All Episodes
Previous Next
Oct. 16, 2006 - Rush Limbaugh Program
36:26
October 16, 2006, Monday, Hour #2
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Stop the music.
Breaking news.
College women are more weight conscious than men.
Women are much more sensitive about their weight than men on college.
Breaking news, the Associated Press on the EIB Network.
Resume music.
Stop the music.
Breaking news.
Just just in from the Journal of the American Dietetic Association.
Women are much more sensitive to their body fat than men on college campus.
Resume music.
That's it.
I said resume music.
There is no.
Thank you.
I had to get that breaking news.
I just.
What shocking results, ladies and gentlemen, from the latest research.
Okay, greetings and welcome back.
Here we are, Rush Limboy, your highly trained broadcast specialist with countless years experience in the trials, the tribulations, the low points, the high points, the depressing failure, the exhilarating success of the broadcast media.
Serving humanity simply by showing up.
Telephone number if you want to be on the program, 800-282-2882.
And the email address is rush at EIBnet.com.
All right, fade the music.
Thank you.
Now, ladies and gentlemen, one more little note here.
On the New York Times electoral charts that differ so much from anything you're reading in the New York Times itself or anywhere else in the drive-by media.
They've got this election projection site.
And as I just told you, if you add up all of the solid and leaning for Republican and Democrat, you come out with a Democrat one-seat edge of 210 to 209.
That leaves 16 seats that are said by the New York Times and their projection chart to be in play.
Now, guess what?
All 16 seats in play have Republican incumbents.
One of them is Kurt Weldon, about whom a suspicious leak has just occurred that he's being investigated for passing on business to his daughter, who is a lobbyist.
Another little October surprise.
Question you have to ask yourself is, if there are 16 Republican seats in play, all incumbents, are they all going to lose?
Are all these incumbents going to lose?
Are half of them going to lose?
This is going to be much closer and tighter than the blue tidal wave you're hearing about from all the intelligentsia out there on both sides of the aisle.
I don't know how many of you spent some time this morning watching television news, but as you know today, first round of voting in open seats for the United Nations Security Council, for one open seat in the UN Security Council.
All morning long, the drive-by media has been telling us that Hugo Chavez and Venezuela have it wrapped up.
They've got more votes than they even need.
Guatemala doesn't stand a chance.
This is another glaring example of just you cannot believe the conventional wisdom.
It is wiser to go against it every day, especially if you bet you'll earn far more money going against the CW than if you go with it.
Well, here's what actually happened.
Guatemala received 109 votes.
That's 15 short of the necessary 124.
That triggers a second round of voting.
Venezuela trailed with 76 votes.
So it's 109 to 76.
Chavez had been campaigning on the argument that his nation would use the seat to speak out against the U.S.
And of course, the drive-by media loves that as a campaign strategy.
So they have been out there saying that Chavez has been making all these deals and he's bought all this support and he's twisted all these arms, done all the usual campaigning and it's a lock.
And then the vote came and it was nowhere near the conventional wisdom that was being reported.
Venezuela only 15 short of the necessary 124 in the first round.
Let's see.
They elected South Africa, Indonesia, Italy, and Belgium to the four other open seats in a secret ballot.
They'll start their terms in the council on January 1st.
So I don't know when this second vote is going to be, but after the vote, then the drive-by media said, well, Chavez may have hurt his chances with his speech at the United Nations, in which he referred to President Bush as El Diablo.
But that speech before the vote was going to be the reason he won and that Venezuela was going to get a seat on the UN Security Council.
So I can keep coming up every day on this program with examples like this, or like the New York sports media writing off the New York Mets after they were down 2-1 in the best four out of seven series against the St. Louis Cardinals or countless other analogies to show you that the people that don't play the game, that don't have a vote, that don't know, usually don't know what they're talking about.
They believe their own agenda, they believe their own spin, or they just simply report what they hope happens.
Now, a friend of mine sent me over the weekend a podcast, which is an interview with a reporter from Advertising Age by the name of Jack Neff.
And there was this little paragraph that accompanied the link.
It said, so many U.S. residents refuse to participate in marketing research surveys that it has become increasingly difficult to get a reasonably reliable consumer data on these products, a problem of potentially catastrophic implications for the big marketers who spend tens or even hundreds of millions of dollars for such research every year.
The reporter Jack Neff says this is a problem of stunning scope.
So I didn't listen to this, but my friend did.
And here are the points made in the podcast.
Consumers are rebelling against all these constant surveys from marketers.
The response rate by consumers continues to decline.
It's a multi-billion dollar business.
Nobody in American business has the guts to just follow their instinct and put a product out there.
Until they put a product out there, they won't do it until they've researched it left and right and gotten all kinds of testing and research from consumers to find out if they want it.
But it's a problem now because more and more consumers are getting sick and tired of it.
It's called opinion fatigue inside the national market research crisis.
This process is used virtually every step of the way of a new product.
It's impossible to get the return for investment estimate prior to a product launch.
The response has sunk now to as low as 2% to 3%.
I mean, the people that they ask for opinions versus the number that replied down to 2 to 3%.
The big problem they're facing is that those people who do respond to these market research surveys do not represent the general population anymore.
This guy suggests that the response to low responses is to pay people, like Nielsen does for television ratings, that online research is polluting the field.
Once again, the internet is a problem for these professionals.
And this guy from Advertising Age says that it may well be that research will just die away because it's becoming harder and harder to secure and less and less valuable.
Now, I read this and I thought, hmm, might this have applications to other forms of research, ladies and gentlemen, such as political polling.
For example, we know certain things about political polling, that fewer and fewer people are participating.
The pollsters themselves tell us this.
They also say that with the ballooning use of cell phones and the decreased use of landline phones, that the people that you really want to reach don't use landlines and they don't have a database of cell numbers to call people on.
So the, shall we say, the pool of potential poll participants is changing dramatically.
And then they've all worried about are they being lied to?
Do these people tell us what they think we want to hear?
Are they do they really have any opinions?
Do they have opinion fatigue or so forth?
And it just got me to thinking, could it be that the poll, because if you look at, if you looked at the 2004 presidential polls, Kerry should be president today.
If you look at the generic ballot polls in 2002 and 2004, the Democrats should have taken over the House after the Wellstone Memorial and the Senate last year as Kerry was swept into office.
Now, it used to be they looked at the generic poll, then they looked at the, there was a different kind of poll.
I forget the, I forget the name of it, but they go back and forth.
They switch off whichever poll shows Democrats doing better, they use that.
And in any case, these polls haven't been accurate.
Look at the exit polling data from the 2004 presidential race.
Now, was that not a holler?
The fact of the matter is that in the early exit polls, Kerry was winning in a landslide.
And we found out how that happened.
Democrats knew how the exit poll game was played, and they steered their voters to the exit pollers in the early returns at 2 p.m. so that they would report these.
And they knew now with the internet that the exit poll results would be leaked before the polls closed in the remainder of the day in the rest of the country.
And they hoped to depress Republican turnout by having people realize who hadn't voted yet that, hey, it's Kerry in a landslide.
And everybody bought into this.
Well, I know it's going to be, I can probably prove this by going back to the archives of this program, but I didn't because they came out when we were still on the air on Election Day in 2000.
They came out at 2 o'clock, and I looked at them.
This doesn't make sense.
They had Kerry winning Florida by 16.
This doesn't make any sense.
So after Bush won the race by 4 million votes and Kerry started bellyaching about voting machines in Ohio, the Democrat kooks began to question the real votes because they thought the exit polls had to be accurate.
The exit polls had to be accurate.
Those were not votes.
Those were polls.
And yet the kooks of the Democrat base thought they again had been shafted because the exit polls told the truth.
But when the real votes were counted, somehow the exit polls were not validated.
And then I stumbled across this story, National Review last week on Friday.
How trustworthy are the polls this year?
And it is a story that leads with a Rasmussen poll in Missouri.
Rasmussen poll that has Jim Talent up by one.
Survey USA poll that has his challenger, Democrat Claire McCaskill, up by nine.
Take your choice.
Who do you believe?
Two polls conducted by two respected organizations about the same time, two totally different results.
The survey USA poll showed a 25-point swing among independents from talent to McCaskill in the span of a month.
25-point swing.
So obviously there's some problems with political polling as well as corporate consumer marketing research.
Respondent base shrinking.
People don't like to participate as much anymore.
They're getting tired of being asked in advance.
Excuse me.
Maybe they go to the same people.
I've never been polled on one of these things.
Of course, I can't be found.
And I've done that on purpose.
You can't find me.
A pollster cannot find me, nor can a market researcher.
Nobody can find me on the phone.
It isn't going to happen.
You know why?
Because I don't use one.
Back in just a second.
Hi, welcome back.
It's Rush Limbaugh Talent on loan from a god.
The other poll I was trying to think of is the right track, wrong track poll.
The drive-by media, if the generic ballot poll shows Democrats doing well, then hey, run with it.
If the right track, wrong track poll shows Democrats doing well, they run with that.
They go back and forth.
Right, meaning is the country on the right track or the wrong track?
And of course, that's been a big one this year.
The right track, they keep harping on that.
But this poll story from National Review Online has an interesting statistic in it.
My good friends, Constituent Dynamics, which is a polling company, got kudos from National Review Online for showing their response rates in the house races they polled.
The response rate ranged from 20.5% to 21.4%.
This appears lower than the traditional 30% or so.
This is measuring who answers the phone.
The cooperation rate, who actually answers the questions, ranged from 28.1% to 42.8%.
Now, you have a declining rate of response in consumer marketing research, and we have a declining rate of response to phone polling on political races.
It fits the information that I told you about on the general decline of response on all marketing research.
And if you as a polling company are only completing a shade less than 21% of your calls, which is way down from the traditional 30% response rate that threshold the pollsters traditionally enjoyed, how in the world are you accurately able to assume that the other 90% of the population who've opted out of participation holds the same opinions as the people who are still picking up the phone?
And this, see, this doesn't even get to the issue of whether that small segment still answering the phone is telling the pollsters the truth.
I happen to know people who love lying to the pollsters because it's just fun.
It's just totally fun for them.
They're not intimidated by them at all.
Some people, when they get a call from a pollster, will get all upset and intimidated and worry what the pollster will think about them.
And I've given you this lecture, but everybody, well, I don't want to be thought of as an extremist.
I want to be thought of as open-minded and resilient and so forth.
And so, you know, everybody gets caught up in what they think people are going to think of them.
And at pollsters, they couldn't care less.
They don't even.
It's not the reason they're doing any of this.
But still, some people do lie to them.
And we know this is the case.
And the pollsters probably are a little bit more concerned about all of these factors than they would ever admit.
By the way, Denji Harry is going to file amended ethics reports over the land deal highlighted by the Associated Press story.
And that, according to Denji Harry, will fix and solve the problem.
He will file an amended ethics report over.
You still can't find this story out there in the drive-by media.
You just can't find it.
Just not there.
But I refuse to believe that it will die forever in the ether of the drive-by media.
Now, get this.
Earlier in this program, while railing against Republicans who have a death wish when it comes to the election, Republican bloggers, well, conservative bloggers, libertarian bloggers out there writing the GOP pre-mortem, the death this year of Republicans, because they have it coming to them.
And all these people think, yeah, that's really smart.
You know what?
I want to get in with all the smart people.
I'm going to write how the Republicans are going to lose, blah, And I made mention for the umpteenth time that I don't understand how you win by losing.
I don't understand how you win by quitting.
But there are smarter people than I and the Republican side who seem to think that there is valor in losing because it'll teach these guys a lesson.
And it'll show them that when they get re-elected to power again, they're not going to make the same mistakes and they'll be abandoned by their voters and blah, blah, blah, blah.
But I said, well, let's take this strategy even further.
Why didn't somebody say, hey, let's lose in Iraq.
Let's lose the war on terror to teach everybody a lesson.
So the next time we get in a war, we'll do it right.
Well, lo and behold, Leslie Gelb, who is or was, I forget, the Grand Pubah at the Council on Foreign Relations, had a piece published somewhere yesterday, would defeat in Iraq Be So Bad?
But while those fears have a real hold on me, I can't help transporting myself back more than 30 years to that day in Vietnam and I felt certain the dominoes would fall throughout Asia and destroy America's strategic position.
I was wrong about those dominoes, as are almost all foreign policy experts.
Could the consequences of defeat in Iraq not be as bad as we imagine?
In the first place, the Arab Jihadi terrorists will be more difficult to handle than the North Vietnamese.
So it's out there.
The liberal intelligentsia is now making the case that it's virtuous.
It might not be so bad after all to lose.
Right, get to your phone calls here, El Quicko, but clean some things up here.
Leslie Gelb, I'm not sure if he's still the Council on Foreign Relations or not.
He either is, and if he is, he's a head honcho there.
Used to be a journalist at the New York Times.
But this piece is in Time magazine.
I missed seeing the link here.
The piece he writes, it's this week's isthew on would defeat in Iraq be so bad and comparing it to Vietnam.
Hey, the dominoes didn't fall in Vietnam.
Communists didn't come chasing us all over the globe.
What the hell?
Have you ever heard of Cambodia?
Have you ever heard of Nicaragua?
Have you ever heard of Afghanistan?
I mean, these people, I swear, they think they're the smartest people in the room.
This is a piece full of hand-wringing and angst.
Listen to this paragraph.
Could the consequences of defeat in Iraq not be as bad as we imagine?
In the first place, the Arab jihadi terrorists will be more difficult to handle than the North Vietnamese, for sure.
Hanoi's leaders ran a disciplined country with ambitions limited to Indochina.
The jihadi terrorists in Iraq can't be bargained with, and their hatred runs global.
Victory in Iraq for them would embolden them, but we are not without ways to check their victory, even as we might exit Iraq.
We have allies at the ready, the Kurds, the Saudis, the Turks, the Jordanians, who fear the jihadis as much as we do, and potential allies, the Baathists and the Sunni tribal leaders who want to rule their own piece of Iraq and also fear and despise the jihadists.
As we gradually withdraw, we and others could provide Baathists the wherewithal to crush the terrorists.
Without a large military U.S. president presence, they probably would do a better job of it.
So we're going to get out.
We're going to cut and run, and we're going to turn it over to our allies.
And this is going to be beneficial to us.
So it's on the record.
So the Libs want to lose in Iraq.
They want to win the House and Senate, but they want to lose in Iraq.
They want to lose in the war on terror.
Some Republicans think it makes sense to lose the House and the Senate to the Democrats, but want to win the war on terror.
All right.
I need a break from all this because my neurons are firing so fast in the cranium that I need to take a little time out here.
So we'll go to the phones.
Tom and Westchester County in New York.
Great that you called.
I thank you for waiting and welcome to the program.
Yes.
Hi.
Thanks, Rush.
I want to preface my comments by saying that I appreciate your show so much because you helped to verbalize a lot of the things that I think and maybe I don't think them as clearly as you do to start with.
So I really appreciate that.
Thank you, sir, very much.
I hate to make another sports analogy, but I'm going to give it a stab and give it a small part to rally the troops.
I see it almost as a soccer or a rugby match with deference to the countries that follow those sports.
We have dominance on the field now.
We're controlling the process.
You're talking about, wait, wait, wait, wait.
You're talking about Republicans?
Yes, absolutely.
Okay, okay.
We're controlling the process, and I don't want people to lose sight of the ball.
There's the analogy again.
We have to just keep our eye on the prize and push our way down the field.
Of course, there's going to be, as the fellow before me said, fumbles.
But you pick up the ball and you keep running.
This Foley business, that's a distraction.
If someone drops the flag or fumbles the ball, you pick it up and you continue to run because it's the process that's important.
My taxes are down.
I'm a self-employed Republican.
I'm proud of it.
I just locked in an oil price on number two fuel for my house at $227 a gallon.
That's less than last year and probably the same as the year before.
I have low taxes, so I can stand here in the middle of the countryside in Upper Westchester, looking out over a reservoir on a nice day because I can be a few minutes late.
I'm not controlled by some big megalopolis type of corporation that tells me what to do.
I feel great about the position I'm in.
I raised a family.
I'm in a free country.
Taxes are lower.
Price of gas is down.
We're fighting the war on terror.
We have to remain steadfast and realize it is the Republican conservative process that's important, not the people that run the ball.
That's all well and good, but don't you think the Republicans deserve to lose anyway?
There's no victory in defeat.
We must just be victorious, and we will.
I think that Bush is exactly right.
He has no plan for losing because he doesn't intend to lose.
You can't win with a plan for losing.
If you lose, if you get kicked in the butt one day because something happens, well, then you've got to come up with a plan.
But right now, we have a plan, and we have to stick to it.
You know, if I were a program director at a radio station, I'd hire you as a host.
Well, I appreciate it.
Certain radio stations.
No, that's actually, you're absolutely right, and I love your optimism, and I love the way you have connected with how you're doing well.
Let me ask you, because you know, a lot of people are doing well, and they feel guilty.
They've been made to feel guilty about it because the media is making it sound like the rest of the country is in the sewer or headed that way, and so they're afraid to talk about their prosperity, their good fortune, and their good opportunities out there.
You have just shown everybody how to do it.
Let me ask you one more question here, though, Tom.
Sure.
As a Republican, you are in the majority for the first time in a long time, depending on how old you are.
Do you want to give that up?
Do you want to not be in the majority anymore just to teach some people a lesson?
No, I think that that's the wrong lesson to learn.
I think that we have learned our lesson, and this is where we are right now.
We want to continue with what we're doing.
We see the fruits of our labor.
People just have to look around.
I inspect houses for a living.
Let me tell you, there's a lot of money out here.
There's a lot of prosperous people, a lot of young people buying real estate.
Interest rates are low, lower.
Unemployment is 4.4%, 4.5%.
That's unheard of.
When I was a kid, my father told me he got a 7.5% mortgage, and he said, you'll never see that in your lifetime.
Well, you know what?
I beat him by almost two points when I bought my house.
We're on the way.
We're on the way.
We can't give up today.
Democrats, as far as I'm concerned, that liberal mentality is a foregone conclusion that they are going to lose.
They are outdated.
Their attitude is blasé.
They have this high school drama club mentality where they all get together and give each other excitement with their speeches, but they can't do anything.
They can't put it into motion, and they have no plan.
Well, they do, but they don't dare say what it is.
Nancy Pelosi got close.
She got close with her 100-hour plan in divulging some things.
Raise taxes, raise taxes, raise taxes, raise taxes.
Eliminate all the tax cuts that have happened out there.
Investigations, investigations.
Nope, nope, don't mean investigations, but she divulged some of it.
But Tom, it's great, and you're very infectious with your passion, and I appreciate the phone call.
He made reference, by the way, to something we discussed in the first hour of the program today, and that is the Washington Post has a story out there.
They're just confounded that Bush and Rove have no plan for losing or no plan of action after they lose.
And they think that Bush and Rove are being delusional and thinking they're going to win.
It's inexplicable.
Bush and Rove, it's almost like Bush and Rove are being rude not to realize that they're going to get shellacked.
And that's what Tom is referring to here.
It is why make a plan to lose?
That's not what these people are about.
Anyway, Sue in Jackson, Michigan.
Welcome.
Nice to have you with us.
Hi, Rush.
30-year voter, never been polled.
Dittos to you.
Thank you very much.
30-year voter, did you say?
Never been polled?
30 years.
And you've never been polled.
Never.
So I find it funny with all these polls, their conclusions.
Well, most people haven't been polled.
That's why the pollsters do scientific projections based on their samples.
They weight them in a whole bunch of different ways.
And some of them, you know, some of them consistently pretty close.
There's some better than others.
Rush, there is no way the base is going to set this one out.
I myself and many others that I've spoken to, not only Christians, but conservatives in general, we're taking these bashes on a daily basis, and it is going to really rev up the conservative base.
We're going to be more determined than ever.
The Clinton comments this weekend that the GOP is run by extremists and we've fractionalized the country somehow is just another One of those comments made by Moran.
And it really is going to rev us up.
The purpose of that comment is to rev up the Democrat base.
I don't know that he's trying to depress the Republican base.
They have to know that all these attacks from people like Clinton are not going to work in depressing the base.
I think they're having to focus on their own turnout.
Because as I have the story here, I mentioned this earlier, and this is Robin Toner in the New York Times.
Democrats have intensity, but GOP has its machine.
Drive-bys are still telling themselves stories here.
It's anecdotal.
Cliff Kelly, retired economist, Columbus, Ohio, the walking, talking, fuming embodiment of what pollsters say is a defining feature of the election, the intensity of Democrats.
Mr. Kelly and a handful of fellow Democrats in Franklin County's 21st ward began meeting about two years ago, calling themselves Grassroots 21.
Today they have a newsletter.
They have a blog.
And on one recent Sunday, a sprawling audience crammed into Mr. Kelly's suburban backyard for a rally on a semi-rainy day.
All right, now, a sprawling audience, how many would that be cramming into his suburban backyard?
Well, it can't be more than 50.
Somebody's back here sprawling.
Now, Mr. Kelly reminded his friends that he vowed two years ago he would not die under a Bush administration.
He said, you can see I've been holding on.
Mr. Kelly, Cliff Kelly, who is the fuming embodiment of what pollsters say is a defining feature of this election, the intensity of Democrats, is 89.
And he's angry, and he simply can't wait for Election Day.
Well, if you look at the primaries, all these primary elections, the Democrat turnout was about 15% nationwide.
Don't see a lot of intensity.
But the bottom line here, Democrats have intensity, but GOP has its machine.
That means they have the ability to pull that turnout.
My God, they bring people out of the woodwork.
We don't know where these Republicans come from.
All you need to know is the latest Battleground poll.
61% of Americans.
In fact, it may be voters.
Let me October 2006 Battleground poll.
61% of Americans consider themselves conservative or very conservative.
34% of Americans consider themselves liberal or very liberal.
And the drive-by media is shocked at Republican turnout.
The speaks for itself.
I got to run quick time out, my friends.
Back in just a second.
Don't go away.
Well, looky here.
Look what I just found, ladies and gentlemen.
This story that I just shared with you from the New York Times, Robin Toner, Democrats have intensity, but GOP has its machine.
That ran yesterday, October 15th.
On October 14th, on Saturday, the day prior, our old buddyette, Liz Sedati, the Associated Press.
In the battle for control of Congress, Democrats hope enthusiasm trumps Republican efficiency.
Otherwise, they can see they will have problems on November 7th as a party still struggling to catch up with the GOP's ability to turn voters out of seeming thin air.
Makes me green with envy, says Ellen Malcolm, the president of Emily's List, which backs female candidates who support abortion rights.
Well, what an echo chamber here.
Usually it's the other way around.
Usually the New York Times runs a story and everybody else in the drive-by media picks it up.
This time, these things are only separated by one day.
There's probably part of an organized campaign to run this story throughout the media.
I mean, in the battle for control of Congress, Democrats hope enthusiasm trumps Republican efficiency.
That's AP.
Democrats have intensity, i.e., enthusiasm, but GOP has its machine, i.e., efficiency.
Same story.
Different people talk to.
Same story.
Fear, though, is the central theme of both stories.
Democrats scared, ladies and gentlemen, of Republican turnout.
I told you from the get-go the Foley story is about depressing Republican turnout.
The whole media, drive-by-media Democrat axis is oriented toward depressing Republican turnout.
Joyce in Squim, Washington.
You're next on the EIB network.
Hello.
Ditto's Rush.
Thank you for taking my call.
I am so tired of these negative nabobs in the Republican Party.
We're going to teach them a lesson.
Have they forgotten about the Supreme Court that's coming up in the next two years?
That's an excellent point.
The last time we taught them a lesson, we got Clinton for eight years.
Why don't they just wake up and think of what's good for us and the country, not because their little feelings were hurt?
Excellent point.
Excellent fact.
You're causing there were people back in 1992 who thought Bush deserved to lose.
Republicans deserve to lose because Bush broke his taxes pledge.
And we need to show them a lesson.
And we did.
We got eight years at Clinton, and we got Ruth Bader Ginsburg, and we got Stephen Breyer on the U.S. Supreme Court.
You know what else we got during those eight years?
But if you look at the Supreme Court, there's a justice who's 80, some odd, John Paul Stevens, and two others in their 70s.
Some of them, no doubt, hanging on simply because they don't want to have their seats filled like this guy.
Yeah, there's a guy, this Ray Kelly guy, what is that his name?
Cliff Kelly.
Cliff Kelly refuses to die.
He's not going to die while Bush is because he doesn't want Bush to get the credit for killing him.
So he's going to hang on until a Republican is defeated.
The Democrats control the house, and then Cliff Kelly will feel comfortable dying.
Just like these Supreme Court justices that are getting old and getting past the average retirement age for Supreme Court just are hanging on because they don't want Bush to appoint their replacements.
You go back to the presidential race, these same Republicans, we've got to win this.
We've got to win this Supreme Court, Supreme Court, Supreme Court.
We've got to reorient the judiciary.
We've got to roll back this liberal activism.
Now, no, I don't care about that.
Republicans deserve to lose.
They have it coming to them.
GOP pre-mortem.
They'll lose.
They're going to lose big.
And they ought to lose big.
Blah, And it's infuriating.
To the extent that they're affecting the process, I don't know how much they do, then they're a part of the problem.
But I just think it's, in some cases, Joyce on the Republican side, including Congressman.
I don't get a big thrill out of watching Congressman go on TV and predict how many suits a Republicans are going to lose, seats the Republicans are going to lose either.
You never see the Democrats do that.
I suspect it's just some people who want to be considered the smartest people in the room.
And let's face it, in a town and an industry, i.e., the media, dominated by liberals, one of the fastest ways to stand out as a conservative is to go against your own party.
You are said to have grown.
You are said to be a cut-above, nuanced.
They heap you with praises.
And there are some people who live for the praise who aren't really contributing much to the outcome anyway.
At any rate, brief timeout.
Not enough time to take a call.
We'll be back and continue the EIB network in El Rushbow Rolls right after this.
I mentioned this earlier in the program.
The home of Kurt Weldon's daughter has been raided by the FBI.
The scandal supposedly, it's quite a timely leak here by the FBI, is it not?
And the scandal supposedly involves lobbying.
Weldon's daughter supposedly was funneled business via her father, Kurt Weldon, one of the 16 Republican seats in play in the House races.
Now, knowing that nothing is as it actually appears, what I am thinking here is that Weldon might have gotten a lot closer than anybody wanted him to get on Abel Danger.
Back in just a moment.
▲
Export Selection