't know he did it.
Which is why I am going to share it with you.
Now to set this up, we've got to go back to September of 2003, when I was on ESPN's Sunday NFL countdown show with Chris Perman, Steve Young, Michael Irvin, and Tom Jackson.
And this is the first of two segments that day that the we had all decided to do on McNabb and the Eagles, because they were having a tough tough time of the getting the season started in 2003.
So Tom Jackson says, I don't I don't think that now listen to this.
This is what was being discussed in 2003.
I don't think that benching McNabb is an option that they see right now.
He's gonna have to lose a lot of football games before they bench him.
I'd like to look again at that supporting cast.
This guy McNabb is struggling.
I'd be amazed if they don't come out today and run the football with whoever they have, Buck Halder, Deuce Staley, run that football, and give this guy a break at quarterback.
And Berman says, Rush, you're up.
Tommy, I uh I've listened, I've all you guys actually, and I think the sum total of what you're all saying is that Donovan McNabb is re is regressing.
He's going backwards.
And my I'm sorry to say this, I don't think he's been that good from the get-go.
I think what we've had here is a little social concern in the NFL.
I think the media has been very desirous that a black quarterback do well.
We're interested in black coaches and black quarterbacks doing well.
I think there was a little hope invested in McNabb, and he got a lot of credit for the performance of this team that he really didn't deserve this.
Well, carried this team.
I rush.
Somebody went to those championship games.
Someone went to those Pro Bowls.
Somebody made those plays that I saw running down the field, doing it with his legs, doing it with his arm.
He has been a very effective quarterback for this football team over the last two or three years.
And they didn't have any more talent than they did on defense.
On defense they did.
Well, but that's what I'm saying.
I think he got a lot of credit for the defensive side of the ball winning games for this team.
But I'll tell you what, I'll say it even more strongly, Tom.
When they're winning, nobody makes more plays than Donovan McNabb.
That guy is really one of the best in the league at making plays.
Well, I thought making plays does not win championships.
Running the offense does.
So at some point, I think got a big thing.
Because he'll go with two.
He'll go in there, drop back and correctly.
Isn't it odd that last year with the broken leg, I know it was Arizona, but the one game he was in the pie, he looked great.
So Rush, once you once you make that investment, though, once you make that investment in him.
That's a done deal.
I'm saying it's a good investment.
Don't misunderstand.
I I just don't think he is good.
As everybody said he has been.
Rush has a quiet.
Has the Michael Irvin there at the end saying Rush has a point.
Now you heard you heard um you heard Michael Irvin throw uh throw McNabb uh under the bus in this bite or not it's it was Steve Young that threw Irvin under the bus, suggesting that Coy Detmer would uh would would make a a better be a better choice to run the offense.
But anyway, let's go back to to to the the the thing that that caused a fire storm that ended up hijacking the NFL season in 2003 because anybody could talk about.
I said, I think the media has been very desirous that a black quarterback do well.
I think we've had this a little social concern in the NFL.
We're interested in black coaches and black quarterbacks doing well.
I think as a little hope invested in McNabb.
He got a lot of credit for the performance of the team and he didn't really deserve.
Bam.
From that, folks, uh you would have thought the most stinging irresponsible racist remark had ever been made since Jimmy the Greek.
Well, let's jump forward from 2003 to yesterday on this ESPN show called Around the Horn.
Uh host is Tony Riale.
He's talking with ESPN.com's Michael Smith, who interviewed McNabb on TV earlier this week.
And and Riale says, you know, I don't understand why this had to be about race just at the mention of a white quarterback.
Brett Faves the gold standard of all NFL quarterbacks.
Why wasn't he just speaking of the best quarterback in the game, Michael Smith?
Listen to this and keep in mind what I said.
I think the media has been very desirous that a black quarterback do well.
There's a little social concern in the NFL.
We're interested in black coaches, black quarterbacks doing well, and there's a little hope invested in McNabb, and the media has been propping him up.
Here is Michael Smith's answer.
It's not that he was picking out Brett Farr.
It's the fact that African American quarterbacks need some more support than criticism.
Donovan McNabb has enough criticism to deal with.
It didn't need you picking out uh the gold standard of a white quarterback when everybody else is trying to tear Donald McDonald Donovan McNabb down as it is.
Well said, Michael.
So uh what we just heard was Michael Smith say that uh uh it's the fact that African American quarterbacks need more support than criticism.
Well, thank you, Michael Smith.
Uh, who I think still does or you know, I think he write he used to write for the Boston Globe.
Uh thank you, Michael Smith.
That's all I ever said that there was a bias in favor of McNabb because they have a desire that black quarterbacks do well, so they're not gonna be as stridently criticized.
And it has now been admitted to, even though this reporter may not realize it did that on the very network where the original observation by me, a brilliant one, by the way, was made.
Quick timeout.
We will be back and continue before you know it.
You know what?
What what stands out as Mr. Sturdly as you as you heard the uh ESPN uh segment involving me from September 2003?
What stood out about that to you, that whole segment?
What when you listen to this?
It was it that the fact is that nobody on that show responded to me in any way other than what I attended.
We were discussing McNabb's talent.
Nobody on that show said, hey, Rush, that's an uncalled for racial comment.
Nobody's Tom Jackson, hey, wait a minute.
You're saying he's not as good as he as everybody thinks he is.
Who scored all these touchdowns?
Who ran all these plays?
Who won all these Pro Bowls?
Blah, blah, blah, blah, blah.
But not one reaction.
Not one person on the show thought it was a racial comment.
Because it wasn't.
And ESPN shows later that night and on Monday night never even talked about that segment.
It wasn't until the Philadelphia print media blew it up on Tuesday that it skyrocketed and became what it was.
It was an obvious campaign to what?
What?
Uh well, I I haven't I haven't read the print media in Philadelphia today.
Snerdley wants to know how they're handling the latest round yesterday.
They were uh the quit griping, McNabb, stop playing the victim was uh was the theme yesterday.
Quit griping, stop playing the victim.
Just go out and rebuild your uh rebuild your uh reputation.
So at any rate, let me if you heard the but by the how about this ship, this cruise ship, the Titanic uh 2006 uh uh in the Red Sea.
Here's the interesting thing to me.
The is the Israeli Navy has offered Egypt assistance in search and rescue, and Egypt turned them down.
Now, you want to talk Mid East Peace?
Anyone want to talk about the prospects for Middle East peace?
Here's Israel offering to help, just help in search and rescue.
Because there are a lot of people still missing.
And Egypt says, Nope, nope, not interested.
So if if if if if if you if you I don't know if the people drowning would be offended to be saved by Israelis, I'd I I just uh it's it's it's it's it's really more childish in sandbox than that, but it just illustrates.
I mean, if you're sitting out there with pie in the sky, panacea dreams about Mid East peace, just take a look at this.
I mean, they can't even agree on assisting each other and being helpful.
Unemployment rates declined in January.
Employers stepped up hiring uh last month, boosting payrolls by 193,000 and lowering the nation's unemployment rate to 4.7%.
That's the lowest since July of 2001.
The uh fresh snapshot of the jobs climate released by the labor department today suggested that the economy started the new year on fairly good footing.
Wheelie!
So we're down down to 4.7%.
Now remember, I mentioned to you that uh Monday night, George Stephanopoulos opened the ABC World News Tonight show by talking setting up the State of the Union, I guess Wednesday night, went Tuesday night, whenever the State of the Union address was.
He opens up the show on Tuesday night and says, uh, the nation's just in a sour mood.
The nation's just in a sour mood.
So what we did here, we went back and we got some unemployment figures for the Clinton years.
A couple of Clinton years.
In 1997, in October, the unemployment rate 4.7.
In 1997, uh November 4.6, December 4.7, 1998, January, February, March, 4.6, 4.6, 4.7, the unemployment rate today, 4.7, identical to the unemployment rates during the midst of the Clinton boom.
I wonder if Stephanopoulos was said the nation would have said the nation was in a sour mood in 1997 and 1998.
Greatest economy in the greatest economy in the last 50 years, Mr. Snerdley, greatest economy because they took over from the worst economy in the last 50 years is what they were saying during their 92 campaign.
All right, Daniel Henninger in the uh in the Wall Street Journal today.
This is available uh L Free Bowl at their their uh opinionjournal.com website.
Sick of sausage, today's voters crave ideology.
Now, this is fascinating on a host of levels.
The most significant moment in Tuesday evening State of the Union speech did not occur while President Bush was speaking.
It was just before the speech.
When TV cameras caught the two new Supreme Court justices, John Roberts and Samuel Alito.
They are conservatives.
They are what the Republican voting base wanted on the court and what George Bush promised he would nominate if elected.
Liberals are appalled.
Those who are not appalled are apoplectic, Filling web forums with denunciations of the justices and the president whose election victory entitled him to name them.
This is a fight over ideology.
Ideology isn't popular in Washington.
The American press abhors ideology, going so far as to make ideologue a term of political opprium, if not suggestive of mental illness.
Ronald Reagan, an ideologue, was a cowboy.
The press refers to pragmatists, politicians who win elections, then set ideology aside to get things done.
That's what the press likes.
Of course, they are the ultimate ideologues because they're liberals, but they don't think liberalism is an ideology in their world, so they they do search for these, you know, pragmatists and um centrists and so forth.
And the reason why let me I'm gonna set this up a little bit better.
I have told you over the I am so sick and tired of politicians in the media talking about how now to win elections we have to go to the great unwashed, the great middle, the great center, the great undecided, and I've always said, screw that.
There aren't that many of those people anymore.
And if they are, they're a bunch of wusses and you can't get to them anyway.
This is an election, these are elections, these are times that are defined by ideas.
Conservatives win every time they advance conservatism as an ideology.
How many times have you heard me saying this over the course of the many years that I have been serving humanity behind the golden EIB microphone here at the Limbaugh Institute for advanced conservative studies?
You've more times than you can remember, you've heard me say it.
And yet we still get the same old theory.
Well, you have to go get the basin, the primary rights, but then you have to move to the center to get the undecided.
You got so sick and tired of Bill Schneider and his CNN political scientists, media political scientists talking about the undecided, the swing vote.
That's where the elections are what.
It's not.
And what Henniger is pointing out here is the left has finally understood it.
The left wants ideology.
That it's what explains they become a bunch of kooks because their ideology is kooky.
Liberalism, honestly explained, liberalism forthrightly delivered, is whacko.
And they are sick and tired of candidates who uh munch at it around the edges and the margins, but do not articulate it.
They want somebody to articulate their liberalism, like Reagan and Newt and I articulate conservatism.
And since they're not getting that, they're doing it themselves.
On their web blogs and wherever, wherever, you know, hovels they hide out.
But inside the beltway, oh no, no, we can't have ideology.
No, no, no, no.
Ideologue is a term of political derision.
So Henniger continues here, what preoccupies the Beltway's conventional wisdom today and what interests voters could not be more different.
What matters most to the beltway is who gets caught in the Abramov scandals, the legal dicta of Al-Qaeda surveillance, and who takes the fall for Hurricane Katrina.
These things can be fun, but alone they reduce politics to an Xbox game.
What interests the most motivated Democratic voters now is progressive justice, our values, our rights, public needs, Roe versus Wade.
What interests GOP opponents is big government spending, patriotism, the ethics of cloning activist judges and roe versus wade.
Now, at a time when the Democratic elites no longer have a vibrant ideology and the Republicans in Washington are deserting theirs.
The public across the spectrum seems to be screaming for recognizable signposts, shared political principles.
Amen, bro, Mr. Henninger.
Back in 1960, the sociologist Daniel Bell wrote a book, remembered for its title, The End of Ideology.
Years later, he said in the New York Review of Books that some had missed an important caveat in the last chapter.
I said specifically that there is always an emotional hunger and a yearning for ideology, and that these impulses are always present among young intellectuals.
And so today, I don't know if I would call the people running democratic websites such as Moveon.org or the Daily Cause young intellectuals, but what they're hungering for can only be called ideology.
One might prefer a less fanatic, less foul-mouthed faction than they are.
And their democratic principles may seem a tad antique, meaning Kennedy, Reed et al.
But the unmistakable fact is that the Web Democrats are ideologues, proudly, defiantly so.
They're insisting that the party nominate a candidate who'll run unashamedly on progressive ideas.
They believe Clintonian triangulation is a sellout.
And they matter more than similar ideologues going back to the Trotskyite cells on the Lower East Side because they've proven they can use the Web to raise millions of dollars to support or punish Democratic politicians.
Even ideologues on the left need capital.
And this is where John Kerry's quixotic filibuster was about.
It wasn't about stopping a lead.
It was about paying homage to these kook ideologues on the left.
I must take a break.
Couple more paragraphs of this to go, and then an in-depth analysis in which I will take credit for all of this.
The bottom line.
Screams of sheer panic.
In certain quarters, at the very mention of my name, otherwise screams of joy and passion.
Great to have you back.
Open line Friday, Rush Limbaugh on Super Bowl weekend.
Back to Daniel Henniger's piece and an on the spot instant analysis.
So continuing the theme, he says which people want ideologues out there, want ideas.
Want people to rally around.
They don't want moderate, squishy, linguiny spined, light loafers kind of crowd walk around, won't tell you what they think about anything.
They don't want people who are afraid.
On the right and the left.
This is what John Kerry's filibuster was all about, not stopping Sam Alito.
When Al Gore gives a speech that strikes you as crazy, it's about this internal ideological competition, not you.
Carl Rove in a speech last month of the RNC said that a party's governing philosophy should be at the heart of our political debates.
The Web Democrats agree with this.
The left-wing American Prospect Magazine writes in its current issue.
In private conversations, progressives recognize there is a need to do something about broad social changes that they too find objectionable.
This is about the search for winning ideology, not mere polling tactics.
John Boehner's upset defeat of Roy Blunt in yesterday's House leadership vote suggests the Shaddock insurgency woke up House Republicans to the fact that their voting base was prepared to abandon them in November after they abandoned their ideological moorings.
The argument of practicing politicians against all this is that politics is ultimately about control by whatever means.
You win, you control.
This is often true, but now amid Abramov, out-of-control GOP spending and the Democrats 24-7 carping, whatever works is in low esteem in the heartland, if not discredited.
In the new media world, the political sausage factory is always on view.
Ugh.
Manity can't many candidates in the off-year election this November will still try to hide from ideology, and it's going to be hard.
In his State of the Union message, the president said, We've entered a great ideological conflict.
He is unavoidably a wartime president, and with no respite from politics.
There was a time when politics stopped at the water's edge.
In our time, the Web Democrats' search for an ideology ensures that the president's every move will be subject to challenge.
The fact that they're fighting the Bush surveillance policy on hapless legal grounds rather than separation of powers suggests that it may take until 2008 to make the primal web scream ideologically coherent.
People who crave the middle are simply going to be disappointed in 2008.
The Democrats have abolished the middle, and the Republican middle has discredited itself.
There's a reason John McCain markets himself as more right than center.
He knows ideology matters just now.
So does George Allen, Rudy Giuliani, Sam Brownback, and all the rest.
How Hillary Clinton triangulates in the current atmosphere is the Rubik's Cube of our time.
But for the Web Democrats and GOP refugees from Congress that they thought they control, the puzzling is over.
They're looking for candidates who represent my ideas.
Ideologues.
What's the root of ideologue?
Idea.
An ideologue is uh is said to be uh uh partisan, mean-spirited and extreme, and of course only if they're right-wing ideologues.
I ideologues are just people of ideas.
Reagan was an ideologue.
The the conservatism's greatest triumphs are when its elected officials trumpet conservative ideas and they win on them and then govern with them.
It's when they abandon them.
For whatever reason, fear of the media in Washington, fear of something in Washington, that the voters get upset, and so we're not going to put up with this anymore.
And if you're going to lie to us about what you're going to do, we're not going to send you there in the first place.
And the left is getting similarly frustrated at their side.
Now, I got an email today from a friend who read this and sent me the following note.
Rush, in my humble opinion, you are the single most important American involved in creating this craving for ideology.
Let's let's set aside any sucking up thoughts, okay?
First, for those that agree with you, you've often said that you articulate what millions of Americans think already.
You just they you just validating what they already believe.
And that's true.
You talk about the Institute for Advanced Conservative Studies because you do teach politics on a daily basis, and you teach it like no professor that we've ever had.
As the years have rolled by, millions of Americans have come to learn about ideology mostly from you.
They understand it well enough now to talk about it, to argue it, and some have gone on to make a living doing what you do.
It's become part of the American fabric.
It's become safe to discuss conservative ideas intelligently, powerfully and persuasively.
Now, you've also talked about the libs who listen to your show and won't admit it, and you're right.
Over the years, these people have unconsciously developed limbaugh envy, which I think will end up in a dictionary someday.
They really have been entertained and threatened and inspired by your show, and they also got caught up in ideology.
Young liberals have grown up in an era of limbaugh babies when it was okay to talk ideology.
They didn't know you had to wink and nod your way around your beliefs.
Young liberals can't relate to Hillary Clinton and any other Democrat or liberal who don't articulate a clear ideology.
Hillary doesn't talk about politics the way you do, and that's her downfall.
Americans have learned from you, not from her, how the game is played, openly, honestly, and with passion.
Millions have not grown up with the antique media now.
They grew up with the new media.
It doesn't mean they agreed with you and your knockoffs, but they did learn to talk and care about ideology in the style and manner that you do.
That unconsciously became their template, articulating their beliefs like the guy they love to hate, Rush Limbaugh.
Like rebellious children.
They didn't know that they were unconsciously learning from dad.
They will say they are nothing like dad, yet they're doing and caring about the same thing, talking politics, no compromise ideology.
Theirs is an immature and failed ideology, but that's how they approach politics, the limbaugh way.
This is an outstanding article that Mr. Henniger wrote.
There's a reason things have come to be.
You have chased people out of the closet.
You have them screaming at the top of their lungs.
Give me ideology or give me death.
He's talking about these.
See, what he's saying here basically is I have created all these web blog wagos.
I have created all these liberal talk radio networks, because they think there was nothing out there to compete with me, ignoring for the fact NPR and the mainstream media, which is where liberal ideology is found regularly and routinely and has been all of my adult life and longer than that.
But nevertheless, it wasn't enough for them because that's supposed to be objective.
The image there is that there's no bias.
So these people felt they had to respond and get in a game, and their liberal counterpoints have been winking and nodding and uh denying what they really believe, coming up with new names to describe themselves progressive, moderate, when they're liberals and these wackos want them to be up.
Tell us you're liberals.
We are liberals too, and we want to win on liberal ideas.
They can't, but they want to try.
So my friend concludes, Democrats have been forced to deal with politics on your terms.
They thought you were a nothing fool, and you were teaching their kids an entire generations how to talk about politics while they thought you were nothing.
Uh this has been a stealth educational campaign yours has, the Libs' worst nightmare, and they didn't realize that it was even happening.
Their kids and Americans everywhere were being taught how to think and talk about politics.
People were unconsciously learning it from you.
This is powerful stuff.
I'd write more, but you would just be bored.
After all, you're the guy that's been doing this for all these years.
He also went on to say in a P.S., I think this is why you're getting bored.
Because you don't have to tell people who liberals are anymore.
They're finally doing it.
And so now that they're admitting it, He says, I don't really think you're bored, I just think you're disgusted with them.
Brian, what are you rolling your head in there about?
You think this is too self-serving?
Have I been should you think I shouldn't have been reading this email from my friend because it was like bragging?
Okay.
He was rolling his eyes in disgust in there.
Oh, it was it you?
Wendy.
Wendy is Wendy is in for dawn today.
Wendy must have done something that caused Brian to roll his eyes.
All right.
Just checking in there, Brett, because I, you know, this is this this Henniger piece when I read it, I've this this is explains quite a bit of what's happening out there, and it really exciting thing about it to me is this whole notion of moderates and the great unwashed and the great undecideds and all of this.
I've always known this was a this was just you know a pipe dream of of people who live inside the beltway, media included, who long for the way it used to be.
And the way it used to be was the liberals were what was.
That liberalism was what is.
It was as natural as the sun coming up every day.
And then you had these wacko, idiotic rube Republicans, and you had to deal with maybe 120 of them in the 435 member House of Representatives, and occasionally, you know, one of them would start making some noise like a Nixon or a Goldwater, but we'd swat them away like flies.
Uh and and uh that that's the way it was.
And all these liberal Democrats, in fact, they were called the centrists and the the reasonable people and so forth.
And that that landscape is is now changed and it's changed forever.
And the uh the mainstream media caught in the past and the Democratic Party too, so locked into the past so long ago, still believes this structure, if you will, that you have like uh, oh, 30% Democrat, 30% Republican, and 40% undecided.
And so in the primaries you try to wrap up your base, and then in the general election you forget them.
You've already got them, then you go for this 40% that doesn't know diddly squat.
People that wouldn't make up their minds unless their lives depended on it, and even then it's a tough choice for them.
And I'm telling they're not 40% this great under there may be a percentage that doesn't pay attention because they don't care because all they want to do is go clubbing or go to blockbuster or drive down the street in mom's car, who cares?
But the of the people I'm talking about the people who are actively energized and involved, the numbers of those uh who are of no opinion and are sitting around waiting, and then the media finds these people every election year.
We'll get MSNBC CNN election night, and we'll get round tables of these idiots.
And we'll get polsters out there asking them questions that I would be embarrassed to ask a first grader, and we'll get answers from adults that I would be embarrassed to broadcast as having come from adults.
And they are considered the people that elect leaders in this, and I'm telling you, they're not, and they never have been.
And yet they're made to feel all powerful because they are the undecided.
They're not the ideologues.
They're the ones who don't make up their minds.
They're open-minded, don't you understand?
Oh, yes, they're immune from all of this partisanship.
They are smarter than all the rest.
They see through all of this gobbledygook, and they get to what really can't.
And when you listen to them talk, it's obvious they couldn't find themselves to a Walmart if they were in the parking lot.
Back in just a second.
Stay with us.
Now here's the problem that the uh here's the problem that these liberal ideologues have.
Their ideology that they so desperately crave, that they so desperately want to hear their elected leaders articulate is unpopular, it's unworkable, and it's frankly sick.
And it's been discredited, I don't know how many times all over the world.
It's been called communism, it's been called socialism, it's called liberalism, it's been called whatever they want to call it.
It's been discredited every time it's tried.
So it doesn't work, it's unpopular, and their politics, the liberal politicians trick has been to conceal their true intentions and beliefs.
So the lib ideologues are in a fight with their elected leaders, a fight with themselves over tactics.
When in fact the problem is their ideology.
So they're in an ultimate argument over what tactic will work.
How do we get Bush out of there?
How do we make sure we pin Abram off on the Republicans.
How do we make sure we pin Katrina on the Republicans and Bush?
How do we make sure we pin whatever they want to make up?
Spying on Bush.
Whatever they have to do to cover up for the fact that their ideology is stupid, unworkable, and failed.
So that's the problem that they've got.
You remember add something to all this.
I'll never forget when this program started.
And when it started ballooning and really growing.
And we were adding stations and audience at uh almost geometric progression rate.
And the uh the left and the media started saying, well, this audience is just a bunch of mind-numbed robots.
Remember, I was just a pied piper.
I somehow held this magic touch.
And the moment that I spoke, everybody within the sound of my voice became hypnotized and became an autumn robot, automaton robot, parroting and echoing what I said.
And the ultimate insult was that the audience is a bunch of idiots.
And that's not what happened.
It was the exact opposite.
It's exactly what Henninger is talking about.
And it is this.
I simply was articulating a point of view that wasn't heard anywhere else in national media.
I was validating what millions of Americans already thought themselves, and that's Henninger's point.
That's what people want.
And when you start talking about these these mind-numbed independents and these so-called centrists and these so-called undecided.
I'll guarantee you, what eventually sways them is when they hear somebody they agree with, not when somebody persuades them about something.
They go into it open-minded.
Everybody's got ideological views.
Some just know it and some just don't.
But when they hear them echoed by people they respect, then all of a sudden they know what they are, who they are, and they get excited.
And that is what happened here.
Pure and simple.
And the Libs still don't understand that.
They still don't understand the growth of the new media.
They don't understand the growth of conservatism.
They have no clue.
And they never will understand it because of a number of things, including their arrogance.
Here's Eric in Fort Walton Beach.
Eric, welcome to the program, sir.
Did that's Rush.
Thank you.
Here's a softball for you.
I heard on Fox News last night.
Alan Cohns was interviewing a cartoonist, and they were stating that the letter that the Joint Chiefs sent to the Washington Post in response to the Detoll cartoon was the cold hand of censorship.
Where are you?
This is on an Where was this last night?
MSNBC?
I'm sorry, it was on Fox News, actually, on the Hennady and Combs show.
Well, who was it that said that this was censorship?
Combs and the represent the individual labels.
All right.
Well, I look I'm gonna I'm gonna tell you something.
That's the last they weren't asking him to take the thing down.
In fact, the Post published their letter, the Joint Chiefs letter, and they and they uh uh and they're not gonna do anything to the cartoonist.
Uh uh I the left is in full-fledged panic.
I mean, I saw last, I was watching Hardball last night, then this guy that used to work at Fox, David Schuster, did a report, I kid you not, on how Bush has created the illusion that Democrats are opposed to national security.
Bush has tricked them.
I'm not kidding, but I'm not kidding you not, Bush has set them up.
Bush has successfully screwed the Democrats by tricking them.
He set up an argument of us versus them.
The good guys versus the bad guys, we, the Republicans are the good guys, Bush is the good guy, Democrats are the bad guys, and so Matthews and this Schuster guy start talking for a segment about how Bush set everybody up and how he's tricked everybody.
Uh, you know, and and and uh Bush is using deceit and political and it it it it just it's it's when the Democrats do something well, which has not happened in I don't know how long, of course they get full-fledged credit for it.
When when the Democrats act stupid, it's the result of a Bush trick.
When Bush is being himself, he's an idiot, frat boy, cowboy who ought to be back in Texas painting barbecue sauce on a bunch of lambs.
They can't get the story straight.
But the bottom line is when they look like the people that are invested in our defeat, they cannot even admit that that's how they look and that that's what their position makes them.
No, they have to now blame Bush for for tricking them.
And in this business of shouting censorship, the Joint Chiefs is no such thing.
I'll have a comment on that, but we come back, stay with us.
Don't go away.
Well, yeah, that's right.
Uh, George W. Bush tricked the Democrats into opposing the Patriot Act and tricked them into opposing intercepting enemy communications.
Yep, Bush tricking these guys all over the place, but he's such a dolt.
He's such an idiot.
He can't say anything.
He's so inarticulate.
Folks, I dad.
We've just got these people right.
▲
Export Selection