Rush Limbaugh, Excellence in Broadcasting Network, a program that meets and surpasses all audience expectations on a daily basis.
A thrill and a delight to have you with us.
Telephone number, if you want to be on the program today, 800-282-2882.
The email address is rush at EIBnet.com.
I'm just going through some of the emails in the 24-7 subscriber account.
And there are several reviews of my translation of the ChiCom President WHO's speech this morning at the arrival ceremony of the White House.
And none of them, folks, none of them are favorable.
Here's an example.
Sorry, Rush.
Very boring.
I'll log off and check back later.
Rush, sorry, it didn't work.
I was more interested in what this man had to say than in your commentary.
I believe it crossed the line.
It wasn't even funny.
A waste of valuable radio time.
Dear Rush, your translation is not funny.
More important things to talk about during your three too short hours.
And the other one was, Yawn, show really sucks so far.
Please get back to broadcast excellence.
Well, in honor of these stamps of approval, ladies and gentlemen, I've decided we're going to replay my translation of President Wu's remarks.
We'll do that at the opening of the next hour, about one hour from now.
Mike, you might get ready for that now.
Just to all right, then just go get the whole opening.
Well, don't get the whole opening segment because it's going to, I don't want to make it sound like I'll open that hour live and then we'll just go to the translation part.
Since since reviews are pouring in and they are rave reviews.
Might as well let you hear it again since you enjoyed it so much.
I have a piece here from the Harvard Crimson.
That's the student newspaper up there.
And it's by a guy named Pyotr Brzezinski.
And somebody's going to kill this man.
Requiem for environmentalism.
Environmentalism is dead, he writes.
This pronouncement might seem a touch premature, especially to the 500 million people who will celebrate the 37th Earth Daturday, a collective not dead yet wheeze.
However, these numbers mask the growing irrelevance of the environmentalist movement.
Having lost its credibility with alarmist rhetoric and obsolete ideological ballast, the movement must develop a moderate discourse while challenging its previous assumptions and outdated theories.
The contemporary environmentalist wacko movement faces a stark choice.
Change tactics or fade into irrelevance.
Over the past decade, environmentalists have achieved few political victories and utterly failed to influence the general public.
As indicated by a recent MIT study, the public knows little about environmental problems, cares even less.
Out of 21 national and international issues, Americans ranked environmental problems 13th, well below terrorism, taxes, crime, and drugs.
And I'll give you an example of what he's talking about in case you missed this at the end of the program yesterday.
Actually, I ought to go back to the stack and find I could do it better justice if I had it in front of me.
But some guy wrote in the Washington Post that we need to start looking at obesity as pollution.
And he went on to conclude that the modern day consuming meat is just as bad for the environment as driving an SUV.
Eating meat is the equivalent of today's yesterday's Joe Camel.
Things like this are just absurd.
And maybe that was a different story because there were two of them.
Yes, that's right.
The Sotos guy wanted to have pollution credits associated with calories that people would only be allowed to own and purchase so many calories they could buy other calorie credits because it's all pollution.
It's wrong to look at this now as a problem of obesity.
It's a problem of pollution.
It's absurd.
That's just a couple of examples of how off the charts these people are and have been for the longest time.
Contrary to popular opinion, this is back now to the piece in the Harvard Crimson.
Contrary to popular opinion, the U.S. environment is getting healthier.
The U.S. population has more than doubled since 1970, yet forest coverage has increased.
Measurements of major air pollutants, sulfur, suspended particulates, and carbon monoxide have registered declines of 15 to 75 percent.
And likewise, the number of healthy rivers and lakes has roughly doubled since the first Earth Day.
And Lake Erie, declared dead in the 70s, now supports a healthy fishing industry.
There are exceptions to this positive trend.
The overall direction is unmistakable.
The U.S. natural environment is improving so much so that some environmentalist wackos had to come out the other day and blame cleaner air for global warming.
Yes, because more sunlight is reaching us and it's getting hotter and it's getting more uncomfortable.
We're destroying the planet.
The ice caps are melting.
It's all because we're cleaning the air.
No matter what we do, it leads to global warming.
There was a story the other day that giant chunks of ice fall out of the sky.
Nobody saw an airplane up there.
It was a cloudless day and a giant chunk of ice just bam right through somebody's roof.
Answer: global warming.
Nobody knows where the hell it comes from.
Nobody knows how it happens.
They just assume that it's ice.
If it's blue, it does come from airplanes.
If it's blue ice, it comes from the restrooms, the lavatories, if you will, on airplanes.
You can't see them if they're up there at 35 and 37,000 feet unless they have a contrail.
And who's spanning?
I mean, you're going to sit all day and look up.
And besides, even if a chunk of ice did drop off one, you wouldn't see it until it was too late.
Yes, yes.
I've got the polar bears.
Let me, where did I put that?
The polar bear.
I've got stuff scattered all over this desk today.
The polar bears are dying.
Ah, it's a Greenpeace mission.
Yes, here's another classic for you.
Two U.S. explorers plan to start a four-month summer expedition to the North Pole next month to gather information on the habitat of an animal they believe could be the first victim of global warming, the polar bear.
Lonnie Dupre and Eric Larson plan to travel 1,100 miles by foot and canoe over the Arctic Ocean to test the depth and density of the ice in summer in a mission sponsored by Greenpeace.
According to some scientific predictions, the Arctic Ocean could become ice-free in the summer within 100 years.
What was it?
Oh, guess what if that happens?
You know what's going to happen if that happens?
We're going to discover more oil up there than people know exists.
In fact, a bunch of big oil companies and explorers and entrepreneurs are hoping this is true because it's tough to go up there and drill for oil now when you're going to go through so much ice.
It's a really formidable environment and habitat.
But if they're right about the Arctic Ocean melting, the ice cap is going to make the discovery of oil even better.
And that's going to enhance even more global warming.
It's going to, it's going to delay the onset of alternative fuels.
The more oil we discover, and I'll tell you what, if conditions become ripe for going up there to explore, drill, and extract it, I guarantee you people are going to do it.
So there are positives to this.
Anyway, according to these scientific predictions, the Arctic Ocean could become ice-free in the summer within 100 years.
Polar bears, folks, cannot survive without sea ice.
And the U.S., now, I have witnessed that that's not true because I, my friends, an animal lover, have been to the Central Park Zoo.
I've been to the Central Park Zoo in the summertime and they got a couple polar bears in there.
And they do have to throw ice.
They put ice in there and the polar bears lay on it out in the sun.
They don't seem to be too bothered by it.
But I don't know that it's sea ice.
But if polar bears can live in the Central Park Zoo, I'm not suggesting that they do it.
But it's like saying the spotted owl can only live in old-growth trees when you find a couple of nests and a red Kmart sign.
The idea they can only live on polar ice.
Anyway, they can't survive without sea ice.
The U.S. government said in February it would consider whether the bears should be protected under the Endangered Species Act.
Now get this.
I'm not making this up.
The whole story up to this point has been about how it's so damned hot up there that the ice caps are melting and the polar bears are threatened.
They may all go extinct.
We need to put them on the endangered species list, right?
It's because it's all heating up there.
Next paragraph.
Unusually heavy snow and ice last year forced Dupre and Larson to call off a similar mission.
But now they plan to launch Project Thin Ice 2006, saving the polar bear on May 1st from Canada, traveling to the North Pole and then back to Greenland.
So it's getting so warm and the circumstances are so threatening that there was so much snow and ice that they had to cancel this mission to save the polar bears last year.
Back after this.
And we'll get back to your phone calls in just a moment.
Here, Rush Limbaugh with half my brain tied behind my back.
Just to make it fair, as far as the translation of President Hu's speech, I've been paying a little bit more attention here to the detractors and I found a couple others.
How dare you say that about a visiting head of state?
So that's what this is all about.
I got too close to the truth for some of you people.
You don't want to hear the truth about a Chaikam.
Let me warn you people about something.
I'll repeat this as often as is necessary.
Everything done on this program, whether it's done in the vein of a serious discussion, whether it's done with a humor, whether it's done as parody or satire, there is a point to be made behind all of it.
It is not just wild rambling.
I suggest that you people who didn't like it the first time listen to it when we replay it, because there is lots to learn in this translation.
It may not be exactly what he said, but it's pretty damn close to what he thinks.
And that was the whole point.
I don't think I've seen this anywhere in the drive-by media.
This is from the Middle East newsline website.
The U.S. military has reported a huge decline in attacks on Iraqi vital facilities.
Officials said that attacks against Iraq's vital infrastructure have decreased by 60% over the last three months.
They said the reduction reflected the development and capabilities of Iraqi security forces.
On April 13th, Major General Rick Lynch, the spokesman for the U.S.-led coalition, said that Iraqi security forces have successfully protected vital infrastructure sites.
He said that Iraq's military and security forces compromise quarter of a million trained and equipped Iraqi personnel.
Have you seen this anywhere in the Drive-By Media?
I haven't either.
Because it doesn't move the action line forward.
A drive-by media action line is Iraq's falling apart, missions of failure.
Rumsfeld stinks and needs to resign.
Also have some news about generals or a general, not the six generals.
There's another general.
General Motors stock is up 10% on sales improvement and a less than expected loss.
Last year, in the first quarter, General Motors lost over a billion dollars.
This quarter, they lost only $323 million.
That's progress.
Well, it is.
And so their stock price went up 10%.
Now, where did the improvement come from?
What are you shaking your head at in there?
I know $323 million is a big...
Well, you...
Well, Snerdley wants to know how they can stay in business when they lose that kind of money.
This is nothing compared to the airline industry.
Well, the way you stay in business when you're losing big money like that is you pay your CEO big money.
It's real simple.
That's how you stay in business.
Pay your CEO big money and then give him a big retirement package.
Where did the improvement in General Motors come from?
The improvement was driven primarily by higher production of full-size SUVs and pickups.
This, according to an analyst from Keybank, Brett Hoselton, GM's global auto sales rose 4.4% to 2.2 million units in the first quarter.
Strong gains in the Asia-Pacific region and in Latin America, offset by declines in the United States and Canada.
So, while all of these people in this country are panicking over the rising gasoline price and SUVs and so forth, people around the world are buying them up.
So much so that General Motors had a much better first quarter than anybody expected.
And not only was it loss, but it was a huge trend, and that's why the stock price went up 10%.
Still, there's a 17% overall sales decline for the month, and it brought GM's market share below 24%, which is less than half of where it stood about 45 years ago at its peak.
Oil prices are at a record high.
SUVs and pickups are hot sellers.
Prius hybrid sales fell 23% in March.
I don't know about you folks, but this darn free market's not going the way the social engineers had planned it.
We've been hearing nothing but doom and gloom.
You need to get out of your big SUV.
You need to get out of these big pickups.
You need to save big bucks because the oil price is going through the roof and gasoline prices are going up and we're all going to die.
And yet GM's improvement, if you will, is all based on the increased sales of massive SUVs, full-size and pickup trucks.
All right, Robert Samuelson today in the Washington Post, the guy is good, has a column on immigration.
It's called Conspiracy Against Assimilation.
And I want to lead into my, I'm not going to read the whole thing to you, or maybe any of it.
I don't need to.
I can summarize it pretty well for you.
But the 800-pound gorilla in the illegal immigration debate is this.
Are we a melting pot or are we a mosaic?
Are we a nation of Americans or are we a nation of hyphenated Americans?
Now, you'd think that based on history, the answer is obvious, that the melting pot has worked.
The Tower of Babel failed.
Having a brilliant, lovely mosaic is not what made this country.
We are a melting pot.
But my friends, success is not a model to liberals.
Remember, how many times have I cited liberal failure as a resume enhancement?
Jimmy Carter comes to mind.
Great liberal Democrats who fail get launched to the top of their party, top of their movement.
They gain stature as they fail.
Now, what is it about this debate?
Samuelson doesn't use these words, but he nails it.
The conspiracy against assimilation, there are actually people in this country who are for illegal immigration, you know who they are, who don't want assimilation.
What is it that liberals need?
What do liberals need in order to remain liberals?
They need victims, right?
They need dependency.
They need people that can't take care of themselves.
They need a bunch of people who will listen when they are told by liberals that they can't take care of themselves.
They don't have what it takes.
That they are victims.
They're victims of discrimination.
That they are victims of multiculturalism.
They are victims of racism, bigotry, sexism, homophobia, whatever.
A liberal will find any reason to make anybody a victim.
But they may be running out of victims because our economy is reducing victims.
And this is where Samuelson's column comes in.
He talks about the success of the economy and how more and more people are doing better.
And they're finding out that the free market system is a much better way for them to advance in life and to sit around and wait for some sort of program or handout or assistance from some government agency.
Well, liberals need victims, and our economy is reducing the number of victims.
The liberals need victims.
They need poverty figures.
They need high poverty.
They need numbers of people with no health care.
They need hungry children.
They need a number of people who have no job.
Liberals need people victimized by this unfair capitalistic society.
And if the economy and the free market system are taking away from liberals the number of victims, they got to get some more because those victims become voters if they can be truly made victims.
Well, you got a ready-made group pouring into the country in record numbers.
Whatever the number is now, 12 million, 20 million, whatever.
The liberals look at them as future victims, potential victims, people we can make victims.
These are the people that won't have health insurance.
It'll need us.
These are the people that we can say don't have jobs, legitimate jobs that need us.
These are people that we can say don't have educational opportunities and need us.
These are people that don't have health care, never will have health care and need us.
These are people who are never going to have a car, never going to have anything.
These are people going to be victimized by racism and bigotry.
So it's a ready-made replacement victim population.
And there's no desire for any assimilation here.
The liberals are proud for there to be a gorgeous mosaic, as they call it out there.
The last thing they want is assimilation.
Because when immigrants assimilate, they become part of the great American culture.
And when that happens, they learn how to advance in the great American culture.
And sooner or later, they will not be victims.
And liberals need victims.
And the United States economy is reducing the number of them.
Without victims, without people that Democrats and liberals can tell are victims, there will be no need for liberals.
And since they can't have that, they need victims.
Hello, illegal immigration.
Back in a sec.
And back to the phones to Flinton, Michigan.
This is Nick.
Nick, I'm glad you waited.
Welcome to the program, sir.
Thank you, Rush.
Greetings from Flint, Michigan.
I just wanted you to clarify something.
In regards to the last call, well, my thoughts are that an infusion of any kind of capitalism is going to have the same results as, you know, if you're trading with China or if you're opening up a factory in Panama.
Right.
I think you're going to achieve the same end.
I just wanted your thoughts on that.
Well, let's retrace our steps, shall we, and refresh in people's minds the subject of the last call.
A caller called and wanted to know why it's okay for the United States to trade with countries like China and Latin American countries which engage in slave labor.
But if he wanted to open a factory down in Latin America somewhere and paid low wages, they'd come get him and say, you can't do that.
You're discriminating against people, you're destroying their lives, you're exploiting them and so forth and so on.
I said, Well, it's one thing for governments to do it, but because they have stated goals and interests, but it's not okay for individuals like you to profit from it because you end up exploiting.
It's okay for the local governments to exploit their people, but not you.
You can't go do it.
I said, But don't worry about that.
Just hire some illegal immigrants and pay them very little.
That's the way we're dealing with it here.
Now, what did you misunderstand about what I said?
No, I just thought that you're acknowledging that there's a difference between the two, you know, and I just didn't think that there was.
No, no, I'm just explaining to him.
I was just trying to answer his question because he's right.
I mean, if you look at Kathy Lee Gifford got into problems when she had her clothing line, and it was learned that she was using slave labor or the people that she was hiring to make her clothing line, it was for Kmart, that they were engaging in slave labor, and she and her husband had to go down someplace in Manhattan and literally hand out cash to handle the PR problems.
Nike has gotten into a lot of PR problems because they have slave labor shops making their shoes.
It was said, overseas in the Pacific Rim for like 90 cents an hour.
The shoes ended up costing two bucks.
They sell them for $250.
So there are PR problems with it when an American company tries it, when the government supports it or endorses trade with the nation that engages in it, they seem to be able to do it with an impunity.
This guy was just wondering why in the world it's not okay for others to do it too, under your premise that if you're going down to an oppressed state and you're offering people work who otherwise wouldn't have it, and they're getting entry-level jobs as opposed to no jobs at all, and they're learning capitalism, being exposed to these kinds of things.
What's wrong with it?
And I was simply trying to answer his question.
Oh, I see.
No, because I was just going to make that same argument.
So never mind.
Well, see, we're on the same page of this, and I anticipated that that's what your problem with it was, but no, I'm all for sweatshops.
Roger in San Francisco.
Hey, Roger, this is our old buddy, the communist from Eastern Airlines.
Absolutely.
You know what?
It's about time that you had the courage to face up to me.
You're a xenophobe.
And shame on you for saying that the communists are bad people, you know, because they're bringing the economy around.
And you know what?
You have to take a look at that.
Roger, I hate Roger.
They're not bringing the economy around.
And I'm not a xenophobe, and I'm not afraid of you.
They're not bringing the economy around.
We're bringing their economy around.
Well, it works together, Rush, because I have to laugh at you.
You drive me so crazy.
I love you.
You're my brother, but you drive me crazy sometimes because you don't state the truth.
And, you know, one thing that you did the other week, let me just digress.
Wait a second.
Wait a second.
You're making a bunch of wild accusations here.
Yeah, okay.
Don't state the truth.
When did I not state the truth about it?
But what?
Oh, just about everything because I listened to Al Franken, and then he has.
And one thing I want to say, you were at a golf tournament.
I'll tell you what, you've got your life.
What's it like for you to wake up every day if that's the exciting portion of your day?
No, Rush.
Listen, listen.
I feel for you, my brother.
I really do.
I have great compassion for you.
But you communists, I guess, find things in common.
No, you were at a golf tournament, and Mark Luther, who is they call him the ditto head on Air America.
And you were not kind to him from what he said.
And he loves you.
He asked you to sign a book.
And then he said that you were very unkind to him.
Do you know who I'm talking about?
No, I really don't.
I'm sorry.
I'm clueless and I'm in the dark on this.
No, the guy his name is Mark Luther.
They call him the Dittohead.
He's on Air America.
a friend of Al Franken, but you know you know it's nice to meet their listener.
There were rumors they had one and you're it.
Well, no, no, no.
What I'm saying is you should be more kind to the people that even like you.
You kind of dismiss them because you know what?
You're a multi-multi-multi-gazillionaire and you lost touch with the average person.
Yeah, well, you know, Roger, I think there's a lot of people who have run into me a lot of years who have no clue what you're talking about as I don't in terms of the last thing I am is dismissive or mean or whatever your allegation is when I'm in public.
It's just the exact is absurd.
And I am a brother of no communist.
Rob in Stonington, Maine, welcome to the EIB network.
Hello.
Hi, Rush.
Listen, I think the predicament we're in with the Chinese is in a lot of ways similar to the predicament we had with South Africa back, and it continued through the Reagan administration.
And it was a dilemma then.
And I really trusted Reagan a lot.
And he was in favor of, I think maybe it was called constructive engagement or something.
And he was in favor of maintaining full economic relations with South Africa and full diplomatic relations.
And there was a policy called the Sullivan Principles that corporations adopted to do business in South Africa because I certainly felt apartheid was a disgusting thing.
But the companies who followed the Sullivan principles refused to discriminate against blacks and things like that in their policies.
But then I believe it went pretty far.
The left wing, through Congress, I guess, started isolating South Africa, which was against what Reagan wanted.
And we did boycotts and isolation.
Oh, it was disinvestment all over the place.
Universities and corporations, and the liberals were in a race to see who could get out of there first.
Yeah, and so I but I and then apartheid ended.
So it's a little hard to know whether Reagan's policy would have succeeded if it had been allowed to continue, or were the Libs right that finally when we did the boycott and disinvestment, did that work?
There's a big difference here, and it's race.
It's skin color.
The American left will never ever advocate disinvestment from China on the same basis that they did in South Africa.
There were two things at work here with the left's effort at disinvestment and getting out of South Africa, and that was getting votes and shoring up and maintaining they got the votes of the black population in America.
That was first and foremost.
This is an issue made to order for Jesse Jackson.
He was allowed to have prominence within the Democratic Party.
That's one of their constituent groups, and he sits at their power of their table of power.
And so this was made to order, and it had relevance to domestic politics.
And they can employ every race card that they use in this country in standing up for the immorality and the unjust treatment was going on in South Africa.
And you're right.
I mean, the disinvestment did, in addition to the immorality of apartheid, I mean, that kind of thing is not going to be sustainable over a long period of time anyway.
And when external pressure is allowed to penetrate, the immorality of that system alone was going to cause it to crumble.
This just hastened it along.
But it'll never happen in China because there's no political gain in this country for demanding it and securing it.
There's nobody who could suggest that if we had practiced the same kind of dissent, besides, the South Africans didn't own a significant portion of our national debt.
The CHICOMs do.
South Africans did not have nuclear weapons.
They weren't allied with the North Koreans.
They weren't allied with the Iranians.
The whole table is set entirely different.
So you think we should handle the Chinese differently than South Africa?
We should not be fully involved economically and diplomatically or something in between or what?
No, I just think the reality is that we're not going to pull out of China.
There's not going to be a race to see who can get out of China the first and the soonest and the fastest.
I would argue that Reagan's idea did work in the Soviet Union, and it probably would have continued to work in South Africa.
It wasn't going to change the balance of power, but it would have led to increased economic circumstances.
It might have taken some time, but it took 70 years with the Soviet Union.
But eventually, the Soviet Union figured out, and this was never really a big secret.
It's just a bunch of leftists in this country who didn't want to admit to it.
The Soviet Union could never keep up with us economically.
They were nothing but a third world nation with a first world military.
And they were a third world nation because all the resources went to the military and their defense system.
And they were trying to establish little satellites around the world that they could use to launch and project power and to threaten to do so.
South Africa wasn't doing any of that.
South Africa had none of the alliances that the Soviet Union had or that China has.
We are opening up China.
There's no question.
Look at the manufacturing base in China and look at the exports.
One of the items on discussion today between President Hu and President Bush was the trade imbalance.
And the Chinese came over, and part of the arrival ceremony today was that a big deal by Boeing Jets was announced earlier this week, a big deal with Microsoft and their operating windows.
And the Chinese have made some concessions here that they're going to try to stop the piracy of intellectual property and art, such as DVDs and CDs, computer software, and this sort of thing.
Now, their people are still oppressed, but there are Chinese millionaires now.
There are Chinese with two and three homes.
There are Chinese with mansions, and they're not just in the government.
And worldwide media is getting in.
The Chinese still block out what happened today when the Fulun Gong protester shows up.
Their people will not be allowed to see their leader being protested.
I guarantee you they didn't see it, folks.
For one thing, it's on a delay over there.
And then when this starts, the screens just go black.
But if you talk to people who do business in China and go there routinely, and in fact, I just had dinner with somebody who's establishing huge businesses in China that specifically focus on entrepreneurs.
And they're eager for it, and they're snapping up these opportunities, those that can.
Walmart is indeed going to build huge warehouses over there.
They're going to open massive numbers of stores over there.
It is a burgeoning market.
The Chinese are welcoming it.
And the same thing that's happening that did happen to the Soviets is going to happen there eventually.
It's just going to take a lot longer because this is still a very oppressive regime, and there's still a billion people over there.
And that's going to take a lot of time to permeate for external forces to permeate.
But you can't mix totalitarianism and freedom.
At some point, one has to give.
And if the economics improve such that the country is doing well, totalitarianism is going to fall of its own weight and of its own immorality.
That is why totalitarian regimes around the world do not let things happen inside their borders as are happening in China.
But they've got their forces that, despite what you think, they can't control.
And they do.
That's why they have alliances with the North Koreans.
And that's why they have alliances with Iran.
And why they will occasionally join with Russia at the Security Council to veto U.S. interests.
It's how they maintain their independence and try to prevent, and it's why they keep raising the Taiwan flag.
I don't know when it's all going to happen, but we're at a point now we could not pull out of China, and there's nobody that's going to advocate that we do, because the circumstances that exist there have no bearing and nothing in common with what was going on in Zoo Africa at the time of apartheid.
Back in just a sec.
Okay, time to go to the audio soundbites, ladies and gentlemen.
Ted Kennedy today on the Today Show.
First bite, Katie Courig says Karl Rove will not be focused so much on domestic policy, and in fact, will be focused more on the midterm elections, which Mary Madeline talked about earlier in the program.
How concerned should Republicans be in your view about these upcoming elections?
The principal concern that you'd have, that I have with Karl Rove, is that he has really been the architect to the politics of fear.
We had a terrible tragedy in 9-11.
Stop the tape.
Senator Kennedy, we did not have a tragedy.
It was an act of war.
It was an attack, Senator.
It wasn't a tragedy in the sense you mean it.
In this country, but that has been the dominant policy of the Republican leadership in the Congress and outside is the politics of fear.
And if you look back historically, where other presidents faced a challenge as President Kennedy at the Cuban Missile Crisis, Franklin Roosevelt in World War II, Abraham Lincoln, they brought the country together to the challenges.
And this has been an administration that's practiced the politics of fear and separation and division, and that has been destructive in American politics.
These guys, yeah, what we have here is projection.
This is where you accuse the other guys of doing what you do and try to pretend that what you're doing is not what you're doing.
Up next, Katie says, it seems to me the Democratic, by the way, one thing about Rove.
I think people, and I alluded to this yesterday, everybody's misunderstanding what's happening with Rove.
Rove is just going back to doing what he was doing.
He's not abandoning policy.
He's abandoning an official position.
I'll bet this job that he had required office time and paperwork and position papers and policy and all that.
That kind of bureaucratic thing that bogs a creative guy like Rove down.
I think he's just going back to where he's most effective and where he can be the most efficient.
It's not a demotion at all.
And these guys are mischaracterizing this like I just knew they would.
Question, it seems to me the Democratic Party's done a miserable job of communicating its vision and offering any kind of alternative, Katie said to Senator Kennedy.
We were the ones that brought higher education, the Medicare programs, the Medicaid programs, knocked down the walls of discrimination.
We brought a sound economy, a sensible foreign policy.
That is what we're going to do when we get back in power.
The best way to find out about what a party will do is what it has done.
And in each and every area that we have acted on, this country has been made a fairer and a more just nation.
Yeah, and it's been wrecked.
It hasn't been fairer and it hasn't been more just.
And isn't this great?
What is your vision for the future?
We're going to do what we've done in the past.
And if you look it all up, it's failed.
But don't look at the results.
Look at our good intentions.
You're never supposed to judge us on results.
Look at our intentions.
We wanted to bring fairness.
We wanted to bring a just society.
We wanted to bring all this other rot gut.
But it all failed.
In fact, Democrat solutions just create new problems and exacerbate current problems.
One final question, she says, let me ask your book.
You talk about the things that need to be done, Senator.
Are they doable?
Americans do well when they're challenged and they're together.
But that isn't what's being asked now.
It's appealed to agreed.
It's appeal to I can make it.
It doesn't make much difference.
The ownership society, I've got mine.
It's too bad if you don't have yours.
Interesting from a guy who's inherited what he has.
Here you have it.
I mean, if you want to know what the Democrats are going to do, he just ripped the ownership society, entrepreneurism, the I can do it, the I can make it.
He doesn't think that's possible.
He wants you to be a victim with no hope.
By the way, folks, let me, one thing about South Africa today, we may have busted up apartheid, but that country is a mess.
And make no mistake about it, it's not an argument that the disinvestment was the way to go in South Africa.
That country is not what it was economically for most people.