All Episodes
Previous Next
Oct. 18, 2006 - Rush Limbaugh Program
36:23
October 18, 2006, Wednesday, Hour #3
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Hi, welcome back.
Ladies and gentlemen, it's the EIB Network and Rush Limbaugh, executing assigned host duties flawlessly.
I am your highly trained broadcast specialist.
Trustworthy in my execution of those assigned host duties.
A telephone number if you want to be on the program 800-282-2882, the email address rush at EIBnet.com.
Rich Lowry posted something at National Review's corner.
Yeah.
And I mentioned this earlier in the program about how these generic ballot polls have a weighted advantage to Democrats that doesn't exist in the country.
Now, some of this is a little, even for me, a highly trained specialist, fast and dedicated reader.
I'm going to go through this because in the end, it's sensible.
It's detailed.
It's a pollster writing about how polls are done.
And anytime inside baseball goes on, sometimes it can be confusing.
Recent polls are outside the historical norm for party ID.
Spate of recent polls paints a very gloomy electoral outlook for GOP candidates in next month's elections.
One reason for that possibly is a set of samples in recent polls that do not mirror the historical norm for party ID.
A memo circulating among Republicans on Capitol Hill, authorized by GOP pollster David Winston, takes a look at the historical spread between Democrats and Republicans in House elections and polling over the last 14 years.
Now, according to Winston's analysis, there is a material discrepancy between the party ID listed by people in exit polls, that's people who actually voted, between 1992 and 2004, and those used over the last few weeks.
Now, in most of the years between 92 and 2004, Democrats held a slight advantage in party ID.
Winston based his data on voter news service media exit surveys and concluded in 1992 that Democrats held a three-point advantage in party ID.
In 1996, Democrats held a four-point advantage in party ID.
According to exit polls, in 1998, a one-point advantage.
And in 2000, a three-point advantage.
Remember these numbers.
In two elections, 1994 and 2004, the percentages of people identifying themselves as Republicans and Democrats were identical, i.e., no advantage to either party.
2002 was the only year in which Republicans held an advantage over Democrats, with 40% identifying themselves to exit pollsters as Republicans, 38% identifying themselves as Democrats.
So in short, between 1992 and 2004, only once did one party enjoy an advantage as large as four points over the other party in party ID in exit polls, which are crucial because those are people who voted.
These are not pre-election polls.
But in recent polling samples used by eight different polling organizations, USA Today Gallup, CBS New York Times, ABC Washington Post, CNN Opinion Research, Newsweek, AP Ipsos, Pew, and Time, the Democratic advantage in the sample surveyed was never less than five points.
All these organizations conducted surveys in early October.
According to Winston, the Democrats held the following party ID advantages in these early October surveys.
USA today Gallup, nine points.
CBS New York Times, five points.
ABC Washington Post, eight points.
CNN would not provide sample party ID details.
Newsweek, 11 points.
AP Ipsos, eight points.
Pew, seven points.
Time, eight points.
Keep in mind, between 1992 and 04, only once did one party enjoy an advantage as large as four points.
Yet, I'm going to go through these polls again without mentioning the names because just clutter it up to give you an idea of how they overweighted Democrats.
9, 5, 8 wouldn't say 11878 in all cases but one over twice as many or twice the number of weighted Democrats as in reality as produced by exit polls.
Now, party registrations shift over time.
Many political operatives believe the country starts to gravitate away from a party that's been in power over an extended period of time, and Republicans have controlled the House since 95.
And Winston acknowledges this possibility in his memo, writing, it is certainly not out of the realm of possibility this year's election could fall outside of historical results, but any survey that does should acknowledge that the data presented are based on a foundation that reflects a structural shift in the way the electorate identifies itself with a party.
Now, this to me is fascinating because if between 1992 and 2004, only once did one party enjoy an advantage as large as four points over the other in people identifying their party ID, and then the polls in October favored Democrats by nine points, five points, eight points, meaning they talk to that many more Democrats than Republicans as they take the polls.
They put their sample together.
So when you ask, is it possible these polls could not be act?
It is possible.
It's also possible they can be right, but it is possible that they could be really overweighted.
Now, one more thing about polls, and this has to do with immigration.
This is from Survey USA.
John Kyle in Arizona, up five points, or five percentage points.
Kyle's still a top Democrat Peterson for Arizona Senate seat in an election for U.S. Senator in Arizona today.
Incumbent Republican John Kyle edges Democrat challenger Jim Peterson 48 to 43, according to a survey USA poll conducted exclusively for KPNX TV in Phoenix.
Now, when I saw this, Kyle has been, in some cases, double digits.
It's been an ebb and flow up and down.
My reaction to this was, so much of that big Hispanic vote turning out for Republicans.
Remember the big debate on illegal immigration?
Well, we need these voters, and we've got to show them that we don't mean them any harm, and we consider them to be part of the backbone of America.
We can't alienate these voters.
And so the president, Senate, came up with their amnesty bill and so forth.
John Kyle's in the Senate.
So much for that big Hispanic vote going to the Republicans.
Not going to the Democrats either, by the way.
A story here in the stack that's not proving fruitful for them.
Oh, and look at this.
This is from ABC.
This is an infobabe, Liz Marlantis, who used to, I think, write for the Christian Sons monitor.
You talk about going back to the old playbook and resurrecting an old saw.
Listen to this.
War scandal could make this the year of the woman.
The year of the woman.
Does anybody remember when that really was?
Come on, Clarence Thomas.
It was after Clarence Thomas was confirmed and Anita Hill was dissed.
Had not believed for sexual harassment that it was the year of the woman.
Barbara Boxer left the House to run for the Senate.
Oh, yeah.
Now we're back to the year of the woman because of war and scandal.
This is ABC, so this is a takeoff on the piece we had yesterday for you from Claire Shipman talking about this group voting women voting now, whatever VWVW vote, or WVW, women vote, women, whatever.
Wonder who Heather Mills McCartney is going to vote for.
Ladies and gentlemen.
All you need is love.
And your wife's leg to beat her over the head back in just a second.
Standby, audio soundbite number three.
Let's get to the audio soundbites because you remember back in 1994 when the angry white male led a temper tantrum that resulted in the Democrats being tossed out.
Peter Jennings called it Americans had a temper tantrum yesterday.
And of course, this was chalked up to talk radio.
Angry white men, conservative Christian hicks.
Anger back then, well, that was terrible.
But according to Bill Schneider at CNN, anger today is understandable.
It's justifiable.
And he wants to explain it.
It was on CNN this morning.
The co-host of the program, Miles O'Brien, said, news on the economic front, the good news, the economy is pretty good.
The bad news, a whole lot of Americans don't think so.
Middle class still says generally it feels like the American dream's a lost cause.
Here's our senior political analyst, Bill Schneider, is with CNN's Election Express in Kansas City.
And here's a montage of what old Bill said.
Why are Americans so angry?
Stop the tape!
Re-cue that to the top.
To the extent that Americans are angry, I would suggest they are watching CNN.
Why are Americans so angry?
Many Americans feel like the man who is about to drown crossing a stream that, on the average, is three feet deep.
A majority of Americans say the American dream has become the impossible dream for most people.
Those with no college degree have lost faith in the American dream.
College graduates still believe, but only about 30% of Americans have finished college.
There's a lot of middle-class frustration out there, and it's focused on Washington.
About three-quarters of the public sees Congress as out of touch with average Americans.
About the same as in 1994, the last time voters overthrew the majority in Congress.
There's no telling what people will do when they get mad at Washington.
Yeah, they love that, though.
Oh, anger.
Wow, we are excited about the anger here at CNN because we have done our part in creating it.
And then last night on CNN, the situation room with Wolf Blitzer talking to the infobabe Dana Bash, the minority leader Harry Reid already was on the defensive over a land deal.
Now he's dealing with a flap over tips and how he paid for them, but it's definitely not helping Democrats make their culture of corruption argument against Republicans.
Here's a montage of her report.
Reed lives in this Ritz Carlton in Washington.
At Christmas time, the senator gave doormen and other employees $3,300 in tips over three years.
A generous gesture, but the money came from Reed's campaign coffers, a possible violation of election law.
The Senate's top Democrat under fire for potential ethics violations three weeks before an election in which Democrats are slamming Republicans for a so-called culture of corruption.
The Nevada Democrat is also battling questions about a Las Vegas land deal for a GOP under siege by scandal from Mark Foley to new revelations about Congressman Kurt Weldon.
Reed's troubles give Republicans ammunition to return fire on the campaign trail.
Experts say voters probably won't be swayed by more reports of scandal in either party because other issues are shaping the election.
Oh, how convenient.
Why damn.
How convenient.
You notice the perspective of this story?
How it could undermine Democrat election strategy of painting the GOP as corrupt.
Oh, no.
No, no substance on, you know, what Reed did.
There's just some reporting on it, but there's no, oh, this is, oh, this is a violation of public trust.
Oh, my gosh, how could he have done this?
Oh, this is horrible.
He's one of our...
Nope.
And they end up saying, it doesn't matter.
We've so exhausted the public on scandal that they don't care anymore.
Now, I don't know if you saw this.
You know, the president signed the detainee bill.
And the Democrats, some Democrats just flipped a wig.
It's torture.
It's torture.
It's specifying torture and terrible.
And we're going to take it to the Supreme Court and we're going to overturn it.
And Justice Kennedy is going to fix it for it.
So today on, well, last night, actually, Wordled News tonight with Charlie Gibson.
After Martha Radditz's report on the whole story, Gibson says, Martha, you mentioned there were only a few politicians that spoke out against it.
Many more human rights people than politicians were objecting to the bill.
I suspect there's a reason for that, Martha.
There is a reason, Charlie.
This has not been a winning issue for the Democrats.
In fact, in recent polls, 53% of Americans said it was okay to have secret prisons where U.S. laws did not apply.
Basically, Charlie, Americans do not want torture, but they fear terrorist attacks even more.
All right.
So what we had here last night on ABC's worldled news tonight was Martha Radditz and Charlie Gibson putting out the word Democrats should shut up about all this because it's a losing issue for them.
I mean, that's how you have to interpret it.
Just shut up.
We're doing this report so you find out the American people don't have anything wrong with this, so shut up about it.
Next, we move on to the O'Reilly factor last night, Charlie Wrangell.
You voted against the detainee bill?
Yes, there's no question in my mind.
Not only is the bill unconstitutional, but it was brought up on the eve of an election to give some type of feeling that Republicans were tough on terrorists.
And we should have those principles that involve habeas corpus, that whether you call them combatants or prisoners of war or whatever it is, the standard should be not set by the president, but the standard should be set either by the Geneva Convention, the Military Code of Justice.
Well, the Uniform Code of Military Justice is what would apply, I think, in the military tribunals.
But here's another Democrat who wants to extend U.S. citizenship rights to enemy combatants, terrorists captured on the quote-unquote battlefield.
Thank you.
Congressman Wrangell.
O'Reilly says, look, the only reason that Khalid Sheikh Mohammed gave up at least a dozen al-Qaeda associates is because they dunked him in water.
That's why he gave them up.
That's a terrible thing to be able to say that you're proud of.
Right now, we are creating so much hostility throughout the world that we're creating more terrorists than those people that we arrest.
These so-called terrorists that we're so-called?
We don't know who they are.
Charlie Wrangell saying that we shouldn't be proud of breaking Khalik Shade Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and calls these detainees so-called terrorists.
Now, this is a guy that's going to be chairman of the Ways and Means Committee, and he's going to be on another committee.
He's going to be in other committees, too, and he's going to have Democrat leadership if they win the House.
But of course, it's okay.
We need to teach the Republicans a lesson, by golly.
We need to teach the Republicans a lesson.
We need people like Charlie Wrangell in power because he's not going to be able to do anything anyway.
We need to show these Republicans that we're the boss.
We need to.
I wonder how much of this is just a bunch of people who want to matter.
We've got power.
We can deny the Republicans because they have screwed us.
You watch it.
I don't know.
And here I mentioned Claire McCaskill.
And I want you to hear the sound about yourself.
She's running.
I mentioned this first hour.
She's running against Jim Talent for the Senate seat in Missouri.
And guys said earlier that, look, I don't care if the Democrats win.
It's not going to be as bad as you say, bad as people say.
It doesn't matter as a conservative blogger saying, it's not going to be as bad.
I mean, if the Democrats start getting kooky, then it's going to cook their own goose for all.
I said, start getting kooky?
Start getting kooky?
When have they not been kooky?
Well, you want to hear kooky in the form of a candidate, mainstream so-called Democrat, for the Senate from Missouri.
This is Monday night.
During her debate with Jim Talent, here is candidate Claire McCaskill, a Democrat.
Just look at the gas prices.
Look at the manipulation of the gas prices.
I'm not sure anybody in Missouri believes these gas prices are going down for any other reason than that we're having an election.
And I'm sure most people know they're going to go right back up after the election's over.
That is because there are five companies that control all of the oil in this country.
but they don't control the oil price, and they don't control the price of oil throughout the world.
This is just, I'm looking for a dignified way of characterizing this.
Stupid.
This is just stupid.
It is ignorant.
And it is also conspiratorial trying to scare voters and think that the gas price is being manipulated this way.
Ms. McCaskill, Mrs. McCaskill, whatever.
Why did Bush send the gas price up earlier in the year and make everybody so mad at him in the first place?
Well, probably missing the bus so he can bring the price down and make people love him.
You know, it just makes total sense to me.
Yeah, I guess it does, being a conspiratorial kook.
Democrat.
And stupid.
Talent on loan from God.
Rush Limblow with half my brain tied behind my back just to make it fair.
I want to apologize to Claire McCaskill.
Calling somebody stupid is a bit excessive.
And in this political climate, that could cause people to vote for her just to defend her.
And stupid is not the word.
Just misguided, just novice, maybe in over her head, grasping at straws.
Or perhaps she's appealing to her base, the kooks.
In which case, it might actually be pretty smart.
So, whatever.
Regardless, it was wrong.
It's just asinine.
Here again is what she said on Monday in a debate with Jim Talent.
Just look at the gas prices.
Look at the manipulation of the gas prices.
I'm not sure anybody in Missouri believes these gas prices are going down for any other reason than that we're having an election.
And I'm sure most people know they're going to go right back up after the election's over.
That is because there are five companies that control all of the oil in this country.
Now, what does that have to do with it?
These five companies are all Republicans.
They're all Bush oil buddies.
Five countries?
Company.
Got to throw Shugo Chavez in there.
He has the gas stations in this country.
But I have a story here, and I want to react to it as if I were Claire McCaskill.
Here's the headline: Massive layoffs at NBC.
Fishbowl D.C. is hearing some reliable grumblings about a planned 1 p.m. announcement tomorrow of massive layoffs by Jeff Zucker, CEO of NBC Universal Television.
Who in Washington, if anybody, will be affected by these massive layoffs at NBC?
Now, if I were the Republican equivalent, if I were Claire McCaskill, you know how I would interpret this: NBC is throwing its hat into the election ring for the Democrats, trying to mess up our employment numbers by firing and laying off a bunch of people so as to help the Democrats.
NBC wants to raise unemployment, laying a lot of people off.
This is a conspiracy.
NBC is one of three big television networks in this country, and they are trying to affect the elections by laying people off so as to drive up the unemployment number.
That's how somebody who thinks like Claire McCaskill and after the election, they're going to hire him right back.
After the election, I'll hire him right back.
And everybody knows this.
Everybody knows that NBC is only laying off these people to affect the unemployment rate.
Thank you, ladies and gentlemen.
Illustrating absurdity by being absurd, Carl Rove, White House strategist, met with the Washington Times editorial board yesterday and was confidently predicting the Republican Party would hold the House and the Senate in next month's elections.
When this reached the drive-by media today, they immediately took to their cable channels with guests to talk about how stupid Rove is and how blind Rove is.
The Democrats, ladies and gentlemen, are have you ever, have you ever watched?
Have you ever seen this watching a football game?
I've seen this a number of times.
One team throws a bomb, long pass.
Receiver outruns everybody, 90-yard pass.
Receiver gets to the 10-yard line and drops the ball or spikes it early, thinks he's in the end zone before he got there.
You ever seen that?
I've seen a couple of Steelers players do it once.
Saw Plexico Burris do it once with the New York Giants.
It's happened a lot.
It's on the NFL Follies Highlight Reel from NFL Films.
The Democrats are on the 10-yard line, celebrating as though they're in the end zone.
And some of them have already spiked the ball.
Which, ladies and gentlemen, is a fumble.
Ball still in play.
Princeton, New Jersey.
Michael, glad you called.
Welcome to the EIB network.
Mega Dittos.
Oh, what a thrill it is to be on the phone with you.
Well, thank you, sir, very much.
You know, those wacky Democrats, you know, I loved all the bloggers you mentioned.
I read them all the time.
And one of them is one of my favorites.
I love Michelle Mawkin.
She's outstanding.
And yet sometimes she can be overtly negative.
She's really tough, and I love that.
But sometimes she can jump to a certain extreme.
For instance, she suggested that Bush wasn't going to sign this Secure Defense Act.
Yeah.
And sometimes I see her reading into the I don't sometimes it's hard to distinguish her treatment of our our own, for instance, this fine president, and the Democrats at times.
And sometimes I say, Michelle, come on.
We want to crush these Democrats this fall, in November.
Well, I've, you know, Michelle's issue is immigration, and there's a lot to be frustrated on about that.
Of course.
I mean, that's for the longest time people thought that the fence bill wouldn't get signed or wouldn't get passed, and then the president wouldn't say, President, by the way, wants that bill.
He wants to sign the fence bill.
I mean, it's election time.
He knows what the Republicans want on this bill.
But everybody gets frustrated and everybody goes through ups and downs.
And some people choose to share the frustrations and the negative thoughts they have, and some don't.
I couldn't begin.
I'm not going to explain why she's, as you describe it, sometimes hot and cold on this stuff.
But she's probably just being honest with you.
That's true, of course.
She is very honest and admirable.
She's very savvy.
But I wanted to just thank you guys.
I wanted to thank you, Rush, personally, because I just can't imagine what it would be like without you.
And if I could, could I just give my thanks to the men and women in the armed services?
I think about them every day.
They're in my heart.
And anyway, I just don't believe we're going to lay down this November.
I think we're going to prove a lot of people wrong and make history.
I hope you're right, sir.
I am confident, too.
One of the things that Rove said in his interview with the Washington Times said, you know what?
He did this yesterday or maybe a couple of days ago.
We're three weeks away for a lot of people.
The campaign's just now starting, meaning right now is when a lot of people are just starting to pay attention.
He said, we've got $100 million in advertising ready to roll out in various districts and states all over the country.
We haven't blown our wad here long before.
We've held it for now.
And they don't have to go borrow $5 million for their last-minute advertising like the Democrats have had to do.
So it is just beginning right now.
All this, you know, the Democrats are doing their best to suppress turnout, but the Democrats, they can't wait for this election to be over with, folks.
They're out there worried silly that this thing's dragging on too long.
Here, here.
Go to audio soundbite number three.
I got a montage here that will illustrate this.
Drive-by-media Democrats just can't stand to wait these three long weeks to get their power back.
It's killing them.
We've got here Miles O'Brien, David Rodham Gergen from Harvard, Professor Larry Thabato from the University of Virginia, Robin Roberts of ABC, the DNC's Howard Dean, Rita Cosby of PMSNBC, Bob Schieffer from CBS, Renee Seiler, CBS, all talking about the elections here.
Three weeks is a long time.
A veritable eternity.
Yes, it is.
With three weeks left to go.
If the election were held today, the Democrats win.
Three weeks to go.
A million things can change.
Absolutely.
Just three weeks away now.
I wish the election were held tomorrow, but it's not.
A lot can happen in the next three weeks, as we always see.
But again, this election is three weeks away.
It's not going to be held this weekend.
A lot can happen in three weeks.
These people must be nervous.
They don't want to wait the three weeks.
Good things come to those who wait, right?
Apparently not.
Not a lot of confidence here.
And by the way, this was when was this montage?
Well, it's in the past couple of days.
I don't see a date on it, but I don't have my glasses on, so I'm not sure I'm reading it all accurately.
Don't get upset, Cookie, if it's on there.
It's my fault.
If it's not on there, it's not your fault.
It's never your fault.
It's always mine.
Bottom line is, for a lot of people, campaign is just starting.
It really is, meaning people are just now tuning in, which is another reason why it's just pointless to start predicting doom and gloom and defeat and urging people to sit home and not vote.
Back in just a second, and we will continue.
Hi, welcome back.
How are you?
Rush Limbaugh, man of the people, in touch and on time at the EIB network.
Well, I just saw the PMS NBC is going to have another telethon out there.
Their second nonstop day of politics being called Decision 2006 Battleground America.
This telethon to cure the Republican majority will air on Tuesday, October 24th, beginning at 9 a.m.
Remember their first one?
They're doing it again.
The telethon.
Their telethon.
No, I don't know if MSNBC is in bankruptcy or not.
A lot of Democrat institutions are, moral and otherwise.
Telethon to cure the Republican majority, October 24th at 9 p.m. SNBC.
We will be monitoring.
Ladies and gentlemen.
And from the New York Observer today, angry data nerds reign on Democrat parade.
While many Democratic activists and fundraisers are in almost celebratory mood at the prospect of taking one or both houses of Congress in next month's election, the professionals charged with the behind-the-scenes mobilizing and deploying the party's vast voter database are troubled.
The grassroots, the actual thing that's going to get all these stampeding Democrats to the polls is out of whack.
The problem lies specifically within the geeky subculture of Democrat get-out-the-vote strategerists and data managers, the guardians of the voter information that has become the lifeblood of recent elections.
Just as the Democrats were making strides toward the ultimate goal of catching up to the finely tuned Republican micro-targeting operations, the Democratic Corps of data nerds became engaged in a low-grade civil war, trading old allegations of miscues and strategic gaffes in the run-up to the 2004 election.
The result of the schism, operatives on both sides of the divide now warn could be a severe blow to the party's long-term prospects.
Even if the Democrats win in 06, on the strength, presumably, of the extraordinary confluence of bad news for the Republicans, they'll be left in the dark by 2008, at which time a better organized and more unified Republican machine will take the majority right back.
You know, the DNC's competition is not the people who were there three years ago.
It's the RNC.
Much of the fighting stems from a project launched by Hillary Clinton advisor Harold Ickies.
The consultancy now called Catalyst is staffed in part by data managers swept out of the DNC by Howard Dean.
They say that in pursuing his wide-ranging 50-state organizing strategy, Dr. Dean may be courting the same state party disarray that plagued the party's data management problems prior to the Terry McAuliffe punk years.
Meanwhile, the tech savants associated with Dr. Dean say that Mr. Icky's group is draining vital resources from their own data-crunching network.
There's trouble in paradise out there.
They're arguing amongst themselves and blaming each other for their whacked out data management and database for their get-out the vote efforts.
And I have to mention this.
I just have to mention this.
The rock and roll super crooner, Bono, not only a rock and roll super crooner, but a campaigner against third world debt, is asking the Irish government to contribute more to Africa.
At the same time, he's reducing tax payments that could help fund the aid he's demanding.
After Ireland said it would scrap a tax break that lets musicians and artistes avoid paying taxes on royalties, Bono and his YouTube bandmates earlier this year moved their music publishing company to the Netherlands.
The Dublin group, which Forbes estimates earned $110 million in 2005, will pay about 5% tax on their royalties, less than half the Irish rate.
Among the wealthiest people, I suppose it's the norms at Jill Cassidy, 23 on South King Street, near a plaque marking the site of Dublin's dandelion market, where U2 played some of its earliest concerts.
In U2's position, this does come across as quite hypocritical.
Well, of course, but so.
So what?
He still thinks Africa needs help.
He's a good guy.
It's just it's not going to be him helping.
He'll go out, raise money for a lot of other people, from a lot of other people, and demand the Irish government pony up while moving out so as to avoid their tax rates.
But I can relate, I moved out of New York for the same reason, and people said that I was greedy.
I said, no, I'm smart.
Of course, I've never run around advocating everybody else pay my fair share.
Have you seen this from the NOAA National Climate Data Center in Asheville, North Carolina, September 2006?
That's this year for those of you in Riolinda.
Was cooler than average for the continental U.S., providing relief from the second warmest summer on record.
In fact, the September temperature, I think this was, what was it?
This one of the coldest Septembers or coolest Septembers in a long, well, cooler than average and for a long time.
I should have highlighted the thing in the story I'm looking for.
Never mind, because time is dwindling.
Here is Alan in Sedalia, Missouri.
Alan, welcome to the program.
Hello, Mahara Rushi.
I salute the light within you.
I have calmed down a little bit since your first, when the show opened, but I just, the reason I called in is I just cannot believe that fellow Republicans are going to not vote because of this.
It seems like everybody's talking about this Foley scandal was the sucker punch that broke the camel's back.
And I just cannot believe it.
I mean, if you want to talk about scandal, for years I've tried to figure out why the Democrats are so mad at George Bush.
And it's just, it's illogical, but one thing I think is very true is that deep down in their hearts, they realize that their golden boy, the guy that should have gone down in history as such a great president, Bill Clinton, turned out to be such a disgraceful, scandalous fellow from the Mark Rich Pardons through Monica through Korea through everything.
And they know in their hearts that George Bush, we're not going to wake up tomorrow morning and find out, you know, he's got some gal in the closet off the Oval Office.
And we just cannot let them sucker punch us this way.
When you think about what this country is.
Wait, just a second.
You are sadly misinformed.
Uh-oh.
Uninformed.
Oh, sorry.
You need to spend more time on the left-wing blogs.
The left-wing blogs are convinced that George W. Bush is having and has had an affair with Condoleezza Rice, and that's the only reason she became Secretary of State.
I've not heard that one.
I kid you not.
They're out there saying this kind of stuff.
I too question why people would stay at home because of Foley, but this is Democrat conventional wisdom, and Democrat conventional wisdom sets the agenda for the drive-by media.
They're out there trying to make that happen.
While reporting that it is happening much of reporting these days is what liberals hope happens, not what is happening.
Thanks for the call out there, Alan.
Back in just a second.
And as usual, ladies and gentlemen, an honor and a thrill-delight to be with you today, the EIB network, and tomorrow be even better because every day in America is better than the day before.
See you there.
▲
Export Selection