All Episodes
Previous Next
March 7, 2006 - Rush Limbaugh Program
36:26
March 7, 2006, Tuesday, Hour #1
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Welcome to today's edition of The Rush 24-7 podcast.
So Snerdley walks in to me this morning about a half hour ago.
It says, Port deal ever going to go away.
I said, No, it's never going to go away.
It's what the 45 days was about.
It's not going to go away like the National Guard story didn't go away.
Like the Iraq Civil War story isn't going to go away.
The drive by media has strikes again, ladies and gentlemen.
The Washington Post and ABC News and a poll plus a bunch of stuff in the Washington Post today.
We are loaded.
Great to have you with us.
Greetings, my friends.
L. Rushball, the all-knowing, all-caring, all-sensing, all feeling, all concerned, Maha Rushi.
Firmly ensconced, happily and proudly so, behind this, the golden EIB microphone here at the EIB Southern Command, the Limbaugh Institute for Advanced Conservative Studies.
Remember, there are no graduates, there are no degrees.
The learning never stops.
800-282-2882.
If you want to be on the program, the email address is rush at EIB net.com.
Dick Cheney says Iran will not be allowed to have nuclear weapons and faces meaningful consequences if it persists in defying the international community.
Said this today, was talking to APAC, the uh Israeli lobbying group.
He reaffirmed the U.S. was keeping all options on the table, including military force in his determination to prevent Iran from developing nuclear arms.
I saw another interview, by the way, with uh with some uh Iraqi people.
And uh they they uh no we we're not interested in a civil war.
We we can't survive a civil.
If we have a civil war over here, we're it's we self-destruct.
He said the real problem is Iran.
Iran's trying to foment all this trouble here to keep the United States and Iraq occupied so they can get away with whatever they're doing uh in their nuclear program.
Sounds like the Iraqis have this pretty well sized up, uh, what Iran is attempting to do.
Also, Peter King, uh Congressman from Long Island, who has uh personally savaged and attacked me and accused me of being single-handedly responsible for lessening the opposition to the port deal uh was on John Gambling's show,
WABC this morning, the program that precedes this one in New York, and said that uh uh we gotta get it, we gotta get an American company in there, and uh they gotta have the upfront heads-up responsibility that Dubai people can be part of it.
He suggested that Bill Clinton actually broker the deal.
He says, I understand that Bill Clinton has a very good relationship with the people in Dubai.
Maybe he could uh he could help out here.
Let me make a suggestion.
It has been said that uh Halliburton might be uh a willing partner uh with the Dubai port people, but you know what would happen if uh if Halliburton actually partnered up with them, we'd have the Democrats and Liberals would be changing their tune and talking about how this was a conspiracy from day one to get Halliburton involved.
So I have a compromise suggestion, and that's Walmart.
Walmart, I mean, they're huge.
I saw a fact sheet on just how big Walmart is, uh, terms of the revenue they generate, the uh uh the amount of uh income they produce, salaries that they pay.
It's amazing how huge this because bigger than you even think it is.
Uh clearly they're large enough to handle the ports uh and partner up with Dubai, and you know they're excellent distribution.
They can work well with a long shoreman's union.
Ha ha ha ha ha ha.
Can you imagine if it was Walmart?
Can you imagine?
I mean, it's uh the the whole problem with the the left in Walmart is that they're not union.
Imagine putting Walmart in this deal.
Um it'll never happen.
I know it's just one of these things that I'm excited about.
All right.
Uh here is the um let's get started with WA with ABC in the Washington Post, because there's a there's a new poll out.
The drive-by media has struck again, ladies and gentlemen.
They sprayed some bullets.
They hyped a civil war in Iraq that is not happening.
Now they've come out with a poll that backs up their action line.
80% of Americans think a civil war in Iraq is likely, and everybody in the media is running with this.
There could not possibly be a more pointless poll than this.
Is it really news that 80% of the pen?
I don't even believe that, but so what?
Is it really news that 80% of the American people think there's gonna be a civil war in a you know why they're putting that poll out?
Look how powerful we are there.
Look how look how we still have the ability, despite what Limbaugh said.
We still have the ability to bend and shape and mold and flake and form public opinion in this country.
We're the ones that want the civil war.
We've been hoping for it for three years.
We're hyping it, and now we got 80% of Americans thinking it's gonna happen.
And they're all over the place with it.
Here's uh a montage.
We've got Chris Matthews from MSNBC, ABC's Jessica Yellen, Fox's John Scott, Elizabeth Vargas of ABC, Robin Roberts uh, and Chris Jansing all on the Well, let me get to that in just a second.
That's that's coming.
Uh no, let's go ahead.
Let's run that now, Mike, because it does mention the 80 percent, so this will keep us uh in uh in an organizational order.
Let a rip.
In the new Washington Post ABC News poll, a whopping 80% of the country believes that civil war in Iraq is likely.
A stunning percentage of Americans now believe civil war in Iraq is likely.
A new poll shows the highest numbers of Americans believe civil war is coming to Iraq.
Eight in ten Americans believe a civil war is likely.
Americans are expressing less optimism over Iraq.
Eighty percent say civil war is likely.
A new poll showing the startling impact, the recent surge of violence in Iraq.
Eighty percent of respondents say that the conflict will lead to civil war.
This is just the flat out irresponsible.
There is no civil war in Iraq.
And I I'm willing to go down a bet here that there will not be one.
But see, this is what I've always told uh you wonderful people about about the media action line.
The fact is Iraq can't succeed.
The media has established it's a failure already.
The Democratic Party is invested in our defeat there.
And so the action line of the story is it's going to hell in a handbasket over there.
It's worthless.
We need to get out of there, bring the troops home, and impeach Bush.
And so here comes this poll.
80% of the American people, yippee.
The American people don't live in Iraq, and what they think about this is absolutely irrelevant.
It has no relationship to any event that's gonna here's here's how it would have to be used.
The media will have to go to Iraq and say, we just did a poll of the American people.
80% say you're going to have a civil war, so start it.
It's irrelevant.
And yet it's the lead news story today among the big drive-by media.
Just amazing, because it advances that action line.
Uh however, uh there are a lot of questions and answers in this poll that were not reported.
The subhead in the uh Washington Post story on the website, Washington Post ABC News poll finds sharp decline in optimism about Iraq war.
Uh and uh link then goes to March 7th, print story on page A3, a new headline, majority in U.S. fear Iraq civil war.
Poll also finds growing doubt about Bush.
ABC anchor Elizabeth Vargas relayed how 65% of the Bush administration has no clear plan for ending the war.
Then Stephanopoulos outlined how the public is all over the map on what to do in Iraq.
But they did not note the post story, nor ABC noted that the public is also sour on Democrats.
Elizabeth Vargas, sounding clearly exasperated, asks Stephanopoulos a question.
In the meantime, Democrats are incapable of capitalizing on this.
We have that soundbite here.
Uh-b-b-b-yep, this audio soundbite number two.
Elizabeth Vargas setting up Steffi.
In the meantime, Democrats are incapable of capitalizing on this.
They're going in the wrong direction for Democrats.
Back in January, you asked, who do you trust to handle the nation's problems?
Americans said Democrats 51 to 37.
Today that is down to 42 to 40.
And you know, that goes back to Iraq, too.
They don't think Democrats have an answer on Iraq.
Uh-huh.
No, the Washington Post didn't mention that.
ABC did, and the only reason I'm convinced they mentioned it is because they can't believe it.
They think the other elements of the poll would automatically vault the Democrats right back up to prominence and power and love And adoration on the part of the American people.
And Elizabeth Vargas, you can hear.
In the meantime, Democrats are incapable of capitalizing on this.
All the work we've done, everything we've done to destroy the Iraq war, and the Democrats can't make hay out of it?
Stephanopous, well, I hate to tell you this, Elizabeth, but the public doesn't like them either.
Let's play Soundbite 3.
Because in this poll, the President's approval rating is 41%.
What was it last week in that now infamous CBS poll?
34%.
All right.
So is 34 less than 41?
Last time, and I went to public education in this country, so you can't trust me when it comes to math.
But I still I think that 34% is lower than 41%.
All right.
Here is an exchange, Robin Roberts on ABC's Good Morning America today.
President Bush's job approval rating has sunk to a new career low.
A new poll shows the president's overall performance rating now stands at 41%.
Wait a minute.
Wait a minute.
What about just last week when the drive by a media was touting something else?
The President's job approval rating has fallen to an all-time low of 34%.
A new poll shows that Mr. Bush's approval rating is once again at rock bottom.
A new poll finds the president's job approval rating at a new low.
Bush, 34% lowest rating he's ever had.
A new CBS poll finds it's now the lowest it's ever been.
His poll rating has dropped precipitously.
The president's rating to a new low.
And an all-time low in our poll.
President Bush's approval rating at an all-time low.
the president, whose approval ratings have plummeted again.
That's last week.
Drive-by media with a spray of bullets last week.
But again, just this morning, this is Robin Roberts.
President Bush's job approval rating has sunk to a new career low.
A new poll shows the president's overall performance rating now stands at 41%.
I know what some of you are saying.
Rush, the ABC people are talking about in their poll.
Fine and dandy if they that's what you want to say.
But last week they were all talking about the CBS poll.
So is CBS this week going to say Bush's approval numbers are up seven points over our poll last week?
Nope.
What they are saying is no whatever what the number is, 34% or 41%.
We know the poll that generated the 34% number was was was rigged.
We know that the it was it were the questions were fraudulent in many uh cases and incomplete, didn't provide full information while asking these respondents their answers.
Doesn't matter what the number is, lower than ever.
It's an all-time low for President Bush.
There are other questions in this poll that they didn't report the answers to.
I will share those with you when we return.
America's anchor man in the anchor chair, doing play by play of the news, commentary, and basically setting things straight, protecting the nation against the drive by media.
800-282-2882.
If you want to be on the program, here is uh Megan in Raleigh, North Carolina.
Hi, Megan.
Hi, Russ.
Thanks for taking my call.
You bet.
Um, I was just talking with your screener about uh just how furious I am with these irrelevant polls being, you know, questions asked of uh a totally uninformed or um badly informed public.
I have a loved one over in Iraq, and the results of these polls directly affect that person because how the American public feels about the job they're doing, you know, will negatively affect their success there.
Uh well, let me let me let me use the occasion of your call, Megan, to give you some information on this poll that they didn't print.
And that they haven't talked about.
I mean, you can get it on the website.
They have put it on the website, but in their newspaper and in all their discussion about it, they are not mentioning these numbers.
Do you think that the war with Iraq has or has not contributed to the long-term security of the United States, contributed 50 percent, has not 48 percent.
Next question was asked uh of half the sample.
Do you think the United States is or is not making significant progress in establishing a democratic government in Iraq?
Is making significant progress, 49% is not making significant progress 48.
Now, Megan, I'm giving you evidence here, and I've got even more questions.
I'm giving you evidence here it is 80 percent number is irrelevant any which way you slice it.
Though these last two questions and answers just blow the 80 percent number out of the water.
It's it's uh and don't don't worry, the people over there will hear about this.
Uh, People you're talking about, you have a loved one in Iraq, I know, and and uh I I frankly don't I know they get somewhat demoral, but demoralized, but that's that is not gonna demoralize.
The 80% of the American people think there's gonna be a civil war.
It's like saying 80% of the American people think that the sun's gonna burn out tomorrow.
It doesn't matter.
It's about as sensible too as the 80% of the American people thinking that.
If the if the drive-by media did a week's worth of stories or three years' worth of stories to some scientists thought the sun was going to burn out soon, then I guarantee you that a certain percentage of the American people would say so if asked if they agreed with it.
Here's question number 22.
As you may know, starting in 2000, uh 2001, the FBI was given additional authority in areas like surveillance, wiretaps, and obtaining records in terrorism investigations.
Supporters said that this was necessary to fight terrorism.
Opponents said it went too far in compromising privacy rights.
Do you think this additional FBI authority should or should not be continued?
Should be continued 62%, should not 37%, not even close.
On another subject, as you may know, the National Security Agency has been investigating people suspected of involvement with terrorism by secretly listening in on telephone calls and reading emails between some people in the U.S. and other countries without first getting court approval to do so.
Would you consider this wiretapping of telephone calls and emails without court approval as an acceptable or unacceptable way for the federal government to investigate terrorism?
Do you feel that way strongly or somewhat?
Acceptable 54%, unacceptable 46%.
These questions that I have just read to you were all left out of the reporting when it came time to tell everybody what this poll showed.
The 80% figure, 80% of the American people think there's going to be Hells Bells, the New York Times declared civil war in Iraq last week.
So I Megan, if I were you, I I I understand your concern.
I would, if I were you, I'd be angry more than worried.
I am, and really the questions are irrelevant themselves, but people really don't know what's going on.
And that's my I mean the person over there in Iraq said, don't bother watching the news.
It's not true.
Uh the the people in Iraq, Americans in Iraq, you mean?
Yes.
Don't watch the news.
It's ridiculous.
I know.
I I heard that when I went to Afghanistan back in uh well last year, a little over a year ago.
And I've I've I hear this constantly.
We have a we have a bunch of people that um communicate with us armed forces people over in Iraq.
They say the same story, sing the same song about their disgruntlement with the media.
But the thing that you have to understand, I to me, and it's folks, it's not it's not that the American people may or may not be informed.
That's that's not whether they're right or wrong.
It's just irrelevant.
Whether the American people think that there's going to be a civil war, the way that it is being used, its attempt, the the ABC Washington Post attempt to make it relevant is that they hope that this 80% figure will be heard as a news story and will translate into more anti-war support for Iraq.
This is supposed to indicate that 80% of the American people think it's all falling apart over there.
We can't do a good job, we haven't done diddly squat.
All of that is irrelevant.
Do you think in the White House today they're meeting, say, oh, you see this poll from ABC, 80% of the American people think there's going to be a civil war?
Yeah, Dick, what do you think we ought to do?
I don't know, Carl.
What do you think we ought to do?
I don't know, Andy.
What do you think we ought to do?
Mr. President, we don't have any ideas.
Mr. President says I think we should pull out.
If 80% of the American people think there's going to be a civil war in Iraq, then I think it's over.
And we need to get out, and let's go nuke around.
It's irrelevant.
Russia, you're saying in a representative republic what the people think No, I'm not saying that at all, but this is not something we're going to go vote on.
Well, we might in 2006 or the midterms, but it's just irrelevant.
It is it is a it's irresponsible.
It is evidence of exactly what I have said over and over and over again.
Polls are simply used to make news.
They are an they are a an extension of the editorial page.
It's the way to get the action line or the editorial opinion of the people putting this thing together out there as a news story.
I I know all the elements of this that have you concerned and and all that.
I'm just telling you, this is infantile, it is juvenile, it is childish, and it is a it is it is symptomatic of exactly where the Democrats and the media in this country are today.
They have been reduced to petulant, spoiled brat type children doing stuff like this.
It is a mark against the professionalism of an industry that once was pretty good.
Talent on loan from God.
To the phones to St. Paul, Minnesota, this is uh Jeff.
Glad you called, sir.
Hey, Rosh, Mega Dados.
Thank you.
Hey, it's good talking to you.
Hey, I'm a little bummed out today because uh, of course, we had the passing of uh probably the most popular sports guy in Minnesota history, Kirby Puckett.
And uh I think this guy really epitomized the American spirit as you've uh seen it over the years, a guy who came from the Chicago projects, uh didn't live a life of you know wanting the entitlements or anything like that, but worked his way up, had fun doing what he wanted to do, and even when he retired, he said uh he told kids everywhere, you can be whatever you want to be.
Yeah, being an American.
I w I was just wondering if you'd ever if you had ever met him.
Uh I know George Brett was talking about him today.
Uh Brett loved him.
Uh uh I I um never met Kirby Puckett, but uh I mean I was around him.
I saw him when I was with the Royals and the Minnesota twins would come in.
Uh they happened to be there during a I forget if it was the season after George had retired or if it was that I think it was the season after he had retired and they were doing a pregame ceremony uh recognizing George and his contributions, his career.
And in the middle of his uh his own acceptance speech, I mean, and they had, you know, the usual stuff out there, give him car, they gave him uh you know all kinds of memorabilia.
Place was full, there are 40,000 people in Royal Stadium.
And in the middle of his thank you speech and his uh statement of appreciation of the fans, he stopped in the middle of it because he saw Kirby walking in the in the twins' dugout, and he said uh right over the PA system, the whole stadium PA system said, Kirby, get ready, you're next for something like this.
He had a uh uh profound respect for Kirby Puckett.
It's interesting the people that play these games, professional level, they're all in a fraternity, but they're all on different teams and and you have rivalries and so forth.
But at the end of the day, when the career's over, you they they all consider themselves a member of that fraternity, be it Major League Baseball or National Football League, and and Kirk Kirby Puckett was apparently loved by everybody, and it just it was got glaucoma uh in his right eye, and it that was the end of his career.
And then he had uh a couple of false allegations of sexual harassment leading to a divorce.
He was later acquitted of all that.
But he um and he ended up putting on a lot of weight when he uh when he left the game, and people were worried about that.
Uh he I think his family has uh if I read this morning correctly, his family has a history of uh early death.
Uh but no I I unfortunately I never met him, but I saw him all over the place, and he was he was genuinely uh loved by everybody on that team.
People, you know, they they play whatever the the the I forget the first year they were in the World Series against the Braves.
Uh they went into game six uh and Kirby Puckett before the game had a meeting, clubhouse meeting with the team.
And he said, Fellas, I'm bending over.
You're all gonna be on my back tonight.
And he carried the team.
He had a home run, he robbed the Braves of a home run with a spectacular outfield catch.
Uh John Smoltz, who was the pitcher for the Braves, said that that turned it.
That that because they went on to lose the uh the Braves did.
the twins won the World Series in game seven the next night.
Uh and he said Kirby Puckett telling that team, I'm your guy, you guys are riding my back tonight.
Um they would have been eliminated had they lost the game.
So he's got he's got a lot of um people that love him and respect him and so forth.
You know, th this I should probably also mention Dana Reeve, uh, who I did meet a couple of times.
Every fall in New York, Nick Bonaconte, uh, who has a foundation uh and uh and a uh effort to cure spinal paralysis, uh has a dinner at the Waldorf hysteria, and it's called Greatest Sports Legends, and he brings in uh retired athletes from all over the world of sports to be honored, and it's uh it's a black tie affair and it's very um it it's a really, really well done.
And uh I've been to two or three of these and uh sitting at Nick's table, you know, his son Mark was injured in a football game and was paralyzed.
Uh and that that got this whole effort by the Bonaconte family going to try to find a cure.
And Christopher Reeve had set up his own uh organization and foundation to try to accomplish the same thing.
And one year uh Dana Reeve came and she sat at the um at the at same table I was at, and I just you know I was I I will admit that I s I was fascinated uh by her because how many people, given what had happened, would have hung in there.
She totally abandoned her own life.
And I know this, you know, f uh the vows are for better or worse in sickness and in health, but in today's culture, as we all know that that um th those vows are uh oftentimes forgotten.
Uh but she hung in there and all night long there were people all over the room that came up to her and were commenting one way or the other on how impressed they were with her about what she was doing, and she was genuinely surprised.
She um she was embarrassed, uh it seemed to me.
I even talked to her for about five minutes uh and and expressed the same sentiments.
And you could tell that she was just she she had uh she had some young man with her, I don't know who he was, but she kept looking in a very perplexed way at this guest of hers every time somebody would come up and talk to her about uh you know the the sacrifices that she was making, and I remember hearing her saying what there weren't sacrifices.
I love this man.
What do you mean sacrifice?
She clearly I thought what a what a down to earth uh real human being.
Uh you know, she she was getting all this attention and she clearly was made nervous by it because she didn't think that what she had was doing was any spectacular achievement.
And she didn't even think it was a duty.
She just she thought that it was what had to be done, and she was doing it the best she could.
Uh both these people, I mean, she's Kirby Puckett's 45, she's 44.
She um she died from lung cancer, and she never smoked.
Yet the media all day has got doctors in talking about smoking and lung cancer.
I would think most people's interests well, how do you get lung cancer if you don't smoke?
Because everybody in the medical community's got everybody believing that if you don't smoke, you'll never get it.
It'd been more interesting to me, and they may have might have done that.
I w I will confess I wasn't watching all these shows all morning long.
So if somebody did talk about that, that's um then I I apologize for this this uh rank accusation if it isn't true.
But it's I don't know, it's it's it's touching uh to remember uh didn't know Kirby, but people I know did and thought the world of him, and I saw Dana Reeve uh uh in action.
So uh I'm glad you call and brought that up, Jeff, because I uh I was gonna mention this but later on, but you provided a nice transition to it, and I appreciate it.
Don in San Diego, you're next on the EIB network.
Hello.
Hey Rush, Diddle's from the West Coast.
Thank you.
Um I wanted to take you back to the poll.
Yeah.
So I uh this reminds me about how useless those polls they released from the international community before the 2004 election, like in Germany.
Yeah.
France and Germany and the European Union think that we should get out of Iraq Black.
It was Irrelevant.
Yeah, and it really affected the outcome, didn't it?
Yeah, it really is a f that's the point.
Everybody gets worried this is going to affect the outcome, but it it's not.
For it to affect the outcome, it's going to have to affect George W. Bush.
And I have to tell you, folks, some silly little poll that's childish and irrelevant is not going to have any impact on Bush or the people at the White House, given what else they have uh endured in order to uh sustain the policy and so forth.
I I um appreciate the call, Don.
We're not through with the Washington Post here, folks.
I have two more stories.
Uh one is a column, actually.
Uh E.J. Dion Jr. writing today, the Democrats' real problem, and I'll summarize this real quickly.
The real problem, according to E.J. Dion Jr., is that they aren't being critical enough.
They are not being critical enough.
He wants he wants more Democrats to understand the power of negative thinking and how that can turn into a positive.
They gotta go all out to stop these policies.
And that is positive.
That is good.
These policies are terrible.
They don't need to stand for anything.
He went out, and this is great.
He interviewed some people, went out and talked to some people for his column.
He went to talk to Tony Blankly, who was uh Newt's uh press relations guy and very close confidant of Newt back back during the contract with America days in 1994, and he went to talk to former representative Vin Weber from Minnesota, who was also part of the Newt uh uh revolution, if you will, as was I, as an honorary member of the freshman class of the 1994 House of Representatives.
And here's what they told him.
Here's how he writes about it.
He says, the false premise is that oppositions win midterm elections by offering a clear program.
So Dion Jr., E.J. thinks that no, no, no, no.
The Democrats don't have to present a plan.
They don't have to have an agenda.
Because that's not what Republicans didn't win in 94 with the contract with America.
No, no, no, no.
Tony Blankly and Vin Weber told E.J. Dion Jr.
That the only reason the prime the only reason for the contract with America was to give some of their new candidates something to say on the campaign trail because they weren't all that good.
So this was to give them something to say, the real weapon that both Newt and Vin Weber told E.J. Dion Jr.
The real weapon that was used to defeat Clinton was constant criticism of him.
Both these guys insisted that it was disaffection with Bill Clinton, not the contract that created the Republicans' opportunity, something Bob Dole said at the time, too.
The Democrats' real problem is that they have failed to show how their critique of Republican status quo is the essential first step toward the alternative program they will owe the voters in the presidential year of 2008.
They don't need a plan now, but they're going to need one by 2008.
So keep up the criticism and understanding that it was disaffection for Clinton, not the contract which launched the Republicans.
Now, I don't know if I ought to say any more about this.
I'm often accused of giving away trade secrets on this.
I think I'm going to shut up here.
That's just if you if this is We got some smart people on our side here.
Back in just a second.
So E.J. Dion Jr. opens his column thus.
It is now an ingrained journalistic habit.
After a period of bad news for President Bush, media outlets invariably devote time and space to balancing stories that all say more or less, yes, the Republicans are in trouble, but the Democrats have no alternatives, no plans.
He concludes his piece, The shortcoming of Democratic leaders is not that they don't have a program, but that they have not yet convinced opinion makers...
Opinion makers.
They have not yet convinced opinion makers that fighting bad policies is actually constructive.
And that, between presidential elections, keeping matters from getting worse is sometimes the most positive alternative on offer.
Okay, so I guess the Democrats are screwing up.
Don't mess with trying to change the minds of the American people.
You got to go to the opinion makers and let them do it.
The opinion makers are people like E.J. Uh and in his mind anyway, and his uh his fellow commentators and columns.
So E.J. thinks the power of negative thinking uh is something that needs to be emphasized.
But like clockwork, and I don't know if E.J. knew this when he submitted the column, but in the Washington Post today is this story.
Democrats struggle to seize opportunity.
Amid GOP troubles, no unified message.
I'll bet you EJ got up and saw that says, see?
See what I mean?
The problem is EJ has mischaracterized the media outlets devoting time and space to balancing stories that all say more or less, yeah, the Republicans are in trouble, but the Democrats have no alternatives and no plans.
They're not trying to be balanced, E.J. The media is trying to goose the Democrats and get themselves in gear.
You heard it with Elizabeth Vargas.
She can't believe a Democrats can't take advantage of all this so-called trouble Bush is in.
Doesn't that sort of indicate that Bush isn't in the trouble that the Democrats and the media think he may be in trouble?
All presidents are.
May not be, you know, rosy scenarios day in and day out, but maybe the fact is he isn't in that much trouble.
Maybe the people look at the Democrats and see as much trouble with them, if not more, on this issue.
National security than they see with Bush.
Maybe it is, E.J., that the American people don't think that George Bush is the primary threat to national security, like the media and the Democrats are trying to establish.
Maybe it is that the opinion makers are failing to make opinions.
Maybe that the maybe the opinion makers, you guys and your little clique here, are unable to move public opinion as you would like to be able to.
But don't try to tell us that these stories about the problems of Democrats are having is an attempt at journalistic balance.
It's no more than the media saying, get your excrement together.
We are tired of carrying you.
We're giving you ideas day in and day out.
You've got your biggest allies, us and the media.
We're destroying Bush for you every day.
And what are you doing about it?
Zip zero nada.
Some of the details of this story.
News about Republican political corruption.
This is the lead.
News about GOP political corruption, inept hurricane response, and chaos in Iraq has lifted Democrats' hopes of winning control of Congress this fall.
But seizing the opportunity has not been easy, as they found when they tried to unveil an agenda of their own.
Democratic leaders had set a goal of issuing their legislative manifesto via November of 2005 to give voters a full year to digest their proposals, but some Democrats protested that the release date was too soon, too early.
So they put it off until January.
The new date slipped twice again, and now Nancy Pelosi says the document will be unveiled in a matter of weeks.
Some Democrats fear that the hesitant handling is symbolic of larger problems facing the party.
I have already explained to you and to them their problem.
And it's quite simple.
Don't believe that they don't have an agenda.
They do.
They are liberals, and liberalism is their agenda.
But they know that if they are to approach the American people honestly with their agenda, they are toast.
So the reason for this delay is to come up with something they think will be a believable lie, or a series of them.
They can put forth an agenda that the American people will believe and trust that is actually not representative of what they really seek to do, desire to do, if they ever do win back the House or the Senate.
Party leaders, for example, have yet to decide whether Democrats should focus on a sharply negative campaign against President Bush and Republicans by jumping on debacles such as the administration's handling of the port deal or stress their own priorities and values.
Well, let me help you out.
You've already focused on a sharply negative campaign against President Bush.
It's so sharply focused it's been going on for four years, maybe five now.
And I would look at it and say it hadn't got you where you want.
You have to now release silly, childish little polls.
80% of the American people think there's going to be a civil war.
Uh in Iraq.
These people, I'm telling you, folks, they're the ones that are hanging by a thread.
They're twisting in the wind, and they are clueless.
We will be back.
I want to get more into this story when we uh have our next monologue segment because there is much more uh that's interesting.
Back after this.
One of the problems the Democrats have, and they're numerous.
They can't win in the arena of ideas, and that's why there's no agenda.
Number two, their own voters don't even like the leaders of the Democratic Party that are out there speaking each and every day, and that is even in the Washington Post story.
▲
Export Selection