All Episodes
Previous Next
July 10, 2006 - Rush Limbaugh Program
36:22
July 10, 2006, Monday, Hour #1
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Welcome to today's edition of the Rush 24 7 Podcast.
Okay, now here are some words I never thought I'd be saying on national radio.
We have to talk about the World Cup.
Now you've got to understand, I'm one of those Americans, like 98% of us that think that soccer is one of the dumbest games ever invented, and it's a sign of American superiority that we don't care about it.
But you've got to admit, first of all, this is interesting how it ended, and secondly, it is great.
For those of you who don't know, France lost, Italy won, and what a surprise, it was on penalty kicks, which is apparently how all soccer games are decided.
The only thing surprising is that the score was not nothing nothing, it was actually one to one and they had the penal penalty kicks.
But the way France lost was just beautiful, and you've got to admit, we needed for France to lose.
Do you understand how insufferable that nation would have been had it won the World Cup?
I mean, this is a country that has this sense of superiority about everything for no evident reason.
Not only do they lose, they lose because their best player gets kicked out of the game with ten minutes to go for headbutting.
I mean, this is just beautiful.
So the entire nation now is in this state of angst and trying to understand what happened, and they're worried about how to explain it to the children.
France has lost.
However, I am going to revert to at least some good judgment, and we will not be talking about this until the third hour of the program.
So anything you have to say about the World Cup will be coming up, but we're not going to do it until a little bit later on.
I want to start the program by talking about what is happening to American liberalism.
And I think that you can't sugarcoat this.
liberalism in this country has now become a crackpot theory.
It's not just the other side anymore.
It's not just the side that we disagree with.
American liberalism, which was in the past a legitimate form of political thought, the classic American liberal was pro-union, pro little guy, anti-communist, strong national defense, try to care for all of our people, believe that there is a role for strong government.
I disagree with all that stuff, but at least it was a viable political philosophy.
It was something that you could disagree with without having to ridicule.
Look at what's become of liberalism now.
The wing nuts have taken over that entire ideology and they're dragging the Democratic Party down with them.
Now I admit the Republicans are kind of messed up in 2006.
The party seems adrift.
There's a lot of concern about losses in the congressional elections this fall.
Even some of our heroes are in trouble.
I admit all of that stuff.
But the one hope you have is that the Democrats are going to keep catering to this left wing base of their party, which is just nuts.
Now I'm not the only one saying this.
David Brooks in the New York Times over the weekend wrote a piece in which he went after this left-wing base of the Democratic Party, the websites like the Daily Coss, the uh left wing radio network, and so on.
And he focused in particular on what's happening to Joe Lieberman, who was the Democratic candidate for vice president, in fact, kind of popular within his own party only a few years ago.
That was only 2000 that he ran with Gore.
Now Joe Lieberman is facing a challenge in the Democratic primary in Connecticut and all over America.
This liberal base is determined to beat Lieberman.
Because in their mind, Joe Lieberman has become way too conservative.
Now this is what David Brooks writes about this, and Brooks doesn't have it entirely right, but he's on the right track.
He writes, what's happening to Lieberman can only be described as a liberal inquisition.
Whether you agree with him or not, he is transparently the most kind hearted and well-intentioned of men.
But over the past few years he has been subjected to a vituperation campaign that only experts in moral manias and mob psychology are really fit to explain.
I can't reproduce the typical assaults that have been directed at him over the internet because they are so laced with profanity and ugliness, but they are ginned up by ideological masseurs who salve their followers' psychic wounds by arousing their rage at objects of mutual hate.
Next has come the effort to expel Lieberman from modern liberalism.
In a dark parody of the old struggle between Eugene McCarthy and Hubert Humphrey, the highly educated, highly affluent, highly Caucasian wing of the Democratic Party has turned liberalism from a philosophy into a secular religion and then sought to purge a battle-scarred war horse on the grounds of insufficient moral purity.
So these days, for example, one hears that Lieberman is a crypto-conservative, a Bible belter.
In reality, of course, this is a man who has been endorsed by Planned Parenthood and the Human Rights Campaign.
He has a Christian coalition rating of zero.
But a lifetime's record is deemed not to matter any longer.
For in the midst of the Inquisition, all of American liberalism has been reduced to one issue: the war.
Just as some edges, uh some edges of the pro-life movement reduce all of conservatism to abortion, the upscale revivalists on the left reduce everything to Iraq, and all who are deemed impure must be cleansed away.
Lieberman's opponent, Ned Lamont has neither expertise in foreign affairs nor any specific knowledge of Iraq, and he has struggled to come up with a plan for what we should do now do there.
But that is not the point, for the opposition to Lieberman is not about future actions or even politics as it is normally understood.
It is about impurity, the scarlet letter, and the need to expunge those who have transgressed.
Now, he's right about most of that.
If you go to some of these lefty websites, it is stunning how loony they have gotten.
They make Howard Dean seem reasonable.
And consider this, Howard Dean is still the chairman of the Democratic Party.
Their fringe has taken over.
In fact, their fringe isn't even a fringe anymore.
You need a new term for it.
It is the base of contemporary liberalism.
I believe its roots are just absolute obsession with Bush and opposition to everything that Bush stands for.
When Clinton was in power, they felt a need to be part of the team.
So while Clinton wasn't a lunatic fringe nut, he was merely an ineffectual mainstream liberal, they felt the need to be part of the team and they supported the things that Clinton did.
Now that they're out of power and Bush is in power, they are so motivated by opposing everything that Bush does, and they get so riled up by everything about Bush that they let their true beliefs come out.
It isn't just this Joe Lieberman race for which they think it's so important to get Joe Lieberman out because Joe Lieberman's the one Democrat in the U.S. Senate who seems to support the war in Iraq.
I want to tell you about a story from my own home state of Wisconsin.
At the University of Wisconsin, Madison, largest university in the state, big ten university, they've got a lecturer who believes and who teaches that the 9-11 bombings were committed by the Bush administration,
that the United States actually brought down the Twin Towers, that the United States planted explosives in the two towers of the World Trade Center to bring it down, and that the attack on the Pentagon was also plotted and pulled off by the Bush administration.
And he argues that the administration did this and the government did this merely to build up hatred for Al Qaeda and for Muslims, and that we're behind all of it.
This man is teaching at a major American university.
And you want to know what he teaches?
He teaches Islamic studies.
So it's not like this is some kook who's a physics professor who has bizarre beliefs.
He's teaching about Islam, and This is what he is teaching.
So what does that have to do with liberalism and the Democratic Party?
Okay, there's a nut job professor.
The liberals in Wisconsin are rallying around this guy.
They are defending him.
They are saying he has rights of academic freedom.
They are suggesting that politicians who are condemning him are somehow betraying this notion that universities should be areas where all ideas are considered.
So loony has the left become that I don't think there's any liberal idea that they could disassociate themselves from.
This guy's against the Bush administration.
He blames Bush for 9 11.
Okay, might be a little bit out there for us, but not too far out there.
Not so far that we're going to disavow him.
Not so far out there that we're going to say that he shouldn't have a right to present his views, paid for by taxpayers at a public institution.
Now, the guy spoke at a rally yesterday in Milwaukee.
All sorts of lefties showed up to cheer him.
He's blasting politicians who are suggesting that he shouldn't be allowed to keep his teaching position.
Now I kind of think it's reasonable to say that he shouldn't be allowed to keep his teaching positions.
He's teaching something that isn't true, which ought to be a basis for being able to teach.
And he's teaching it on a particular subject where it not only is very relevant, it's at the core.
He's teaching Islamic studies.
The guy's name is Kevin Barrett, and he is just relishing in the publicity, and he is being adopted in Wisconsin as a cause to defend by the left.
Now they argue, well, he has academic freedom, and they're arguing that my attempt to eviscerate him by talking about him on national radio is an example of what we right wing bullies do when we find ideas with which we disagree.
Nothing could be farther from the truth.
What this guy is is the equivalent of a Holocaust denier.
This would be no different than if the University of Wisconsin Madison employed a history professor teaching a course on World War II, who got up there and taught that there was no Holocaust, that six million Jews were not killed by the Nazis, that it was all a myth.
It would be like a clansman being taught to teach a class on African American studies.
Liberals would not argue that there is academic freedom to do any of those things.
They wouldn't argue that these views are worthy of protection, but they're the same thing.
This nut case thinks we brought down the buildings on 9-11.
And he's teaching it and he's presenting it as fact.
Yet the contemporary American left cannot find the ability to divorce himself, divorce itself of it.
It goes farther than that.
It's not even staying within our own country right now.
The lefty lost the election for president of Mexico.
What was his name?
Lopez Andres Manuel Lopez Obrador.
He was expected by many liberals, including those in the United States to defeat the right-wing candidate for Mexico.
He lost.
It was close, but he lost.
He's now contesting the election and says it was an evil plot and the election was stolen from him.
This is Al Gore in 2000 all over again.
They can't accept that they've lost.
Every time they lose, they somehow think things were taken from them.
They're willing to grab on to every nut case theory that's out there because they just can't imagine that public opinion would reject them, and it's now jumping borders.
We've got all this illegal immigration coming into the United States.
The one good thing apparently is that some of our loony leftist ideas are now jumping the border and going into Mexico.
So the guy lost.
American liberal websites are taking up his cause that somehow this was stolen from him.
The other candidates who lost even admit the election down there was fair.
There are some who will argue that the same thing occurs with conservatives, that our activists, our people that are true believers, are just as nutty on the right as liberals And I don't think that's true at all.
In fact, the message of the conservative base is a winning one.
The message of the liberal wing of the Democratic Party and of liberalism today is just crackpotism.
They're crazy.
My name is Mark Belling, and I'm sitting in for Rush Limbaugh.
I'm Mark Belling sitting in for Rush 1800-282-2882 as the telephone number.
Let's go to the phones.
Lincoln, Nebraska, Pat, you're on Russia's program.
Good morning, Mark.
This is uh quite an honor to talk to you.
Thank you.
I have to tell you and start off by saying that I'm convinced that liberalism is bad for America.
Um I grew up in South Dakota.
George McGovern and Tom Dashell taught me to think wide and deep.
I was a Democrat up until 1972, and because of George McGovern, and solidified then by Tom Dashell's thinking and their policies and their statements in public, I had no choice but to leave the party and go conservative.
Well, I do think it started with the McGovern movement of 1972, this radical move of the Democratic Party to the left.
McGovern took over the party then, and a lot of Democrats didn't really like it, and he was crushed by Nixon, and it did give a home in the Democratic Party for this for this base of activists, largely public employee uh union leaders and so on, that have become more influential within the Democratic Party.
What I'm contending is happening now is a brand new wave in which liberalism isn't interested anymore in presenting a credible alternative, but it's just been taken over by a bunch of nuts.
And the reason why you don't hear a solution from them on Iraq or Medicare or Social Security or anything else, is they don't have one.
All they're doing is babbling about Bush when they do actually start expressing some ideas and you take a look at them and peel away at them, you realize how far out there they are.
As for a guy like Lieberman, they see a need to purge him from their party.
And they're suggesting that Joe Lieberman is conservative.
Joe Lieberman's not conservative.
He ran for vice president on their own ticket six years ago.
I saw the debate with Dick Cheney.
I heard the things he was saying.
He's not a liberal.
He rather he's not a conservative.
He's merely somebody who isn't quite as far to the left as they are, but they can't abide that anymore.
They just need to be rid of it.
And they're losing it.
Thank you for the call, Pat, to Annandale, Virginia, and Steve.
Steve, it's your turn on Russia's program with Mark Belling.
Hey, Mark, uh, great job.
Thank you.
Filling in.
Uh, I just wanted to uh remind you of a quote from Ronald Reagan.
He once said that uh the problem with liberals isn't that they don't know anything.
The problem is so much of what they know just isn't so, which is just a more eloquent way of saying garbage in, garbage out.
I think that's the problem that you were referring to earlier with the college professors and the the so-called knowledge that they're imparting to young people nowadays.
Well, I think that it's a big part of it.
What I've noticed is there isn't any sanction from supposed liberal leaders on what you can and can't say.
For example, if there was a professor somewhere that was trying to teach that the Holocaust didn't occur, I don't think most conservatives would rally behind him, but this guy from the left offers a point of view that is equally nuts, and he finds himself being supported, even among conservatives, and there was an attempt by a lot of conservatives to get Arlen Specter defeated in the uh Pennsylvania senatorial race a couple of years ago, that failed.
I don't think you saw the kind of victoryalic animosity directed towards Spector, who is probably to the Republican Party, what Lieberman is to the Democratic Party.
There wasn't this hatred that you see directed at Lieberman.
You even have right now, the majority of Democrats in the United States Senate unwilling to go to Connecticut to campaign for Lieberman.
They don't want to make major statements on behalf of him because they don't want to anger this internet base of their party, the bloggers, the daily causes of the world, who will then go after them.
So you have elected Democratic politicians, terrified of the leaders of the liberal wing of their Party.
That is how mainstream their crackpotism has gotten to be.
This is a major problem for them because if as they get more influence, and as their candidates are required to say things that this base approves of, they're going to come across to the American public as just nutty.
As much dissatisfaction as there is with Bush and as much frustration as there is with Republicans.
When you take a look at what liberals are saying, once they're actually liberated and can say things, it really, really is a lot of nutty stuff.
The fact that they can't tolerate the presence of a Lieberman in their own party and the fact that they need to have this total purity, opposition to the war.
Everybody has to be opposed to the war, because if you're not opposed to the war, you're somehow supporting Bush, and we all hate Bush.
It tells you how extreme they have gotten to be, and it's probably going to be their undoing, and it's been largely uncommented upon until now.
I'm Mark Delling sitting in for Rush.
I've been arguing that American liberalism has essentially been taken over by crackpotism.
And it isn't just a handful of loony liberals.
Liberalism itself is loony.
You take a look at the websites, you take a look at their opinion leaders and what it is that they are saying.
There's nothing even approaching mainstream about this.
Now I mentioned David Brooks, who wrote a column in the New York Times over the weekend, and he talked about this and cited in particular the need for liberals to have Joe Lieberman lose a democratic primary.
He also argues that the same sort of thing occurs on the right.
He writes, this isn't a fight between left and right.
It's a fight about how politics should be conducted.
On the one hand, are the true believers, the fundamentalists of both parties who believe that politics should be about party discipline, passion, purity, orthodoxy, and clear choices.
On the other side of the quasi-independence, the heterodox politicians who distrust in ideological purity, who repel against movement group think and believe in bipartisanship both as a matter of principle and as a practical necessity.
In 2008, heterodox politicians like John McCain, Rudy Giuliani, and even Hillary Clinton are going to have to face zealous assaults from within their own party.
So he's essentially arguing that this base on the right wing is as destructive to the Republican Party as the base on the left wing is to the Democratic Party.
I don't believe that.
I don't think that there's any basis to that.
If the Daily Costs and the other liberal websites are essentially the leftist answer to, say Rush Limbaugh, someone who is a leading spokesperson for the conservative base.
Just evaluate and ask yourself this.
What opinions that Rush presents are not within the mainstream of American ideological debate?
Whether you agree with them or not, they are all opinions that are held by a wide, wide, large group of Americans.
Positions that are being espoused by conservatives, even those of us in the base, even those of us who describe ourselves as hard right, are not outside the American mainstream right now, even in an issue like immigration, which is deeply dividing the Republican Party.
The hardliners are people who still have millions of Americans who support their point of view.
Now I'm going to attempt to demonstrate this.
There is a staunch conservative running for Congress in North Carolina named Vernon Robinson.
He's got a television ad running.
Rush, in fact, played it on the program a few weeks ago, in which he is as blunt and direct and to the point as a Republican could be.
He probably gives some moderates in the Republican Party the heebie-jeebies for being as blunt and direct as he is.
But I want you to listen to this spot and then ask yourself what it is that he's saying that's outside the American mainstream.
And you'll see the distinction between how mainstream leading conservatives are in comparison to how wacky liberals are.
Now, this is Vernon Robinson's ad.
If you're a conservative Republican, watching the news these days can make you feel as though you are in the twilight zone.
Americans are under attack from Islamic extremists in every corner of the world.
Homosexuals are mocking holy matrimony, and the lesbians and feminists are attacking everything sacred.
Liberal judges have completely rewritten the Constitution.
You can burn the American flag and kill a million babies a year, but you can't post the Ten Commandments or say God in public.
Seven out of every ten black children are born out of wedlock, and Jackson and Sharpton claim the answer is racial quotas.
And the aliens are here, but they didn't come in a spaceship.
They came across our unguarded Mexican border by the millions.
I'm Vernon Robinson.
If you send me to Congress, I'll send that back to the Twilight Zone.
I approve of this message and of traditional American values.
Now that's Vernon Robinson's message.
You can tell by his message that he is probably in the very conservative wing of the Republican Party.
And he might go farther than a lot of people are comfortable with.
But everything he said is a mainstream idea.
For example, he's criticizing the notion of gay marriage.
Most Americans are opposed to gay marriage.
He's obviously a hardliner on immigration.
Many Americans are.
The message that Robinson offered there is one that actually wins elections.
When Republicans run on that message, that's when they win.
Bush himself won two elections by running essentially as a hardliner on most of these foreign policy issues that are out there.
He was reelected in 2004.
On the basis of his strong approach on terror.
Republicans usually win when they offer up a conservative message.
It's the message that does win for them.
When liberals offer up their message, it's a nightmare for them.
It's why they generally never say what they truly believe in campaigns.
The difference now is that the liberals who are tired of being told to hush up are taking over their party.
And the elected Democratic officials are scared to death of them.
Because they've gotten control of the party.
Back to the telephones we go, 1-800-282-2882 is the number.
In Miami Tom, it's your turn on Russia's program.
Hey, Mark, I think just telling people who deny the Holocaust and people who deny the towers went down like they supposedly did not good enough just to say they're wrong and not the baby.
They should they deserve the same debate who people who challenge that Jesus had a baby got all the attention and all the uh scrutiny and everything.
Disprove them with facts.
Don't disprove them by calling them names and calling them crazy and trying to get them fired.
Because that just won't do.
That's everything deserves an open debate.
Each side deserves to present the other.
Okay, okay, we'll have a debate.
A couple of lefties think the United States government brought down 9-11.
It didn't.
Al Qaeda has taken responsibility for it.
Uh end of debate.
Your point is that we can't label any idea as being too wacky for consideration.
In other words, every single idea has equal merit.
That the disputes that we have with regard to immigration should we have a guest worker policy or not, those are areas equal to discussion as to whether or not there was a Holocaust or not.
Well, guess what?
Come, some things actually are true and other things actually are false.
Much of what we deal with in American politics is a matter of opinion.
But in the end, there are some things that are in fact true.
Somebody did bring down those towers, and somebody did hit the Pentagon, and it wasn't us.
It was the other side, and virtually everybody with a brain knows that.
The point that I make now is that liberals aren't even willing to cast out from within themselves those who take on positions so extreme as to repel most Americans.
That's the difference that you see right now with regard to the parties.
For this notion that, well, we have to engage every idea and we have to be open to all of this.
Nutty ideas from the right are never by conservatives tolerated or abided the way liberals are willing to accept nutty ideas from the left.
David Duke was drummed out of the Republican Party.
Most Republicans and most conservatives would never dream of associating with a clansman.
The Nazis in this country are reviled by people on both the left and the right.
But the equivalent on the left, they can't even divorce themselves some anymore.
And their leaders that become most popular are the ones who start foaming at the mouth.
Howard Dean is still beloved by a good, good segment of the Democratic Party.
He's their chairman.
Howard Dean's their chairman.
When you think about that, you realize how far out there they have gotten to Springfield, Massachusetts.
Shaz, it's your turn on Russia's program.
Yes, hello, greeting from a communist Massachusetts.
How are you?
Nice to have you.
Good.
I was uh I was calling because I I am a registered Republican and I would consider myself more of a moderate.
Okay, and I and I call myself I know that that rush doesn't usually uh like moderates, but I I I really came to think of myself as a moderate by, you know, putting down issues on a piece of paper and and and really displaying people I think is you know right.
But I I I I uh have no love for um a lot of the liberals in a sense, uh, because it I think their base has become too extreme in Democratic Party.
Well, and I think that is the difference.
The conservative base of the Republican Party is not extreme.
As much as liberals like to use this term the far right or the hard right, most conservative ideas are embraced by at least 40 percent of the country.
And I mean the most extreme conservative idea gets at least 40 percent support.
You take a look at what the lefties are standing for, and you take a look at some, and I just would urge people to go to some of these websites and read some of these things.
The vitriolic hatred of Bush, the things that they say about Condoleezza Rice, the comments with regard to Cheney.
There is a real difference right now between the two political parties and between the two philosophies.
And the point that I'm trying to make is that liberalism has been taken over and hijacked by people with very, very extreme views, and they can't abide the presence of anyone who isn't willing to adopt those views.
And I do think it's different in the Republican Party.
You take the positions of an uh I could think of four or five or six real strong conservative voices in this country, the people that you hear the most and identify themselves as conservatives or arch conservatives, and you will find that every one of their ideas is something that is in the within the mainstream of discussion in this country, but you can't say that anymore about the left.
Thanks for the call, Shaz.
My name is Mark Delling and I'm sitting in for Rush.
I'm Mark Belling Rush isn't here, but the website never goes away, www.rushlimbaugh.com.
Do you have to type in the W's anymore?
I don't know.
Why do we why do people even say the double?
No one does.
I just did.
Uh I did promise we will be talking about we will be talking about the World Cup in the third hour of the program.
I want to start talking about it now, but I'm trying to pace myself here, sitting in a national program as I I guess this proves the French are hard headed.
See, this is what I have.
You like that, there's going to be more, it'll be a little bit to Ed in Chicago.
You're on Russia's program with today's guest host, which would be me.
Hi, Ed.
Hi, Mark.
Hi.
Yeah, I want to take issue with your analysis a little bit.
Uh you're saying that liberalism is taken over by people with uh extreme views, and I guess I would maintain that the views are irrelevant.
And you find this out when you try to have a discussion with them, because you you're not talking uh with somebody who's dealing in good faith.
The thing about uh Lieberman is he has real views that he holds in good faith, and you can have a real discussion with him even if you disagree with him.
But uh he's been unwilling uh simply to take positions just because they're against Bush.
Correct.
He actually believes uh in this in this country.
And uh if what's good for the country uh happens to be good for Bush, he's not gonna abandon that position.
Now you're disagreeing with me, but I actually agree with you.
I think the left is so motivated by hatred of Bush and opposition to everything that Bush does, that it does lead to the irrationality that we're talking about.
You're right, for example, Bill Clinton said the same things with regard to Iraq when he was in office as Bush did.
Had Bill Clinton actually attacked Iraq and knocked off Saddam Hussein, the left would have embraced that as a tremendous victory for human rights.
It isn't I the idea of the war with Iraq that they're opposed to.
It's the fact that Bush himself did it.
I think you see that with regard to Michael Moore's ravings with regard to Bush and how willing people were on the left to accept that.
I think that you're right about that.
Where you and I disagree, though, is when you see some of the things that liberals are starting to say, you realize what they really do think.
You're right, you can't have a discussion with them about anything if you propose if you discuss, for example, with liberals immigration.
All they'll go back to is Bush and criticizing Bush.
If you talk about what we ought to be doing in Iraq, they'll bring up Bush.
They'll Bush lie, they'll bring up Hallibur.
The same thing.
You can't get them to focus on policy questions.
I do think, though, that if you take a look at what their leaders are saying, you'll find it to be a lot scarier than you might presume.
And remember that they are getting control of their party.
This daily cost is probably their most prominent website.
They held a convention uh several weeks ago in Las Vegas.
You had elected Democratic officials going out there and paying homage to these wing nuts.
That is the level of power that they have gotten.
Look at Russ Feingold, Democratic candidate for president.
He has decided that the way to catch Hillary is to just go completely impeach Bush.
Well, what a ridiculous idea.
Impeach Bush.
Nobody in America, other than that liberal fringe believes that Bush ought to be impeached.
Yet that's the idea that he's grabbing because he realizes that it appeals to a very, very large segment of the Democratic Party, which has just, I think, been taken over by people so far to the left that you need a new term for left.
Well, I think you're gonna i it's true you're gonna get the nuts who really believe the arguments.
But the the movers and shakers who put forth the arguments in the first place don't do it because they really believe them.
Uh they there's something else that they believe, and and that's often uh a question as to as to what that is.
I think it's uh a basic anti-American philosophy.
I agree with that, but I think more of them are nuts than you're giving them credit for being.
While some of them will just say things, I've noticed that more and more of them believe it.
Ask yourself what idea on the left would be so extreme that liberal leaders would disavow it.
If you think about that and go through that exercise, just take liberalism to its complete logical extreme and find out which what argument, what position that you could possibly take would be so nutty that they would disavow it and claim that it's illegitimate.
And I think you'd be hard-pressed to try to come up with one.
Yeah, but I don't think they'd well, gay marriage is a perfect example.
Gay marriage is something that is rejected by the majority of Americans, yet you see liberal Democrats unwilling to condemn it, unwilling to criticize it, even though it's a complete loser of a political issue for them.
These are the things that they stand for, and they are becoming the mainstream of the Democratic Party.
Thanks for the call, Ed.
I actually don't disagree with him.
It's their absolute failure to come up with answers for any of our compelling policy questions, Social Security, Medicare, Iraq, how to deal with the terrorists, that they're just united on this one thing, the hatred of Bush, but that is empowering those who are on the far extreme and they are becoming a larger force within the Democratic Party than many are aware of.
I'm Mark Elling sitting in for Rush.
I'm Mark Belling sitting in for Rush.
If you're having trouble accepting my argument that liberalism has gotten so extreme as to be wacky, and the wackos are now actually the mainstream of liberalism, consider the New York Times.
Consider how unthinkable it would have been only a few years ago to go and disclose the very programs we are Using to try to ensnare terrorists.
Yet they're willing to do that.
I think it is fair to say that anything we are doing to combat terrorism right now, that is a secret, will be reported by the New York Times if they find out about it.
That is rather wacky on its face.
Yet we're talking there about the New York Times.
▲
Export Selection