All Episodes
Previous Next
May 30, 2006 - Rush Limbaugh Program
36:28
May 30, 2006, Tuesday, Hour #2
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
And we are back.
The views expressed by the host on this program still documented to be almost always right, 98.5% of the time still waiting on the latest opinion audit from the highly acclaimed opinion auditing firm, Sullivan Group, in Sacramento, California, my adopted hometown.
I am Rush Limbaugh, America's real anchor man.
And if you want to be on the program today, 800-282-2882.
Let me expand on, I had to rush through this at the end of the previous hour.
Dean in Chicago called and said that the 14th Amendment could be challenged on the concept that children of illegals could maybe not actually be citizens because the illegals do not fall under the jurisdiction of the United States because they're illegal.
And he said to make an interesting test case before the Supreme Court.
There's a problem with that in this sense, that courts are activists these days.
You people may not remember this, but that's why I am here as your host.
Back in the early 1980s, the Supreme Court held that the children of illegal aliens have a right to public education.
That was before Simpson Mazzoli came.
This is in the early 80s.
86 was Simpson Mazzoli.
This has been a slowly building time bomb here that everybody in Washington has missed.
I have been warning the Republican Party about this for over two years, that this exact thing was going to happen, that the party stood a chance of being ripped apart by this.
And I said, whichever party gets to the front of this issue in the right way is going to own it.
It was 1982.
It was Plyler versus Dole, a Supreme Court decision.
Justice William Brennan found that the children of illegal aliens were not responsible for their illegal entry into the country.
Therefore, legislation directing the onus of a parent's misconduct against his children does not comport with fundamental conceptions of justice.
That decision came as close to extending citizenship on the illegals without doing so as it could have.
That was dangerously close.
Just a blanket pardon.
You're here.
You're an automatic citizen.
So if you take this to the courts, you don't know where it's going to end up.
The courts could say, hey, we think just like Brennan did.
Hey, if they're here, they're here.
And it's not their fault that they were conceived.
Well, they had no choice in the matter.
So a constitutional amendment is, if this gets changed, is the likely route.
But I'm just telling folks, this is, you know, why is this happening now?
Things happen for a reason.
For over 200 years, nobody cared.
It was a natural thing.
Born in this country, you're a citizen.
It was a great thing.
It was part of the founding.
Now, all of a sudden, it's a problem.
It's a problem because the people elected to deal with this kind of problem have been punting it and ignoring it, kicking it down the road, waiting for other people to handle it.
Simpson Mazzoli of 86 is now being dealt with today, and it's simply a rehash of Simpson-Mazzoli, only worse.
Now, I want to move on to other things, but I got an email.
I have to share this with you.
It's from a subscriber.
And my website, rushlimbaugh.com.
His name is Burke Huber, and the subject line is, I won't be renewing my membership.
Hey, Rush, or should I say Ross, as in Ross parole, because that's who you sound like on the immigration issue.
People argued against NAFTA because of the big sucking sound.
You're completely 180 degrees out of phase on this.
Why do you support NAFTA, the free flow of goods, but not the free flow of labor?
You advocate against government restrictions, but promote government restrictions on the borders, which causes inefficiencies and lowers the GDP.
Get an economics lesson from that econ professor you always have on.
I can't take your economic ignorance anymore on this issue, Mr. Huber.
It's Professor Hazlett, number one.
And Professor Hazlett and I, along with Dr. Soule, would be the first to try to convince you of the difference between commodities and human beings.
Do I really have to waste time doing this?
The free flow of commodities, the free flow of goods you want to compare to the free flow of human beings?
Do commodities commit crimes?
Do commodities beget other commodities?
Do commodities, I mean, it is inexplicable to me how you don't see the difference here, Mr. Huber, in the free flow of labor versus the free flow of commodities.
To try to compare commodities to human beings and to ignore the fundamental rule of law about this, that's why NAFTA exists.
Now, if we want a NAFTA for labor, let's go do that.
Let's put it up for a vote and let's see.
Do we close, do we just erase borders and say anybody who wants to come here to join our labor force gets to do it on the basis, hey, it's free trade.
Hey, it's free labor.
Hey, it's the exchange of labor and so forth and so on.
In the case of NAFTA, goods go both ways.
In the case of labor, it ain't going both ways.
It's going one way, and it's depressing wages in this country.
At any rate, lose another subscriber because I'm right.
Now, if I were a politician, if I were a member of the Senate, well, I would be pandering to Mr. Huber right now, and I'd be saying, oh, please, forgive me.
You know, you're absolutely right.
I'm totally wrong on this issue.
I'll do what I can, but to save the vote, to save the subscriber, to save the member.
But no, if being right means losing a membership at Rush 24-7, then I will always choose to be right.
Unhappy with Hastard Byron York posting today that the word on Capitol Hill is that House Republicans are increasingly irritated with the Speaker, Denny Hastard, over his stand in the William Jefferson Democrat Louisiana corruption case.
By the way, I can't believe this.
I have a bunch of emails over the week.
Why do you keep saying Congressman William Jefferson, Democrat, Louisiana?
Okay, I will take time to explain these things.
Because the Democrats have started this whole campaign thing called the culture of corruption.
And everybody is trying to get in on that, the media side, the drive-by media, and with Delay and Abramoff and all these horrible Republicans that are such bad people and they're corrupt.
And here you have a Democrat.
And even, did you see the New York Times on Sunday?
Did you, did you, they wrote a story talking about, oh, the great congressman, William Jefferson, Democrat, Louisiana, and his poor downtrodden roots.
Dirt poor.
Grew up wherever it was, dirt poor.
Folks, I'm just going to summarize the piece.
He gets a pass.
He can do this because he grew up poor.
It's his way of getting even for the evil, unfair, inequitable circumstances that he faced as a young child in this morbidly racist and unequal, unfair country.
And so it was a puff piece building up Dollar Bill.
That's his nickname, by the way, Dollar Bill Jefferson, as a great public servant by, look at, and this is how when I got up to Sacramento, Willie Brown was the Speaker of the Assembly out there.
And well, Willie Brown was a great copy.
And I met the Speaker a number of times.
And as a human being, I loved him.
But I mean, folks, I don't.
I heard one of the newsrooms, the late, what was his name?
Jim, oh, I love this guy.
He was a newsman when I got out to Sacramento KFPK.
Jim Hamblin.
I was studied up on Willie Brown, and I learned that there's some questionable things.
He has this salary as speaker, but his suits are $4,000 and he's flying all over the world and so forth.
I said, there's something amiss here.
I'm just trying to get up to speak on California politics.
And Jim Hamblin, who was a good guy, took me aside.
Look, he's a sharecropper's son.
He came dirt poor.
His rise is majestic in this country from where he came.
And it's the same thing that the New York Times is trying to do to Congressman William Jefferson, Democrat, Louisiana.
It's almost, he gets a free pass.
He gets a free pass.
He can do all this without real scrutiny because he grew up poor and black.
And of course, Hillo Shelby Steele and the guilt that the liberals at the New York Times feel, plus the fact he's a Democrat and they can't.
CBS even called him a Republican over the weekend.
They did.
CBS called him a Republican, which is why, ladies and gentlemen, I refer to him as Congressman William Jefferson, Democrat, Louisiana.
Anyway, back to the story.
Republicans in the House are upset.
They think Hastert's wrong on the law, that the Constitution does not, in fact, give members of Congress a right to use their offices to hide evidence of felonies.
Second, they're mad about Hastert's handling of the politics.
One Republican aide said, We had a chance to even the score on this ethics thing of the Democrats' culture of corruption attacks.
There's no way we're going to win it.
We could have fought it to a draw.
Now that chance is gone, thanks to Hastert, they say.
Members are ticked off.
There's $90,000 in William Jefferson, Democrat, Louisiana's freezer, and that's not the story.
And that's exactly what I asked last week.
Why is nobody upset about what Jefferson has allegedly done?
Much of it on videotape.
Why are they all upset?
You know, this is item number two that shows how people inside the Beltway are just insulated.
This is as easy to understand as the House Bank.
People understood, you can't go to the bank and write yourself checks for cash to money you don't have.
Members of Congress were doing it to the tune of hundreds of thousands of dollars.
Their salaries meant nothing.
You guys could go to good old House Bank, write a check, put an IOU, and never have to pay it back as long as nobody found out about it, but somebody did.
We blew the lid on it.
And it was, among many other things, that led to the big overthrow of the incumbents in 1994.
This is just easy as hell to understand.
John Q. Public, Joe Sixpack, you, you look at this and you say, well, I can't use my officer home to hide evidence of a felony.
Why do these guys think they should be able to?
Who the hell do they think they are?
It's really tone deaf on so many things.
It's just, and plus the political tone deafness on here's an opportunity.
You got the Pelosi and the whole Democrats out there trying to run roughshod over you on the culture corruption, and the Republicans give this whole thing a pass.
It leads to another question from John Q. Public and Joe Sixpack, you.
Well, who else up there is trying to cover up felonies and using this as a potential way of continuing the cover-up?
By the way, did you know that Gonzalez, Alberto Gonzalez, and his McNulty, I think, Paul McNulty, threatened?
No, Mueller, the FBI, threatened to resign if the president made them give Jefferson back his evidence.
I'll have details of that when we come back.
Stay with us.
Yeah, here's the New York Times headline on Congressman William Jefferson, Democrat Louisiana.
Target of FBI raid had a hard path to Capitol Hill.
And it really goes on to say that poor people who are black who become members of Congress or otherwise highly elected officials somehow end up exempt from any ethical models that we have in the country.
Maybe they don't say it specifically.
But you can't help but infer it from what they read.
Washington Post same day, Jefferson probe includes other suspected schemes.
FBI focusing on at least eight different suspected bribery schemes as part of its corruption probe of Congressman William Jefferson, Democrat Louisiana, according to a federal affidavit in sources familiar with the investigation.
A key part of the FBI probe has centered around Congressman William Jefferson, Democrat Louisiana's dealings with a Louisville high-tech company, iGate Inc., that was marketing broadband technology for the internet and cable television in Africa.
But an affidavit used in last weekend's controversial search of the office of Congressman William Jefferson, Democrat Louisiana, stated that authorities are looking at at least seven other bribery schemes in which Congressman William Jefferson, Democrat Louisiana, sought things of value in return for his performance of official acts.
Now, I don't know if we're going to get a story sympathetic to Congressman Jefferson from the Washington Post at some point, but we already have from the New York Times.
Now, Andrew McCarthy today writing at National Review online, and he said later today, the Republican-led Congress scheduled to raise to new heights of hysteria and arrogance its protest against the FBI's search of the Capitol Hill offices of Congressman William Jefferson, Democrat Louisiana.
In fact, those hearings started this morning.
But as House Judiciary Chairman James Sensenbrenner prepares what promises to be a contentious hearing, we should note with gratitude that Attorney General Alberto Gonzalez, Deputy Attorney General Paul McNulty, and FBI Director Robert Mueller have just enjoyed their finest hours as leaders of agencies whose best traditions lie in apolitical, nonpartisan law enforcement.
I love saying law enforcement because that's how my friends in New York say it.
All three were apparently prepared to do what the hierarchy of the Justice Department, the FBI, must always be prepared to do if the rule of law is to thrive.
They were ready to resign over a matter of high principle.
They told the president, if you give this guy back his evidence, we're out of here.
And so that's what led to the 45-day cooling off period.
And Jefferson does not have his evidence back, and who knows if he'll get it back.
Don't know where this is going to go, but it still is indicative of just how out of touch so many people inside the Beltway are.
Now, perhaps there's a better way of doing this.
I mean, if there's an argument, say, that, okay, maybe the Justice Department and the FBI should have called Hastert and said, look, we need to come get some evidence in this guy's case.
We've got an office.
We have a warrant.
Blah, Some people say, no, you can't bring Haster because Hastert knows about it.
That's going to be learned.
And if Hastert knew about it and let it happen, then he's enemy number one of the Democrats, any other Republican who's worried about this.
So it was probably better off that Hastert didn't know about it.
But, you know, don't underestimate me, folks.
Don't doubt me.
The House Republicans, particularly the leadership, is fed up with the White House.
The White House asked for the essential provisions in the House Immigration Bill.
The White House has now abandoned them and moved on to support Senator McCain and Senator Kennedy and that bill.
They are fit to be tied.
The House Republicans went along with all of the spending that the White House requested.
They went along with Ted Kennedy writing the education bill.
They went along with the Medicare prescription drug entitlement.
They've gone along with a whole lot of things that are against their principles as conservatives.
And at some point, the final straw was going to be reached, and they've been teetering when Porter Goss was forced out, one of Denny Hastert's best buddies, from the House leadership, when they threw Goss under the bus.
And apparently Hastert feels that Goss was given assurances that he was there for the remainder of the president's term.
That infuriated them.
And then I think this Saturday night raid of Congressman Jefferson's office didn't take much to be the straw that broke the camel's back.
That's what it was.
And then, when Hastert raised holy hell about this, then the Justice Department had somebody leaked Brian Ross at ABC that Hastert was part of the Abramoff investigation.
Well, that didn't make Hastert happy.
So Hastert writes letters and then demanding a retraction.
The Justice Department goes out, McNulty, and says, there's no investigation of Speaker Hastert.
He's not being investigated.
ABC sticks with the story.
So, I mean, there's at loggerheads here.
There are a bunch of conservatives in the House who think that they've been abandoned and sold down the river by the White House.
And now they're being asked once again to abandon their bill and go sign up with what the Senate has done because we need a bill.
President needs a bill.
If the president doesn't get a bill, why he's lame duck officially.
If the president can't, he owns the Congress.
We've got a Republican House and Republican Senate.
If the president can't get a bill, why?
It's dead meat and so forth.
We've got to rally behind the president.
And they're saying in the House, when has he rallied behind us?
And now they're down to this.
What do they listen to?
Listen to Rove come up, what's happened last week?
They listened to Karl Rove come up and try to talk into how important standing with the president is if they listen to the people who elected them.
And they told 19 to 20 of them from what I know, it's pure speculation, just what has been published, but 19 of 20 of the people in the House that Karl Rove spoke to basically told him to pound sand.
I don't know if that's true, but that's just what was said.
At any rate, they've got a real dilemma.
Do they listen to the voters that elected them, or do they go along with more unity with the White House and with the Senate, knowing full well it's against their principles and best interests?
Now, there's a headline all over the AP, Democrats I November landslide.
I've never read anything, well, I can't say never, but seldom that is so wrong in its take on things back after this.
Making the complex understandable, because usually the complex is a lot simpler than people think.
800-282-2882, if you want to be on the program, this is Dana in Virginia Beach, Virginia.
Nice to have you with us, sir.
Mega retired Navy fighter Jacques Dedos to you, my friend.
Thank you, sir.
Thanks very much.
You betcha.
You know, that puff piece you're talking about as far as Jefferson is concerned in the New York Times that just came out, it really has to do with the essence of the divisiveness in this country on race.
And it always has been.
It's given people a pass.
And when you start holding people to different standards, you give them a pass, and they will never get better, and it'll never go away.
You give them an opportunity to drop the race car.
They were poor.
They were this.
They were Spanish.
They're Latino.
They're black.
And it'll never go away.
Yeah, I know.
That's well said.
I think, now, I don't know who's dropping the race card here.
I mean, this is a New York Times story.
I think the editors and the staff of the New York Times are entirely capable of coming up with this on their own without being pitched by a Jefferson flack.
This is something that's ingrained in the liberal bloodstream, folks.
It's in the liberal genetic code.
This is an unjust country with an unfair past.
This is a country that is not yet made amends for its past transgressions.
Listen to some of the passages from this piece.
Congressman William J. Jefferson, Democrat Louisiana, has always liked to talk about growing up in an impoverished farm community, picking cotton for $3 a day and hitting the books hard enough to win his ticket out, a scholarship to Harvard Law School.
A remarkable ascent from the deepest poverty and a quest for the comforts his family never had.
Mr. Jefferson was raised, along with eight brothers and sisters, on a small farm in northeast Louisiana, where he said earlier this year, our whole life revolved around that cotton field.
His father left school after second grade.
His mother attended only through eighth grade.
After he graduated from Southern University in Baton Rouge in 1969, Mr. Jefferson has said he won his mother's blessings to go to Harvard.
She had never heard of it only by explaining that it had been John F. Kennedy's college.
Are you crying yet, ladies and gentlemen?
Are you feeling sorry for Congressman Jefferson being under this evil double standard in this country?
You want to talk about double standards.
As Ed Lasky points out in the American Thinker Today, when the modest backgrounds of Republican leaders like Tom DeLay or Denny Hasterter mention it all, usually it's in a sneering fashion, like DeLay being in the pest business.
Dick Cheney worked as a youth on electrical power lines, a demanding and hazardous task.
Does the Times ever mention this?
Presumably, Representative Jefferson enjoyed a scholarship to Harvard since his family would have been unable to help him with a tuition.
If so, his turn toward avarice and greed would be all the more worthy of condemnation.
The notion that poor people are somehow exempt from the same ethical strictures as the rest of us is poisonous condescension, robbing the poor of their human dignity as moral actors.
At its root, it regards poor people as a permanent inferior class and therefore entitled to take whatever steps necessary to escape the poverty that's brought on by Republican tax cuts for the rich or some such other cliché.
Fred in Youngstown, Ohio.
Hi, and welcome to the program.
Hello, Rush.
How are you doing?
Just fine, sir.
Okay.
My first question is, okay, first, look, I've been listening to you for a long time.
Yeah.
And for the last week, you've been hammering this William Jefferson thing.
No, no, since September.
Last September, about nine months.
Okay.
Well, how come I've never heard you mention anything about the Connecticut governor, who happened to be a Republican, who was run out of office for taking kickbacks and bribes?
How come I never heard you mention anything about the Illinois governor who was a Republican, who was taking kickbacks and bribes and run out of office?
And how come I've never heard you mention anything about Governor Taft, who was also just pled guilty to accepting gifts and kickbacks and bribes?
How do you know I have?
By the way, Ken Blackwell was part of his cabinet.
How do you know I haven't spoken of those every day?
Well, no, you don't.
Yes, I do, Rush.
No, you don't.
No, you don't, because you've heard me talk about Governor Taft.
You've heard me talk about Governor Taft.
You've heard me talk about Governor Roland and his one of the things they were trying to get him on is Cuban cigars.
Not to the extent that you've talked about this William Jefferson.
Don't get me wrong.
The guy broke the law.
He's not above the law.
Yes.
But neither are these other Republicans that you just gave.
No, but they're all in jail.
I mean, they're all in jail.
I'm not out defend.
Well, Taft is not in jail, but Roland and...
He should be in jail.
Yeah, they are.
They're in jail.
Taft should be in jail.
And Ken Blackwell also should be in jail.
It was a misdemeanor.
What are you talking about with Taft?
Kenneth Blackwell should be in jail?
What should Kenneth Blackwell be in jail for?
Because he was a member of his cabinet when this was going on.
What's that got to do with it?
That means everybody on Congressman Jefferson's staff ought to be under indictment, too.
But he's running for office right now.
That in and of itself is scary.
That's a scary thought.
Here's the problem.
Here's the problem, Rush.
No, it's not.
How can you say this, especially today?
For crying out, you say you listen every day.
I ought to be your best buddy today.
I have been ripping the White House and my Republican friends in the Senate over this immigration bill for crying out loud.
I have been talking about the political tone deafness of Republicans in the House over this William Jefferson business.
But, sir, what you must understand, I am not just a host.
I'm a leader.
The things that I believe in, the people that I trust and believe in, are oftentimes under attack.
They are under attack by a bunch of hypocrites who are no better than the people they are attacking.
But in the dominant drive-by media, they get a pass, as I just evidenced by reading this sop piece on Congressman William Jefferson, Democrat Louisiana, in the New York Times.
No such ever, have we had a story on Tom DeLay like this, how he rose from the corners of rat feces and other pest problems to become the Republican majority leader in the House.
We don't see great rags to riches stories told about these guys or Dick Cheney.
All we see, sir, is them attacked relentlessly, impugned, insulted, libeled, and slandered.
And they can't do anything about it because they're public figures.
And so this is equal time, sir.
I don't need balance on this program because this program is equal time.
And if you listened regularly and have been for a long time, you would know that.
And you wouldn't be wasting time giving me such grief over such specious things.
You would understand why we do what we do on this program and why we prevail.
Jamie in Dayton, Ohio.
Welcome.
Nice to have you with us.
Yes, hello.
Hi, Rush.
Hi, Jamie.
What an honor.
Thank you.
I just wanted to say I'm an American, all-American.
I'm not Caucasian American, Euro-American, but I am American, and I love America because it is so diverse.
And it has people from all over the nation.
But I'll tell you what, at this point with the Hispanic population, I am finding myself in a position I've never been in before.
I am discriminating against every Hispanic I see.
Every time I see one, I think, are you here legally?
And I just have this resentment inside of myself.
Every time I hit the ATM machine and I have to select my English language, every time I see a Hispanic, I just become so angry inside because I know that my husband, I'm a stay-at-home mom, is paying for that person.
I know my husband's hard work and all the choices we're making are being affected by people who are here illegally.
And I'm so sick of the word immigrant.
It's an illegal alien for crying out loud.
I'm sorry.
Should I keep going there?
Yeah, you don't need to apologize.
Keep going.
Just go through the hate crime here while you're on the air.
Okay, that's all I mean.
But I just said, but I just, I've never found myself in this position before.
I have precious, precious nephews that are part Asian.
My best friend is of African descent.
I love America.
It would be so boring if everybody were the same.
But I resent Congress.
I resent the fact that they are not having the guts, and I'll use that word because it's a lot nicer.
I resent their not having the guts to stand up for the people they are representing.
I am infuriated with the fact that they will not put up a wall for me.
They will take all my money and put it towards any old darn program they wanted to put it towards, but they will not protect me and put up a wall for me.
And I resent the fact that they think that my checkbook and my paycheck is their, they can have access to it anytime they want.
They can raise it.
They can lower it anytime they want.
But they won't keep me from paying for everybody else that doesn't even have the guts to apply for citizenship.
And I've just had it.
And I wish, I wish, I wish somehow, some way we could organize a rally to just die gone and say we've had it.
We're set up.
Oh, my baby thinks I'm upset.
Well, you know, we do have those rallies.
They're called elections.
The other clowns run around marching the streets and wave flags and banners and signs and tear things up.
We go to the polls.
That's where we conduct our rebellions.
I know, but there's one brewing, and you are voicing the sentiments of many people, particularly when you talk about, you know, they consider your paycheck theirs, and they're going to take whatever they need from your paycheck and spend it on whatever they want without any consultation of you.
And the only thing I would caution you on that is they don't even look at your paycheck as yours.
It's theirs.
What you end up with is because of their good graces.
Well, I mean, I voted, and I voted in the primaries.
I voted for Keyes.
I would love to see Keyes for president.
But there are just so many things.
I just found myself doing things I've never done before.
And I am concerned to say that I think the Hispanics that are here legally, mind you, legally, are going to be discriminated by Americans who resent all the illegal aliens here.
And they are going to be mistreating the legal.
Let me tell you something here, Jamie.
I understand how you feel totally.
When you have Senator McCain describing, when he's pandering and talking to the illegals that are here, describing them as the backbone of America, the future backbone of America, as the people that are being most discriminated against in this country, I can understand how it totally rubs you the wrong way.
It rubs me the wrong way.
It is demagoguery and pandering, but it's typical of many elected officials.
And I understand what you're saying about you feel like they're turning you into a discriminating person or discriminatory person because the stakes are being raised here and you're being told that you have to react and treat the illegals in a certain way or there's something wrong with you.
Your reaction to this is entirely understandable.
But just keep your emotions high.
Don't let them get the best of you.
And when the next round of elections come up, join the crowd and we all see where we're going to end up with it.
But I think that there's a, I was going to say quiet rebellion going on, but I don't think it's so quiet anymore.
And that's what's all the more amazing about how it's being missed unseen by people inside the Beltwave.
Jamie, I appreciate it.
I have to go.
Not only are the constraints of time forcing me to take an EIB obscene profit break, but I need to get a cigar.
Ah, that is a fine, fine cigar.
All right.
Welcome back, folks.
800-282-2882.
Hang on just a second.
I had a little cigar tobacco flex stuck there in the throat and had to get it.
You might be wondering, why do you slurp like that?
My friends, if I drank silently, it would cause dead air.
And so I was not trying to be rude.
It was just it's a programming technique.
And now the headline that I referred to earlier, Democrats I at November landslide.
Here they go again.
They have already got it figured out.
They're already victorious.
It's Speaker to be Pelosi.
This is Ron Fournier in the Associated Press.
Republicans are three steps from a November shellacking, each a grim possibility if habitually divided Democrats get their acts together.
Well, wait a minute.
Why this headline?
Oh, Democrats.
I, November landslide.
Okay, first step.
According to Ron Fournier, first step, voters have to focus on the national landscape on November 7th rather than local issues and personalities that usually dominate midterm elections.
That would sting Republicans who trail badly in national polls.
Don't worry, I'm going to analyze this here in just a second.
Second step, voters must be so angry at Washington and politics in general that an anti-incumbent throw-the-bums-out mentality sweeps the nation.
That would wound Republicans, the majority party.
Third step, Americans must view the election as a referendum on President Bush at a GOP-led Congress, siding with Democrats in a symbolic vote against the Iraq war, rising gas prices, economic insecurity, and the nagging sense that the nation's on the wrong track.
That would destroy Republicans, sweeping them from power in one or both chambers and making Bush a lame duck.
Less than six months out, most Democratic and Republican strategists say the first two elements are in place for now, a national anti-incumbent mindset, and all signs point to the third, the American people viewing the election as a referendum on President Bush.
Here's the honest analysis of this, ladies and gentlemen.
Republicans do have something to worry about this November, but it's just the opposite of what this drive-by moron is talking about.
The problem for Republicans is that far too many of them are acting like liberal Democrats.
Far too many Republicans are trying to out Democrat Democrats.
Not to mention the Democrats are believing their own press in their polls.
They did the same thing in 2004.
Remember, James Carvo's out there spouting and spewing his doom and gloom for the Republicans, which he based on the false polls.
And let's not forget the 2004 exit polls either.
They even lie to themselves in their exit polls.
Now, this is the generic ballot that they're talking about.
And they always weight these ballots and oversample Democrats by 11 to 14 percent.
They keep making the same mistakes.
They end up believing their polls.
They oversample Democrats 11 to 14%.
And then when they lose, every election, they can't figure out why they actually end up losing.
Can't figure it out because, well, the polls said, you remember that it got so, so crazy after the 2004 elections, there were some wacko lunatic kook fringe Democrats who actually wanted to question the real vote because the exit polls had carried the winner.
They wanted to believe the exit polls rather than the real vote because that led them to believing that there was election fraud.
The Democrats drive by media, never learn.
And while they're quoting these low ratings for Republicans, let's remind you, it's really a general low rating for the whole Congress.
And if the Democrats think that they are exempt from any anti-incumbent mood that exists out there, they are going to be sadly shocked and surprised on the morning after the election.
If the Republicans continue to act like liberal Democrats, then they will be in trouble.
If they change their course, they can not only save themselves, but President Bush, too.
Back in just a second.
Fastest week in media.
Tomorrow's already going to be Wednesday, the middle of the week.
We got two hours down and one to go on the one and only Rush Limbaugh program.
▲
Export Selection