All Episodes
Previous Next
Nov. 6, 2006 - Rush Limbaugh Program
36:10
November 6, 2006, Monday, Hour #2
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Yes, yes, I know.
Show started.
I'm here.
Just printing some things out.
Late arriving show prep.
Greetings, my friends, and welcome back.
You are tuned to Optimism Central, Rush Limbaugh and the Excellence in Broadcasting Network, the esteemed Limbaugh Institute for Advanced Conservative Studies.
What are we all doing tomorrow, folks?
We are meeting at dawn.
As we do on every election day, we are meeting at dawn in mass to continue the revolution that we began many, many moons ago, ladies and gentlemen.
Glad to have you on the program today.
Telephone number 800-282-2882.
And the email address is rush at EIBnet.com.
All right, Donald Lambrough in the Washington Times today.
Good luck if the Democrats win.
This is the story I was looking for last hour to go along with the internals of the Pew Poll.
You know, I better go back.
I better keep this piece handy because I'm going to be referring to it a lot all day today because it's got the Democrats in a tizzy.
The internals of the Pew Poll.
And I went through them twice in the first hour.
Let me go through one element here again to buck up the information here in Lambrough's piece in the Washington Times.
The internals of the Pew Poll was one of the three polls that shows this race really, really tightening.
And the spreads here in one month, the shifts in one month in the Pew Poll are unbelievable.
Households earning between $50,000 and $75,000 a year and between $30,000 and $50,000 a year have both slipped to the GOP in the internals of the Pew Poll.
The 50 to 75K range has gone from a 14-point margin for the Democrats to an eight-point Republican lead.
That is, what is it, that's a 22-point lead, a switch, 22-point shift inside of a month, meaning that the Republicans lead by eight points in the generic ballot among voters between 50 and 75 grand a year.
Among voters between $30,000 and $50,000 a year, the Democrats were favored a month ago by 22 points in the generic ballot, but now the Republicans are favored by three.
That is a 25-point swing.
And the Democrats even lost the tie that they had with earners above $75,000 and now trailed there by seven.
There's no good news for the Democrats in the internals of the Pew Poll.
And trust me, they're worried behind closed doors.
They are kibitzing.
They are chattering.
They're chewing their fingernails and they're trying to understand what happened.
I'm going to tell you what happened.
There has been an ongoing effort.
I think it has been a planned strategy.
It is a strategy that was planned and it has been executed to suppress Republican turnout by depressing Republican voters.
I really believe that one of the purposes of all of these polls all year long has been to make it look so bleak for Republicans that you are to end up as a defeatist.
You're supposed to be depressed, down in the dumps, and overwhelmed.
And you're supposed to be confused because it doesn't represent your point of view, but you're supposed to think all other Republicans or many of them are just dropping like flies because they can't handle any of this anymore.
It has been designed to shake your confidence and your faith.
But now when pollster credibility is on the line, i.e. the day after the elections, they have to narrow these things somewhat.
Here's the money quote from the Donald Landbrough piece in the Washington Times.
An analysis by the Nonpartisan Tax Foundation shows us just what is at stake for middle-income families if the tax cuts were repealed.
A family of four, two children under the age of 17, taking the standard deduction on an income of $50,000 a year pays a federal income tax bill now of $1,365 a year.
If the Bush tax cuts were never enacted, or if they were repealed, their tax bill would be $3,320 a year.
Not only does this family benefit from the lower income tax rates in Bush's cuts, but also from the doubling of the child tax credit to $1,000.
A family of four earning $75,000 a year at present has an income tax bill of $5,115.
That would shoot up to $7,538 if the Democrats had their way and the Bush tax cuts were never enacted.
Now, Charlie Wrangel has said there is not one Bush tax cut that he thinks worthy of holding on to, including the doubling of the child deduction, child tax credit, to from $500,000 to $1,000.
Now, my question is, did these people in these income brackets, as indicated by the Pew Research poll, just now figure this out?
What caused them to figure this out in the last month?
Has it been the Republican message?
I mean, did they not know their taxes were cut when Bush's tax cuts went into play?
Have they heard Democrats talking about raising taxes that much?
Not from the media.
The media has not been talking about the media.
It's been Iraq, Iraq, Iraq all the time, 24-7, wall to wall.
But something, something has to explain this.
I chalk it up to the fact that the margin was never that large.
The margin was never that big in the first place.
Let's move on to Amendment 2 in Missouri.
This is the very confusing constitutional amendment, which, and I don't care what some of you people writing me are saying, you're being buffaloed.
Some people saying it bans cloning.
No, it doesn't.
It does just the opposite.
If you read this thing and you find what the actual scientific name for cloning is, it's all over this and all through this amendment.
But there's a story here from the Columbia Tribune, and it's Columbia, Missouri.
And it's all about a professor, researcher, who wants Amendment 2 to pass.
And it's because he has a vested interest in it.
His research is being questioned on embryonic stem cells.
A standard peer review process was used to approve publication of a University of Missouri-Columbia research paper that has since been questioned in the scientific community, according to Science Magazine editor Donald Kennedy, last Friday.
The paper, prepared by a team led by renowned Missouri University biologist Michael Roberts, was reviewed by experts inside and outside the magazine.
Problems were not picked up, said Kennedy.
Peer review is a good process, but no process is perfect.
Science literature is full of corrections.
It doesn't happen often.
In cases where it does happen, the usual explanation is that they made a wrong hypothesis or interpretation.
It's rare that there is misconduct.
Roberts and three other scientists conducted research that is now under scrutiny.
It was published in the February 17th issue of Science and focused on embryo formation in a study of mice.
The study was viewed as having potential implications for in vitro fertilization techniques.
The researchers found that when a mouse egg is fertilized, begins its cell division process, the first two cells develop differently.
One cell expresses a protein known as CDX2 and creates other cells that form the placenta.
Now, reports of the study said the findings could explain why cloning often fails in farm and lab animals.
The research was funded by grants from the federal National Institutes of Health and the MU Food for the 21st Century program.
With his research team, Roberts has been exploring how embryos develop in the early stages of pregnancy.
He is frequently quoted with regard to the proposed Amendment 2 on Tuesday's general election ballot, which would protect embryonic stem cell research in Missouri.
The bottom line of this is a lot of scientific mumbo-jumbo.
The bottom line is that he is for Amendment 2 because his research is being questioned.
He's very vocal, wants it to pass.
He has a vested interest in it passing because his research is being questioned by peer review, not politicians.
And that amendment, by the way, was up, I think it was up 23 points in September.
I'm going to have to double check that.
But you know, we've had a huge, huge lead, and it's now tied 4747 on the last poll.
Well, I don't know what happened to this amendment, Mr. Sterling, in terms of bringing that 23 points down in the last month to a 47-47 tie.
Something happened out there.
I'm not sure what it was, but something has happened.
All right, brief time out.
We'll come back.
We'll get some of your phone calls next.
I got lots of audio sound bites to squeeze in here as well.
Correction, ladies and gentlemen.
Correction.
The Missouri Amendment 2 was not up 23.
I'm thinking of, I'm getting confused with all the shifts in the Pew Poll.
The Missouri Constitutional Amendment 2 was at 59% in September, and it's 47.47 a day.
So there's been a 12-point shift.
Well, yeah, 12-point movement there.
Maybe, I don't know what 50%.
I don't know what the other number was, 59 versus, but now it's 47.47.
So it has plummeted since September 12 points, basically.
Not the 23 that I said previously.
Pete and Tucson, Arizona, as it's time to go to the phones.
You, sir, are first.
It's great to have you with us.
Hey, good to hear from you, Rashbo.
Mega Vietnam veteran and law enforcement Dittos, Rush.
Oh, man, it's an honor to talk to you, Rush.
Thank you, sir.
I'm pretty excited.
The topic I wanted to bring up was I came across this article.
I'm a Vietnam veteran.
I came across this article in, of all places, written by the Washington Post by an author, Josh White.
And it said, soldiers in Iraq say to pullout would have devastating results.
I was like, like blown away.
I couldn't believe it.
Talking about dozens of soldiers had mentioned leaving Iraq would have devastating consequences.
Yeah, it is.
I'm like you.
I have that story here holding it my formerly nicotine-stained fingers.
It is a it is strange.
It's dated today, and here's the headline.
Soldiers in Iraq say pullout would have devastating results.
For the U.S. troops fighting in Iraq, the war is alternately violent and hopeful, sometimes very hot, sometimes very cold.
It's dusty and muddy, calm and chaotic, definitely loud and eerily quiet.
The one thing the war is not, however, is finished, say, dozens of soldiers across the country in interviews.
And leaving Iraq now would have devastating consequences, they said.
The U.S., what were the potentially historic U.S. midterm election tomorrow and the war in Iraq a major issue?
Many soldiers said the United States should not abandon its effort there.
The soldiers declined to discuss the political jousting back home, but they expressed support for the Bush administration's support and approach to the war, which they described as sticking with a tumultuous situation to give Iraq a chance to stand on its own.
There's even a liberal soldier here, Pete, Captain Jim Modlin, 26 of Ocean Port, New Jersey, said he thought the situation in Iraq had improved between his deployment in 03 and his return this year as a liaison officer to Iraqi security forces.
He's based at FOB Sykes outside Tel Afar.
He described himself as more liberal than conservative and said he had already cast his absentee ballot in Texas.
The question now is, will it be counted?
He said he believed that U.S. elected officials would lead the military in the right direction regardless of what happens on Tuesday.
Pulling out now would be bad or worse than going forward with no changes and so forth.
So it is an amazing story.
Hey, Rush, they even mentioned about the victory in Iraq.
Did you see that part?
They're talking about victory as a moving target.
They said that one relies heavily on Iraqi people gaining trust in the Iraqi security forces and the ability of the Iraqi government to support essential services.
Well, you know, yeah, I did.
And I'll tell you what, the reason I hesitated is because you're taking me into another area I had intended to do later, but let me go ahead and do it now.
All last week, when it was announced that the Saddam verdict was going to come down on Sunday, what was the reaction we got?
Well, there's going to be chaos.
There's going to be rioting in the streets.
It's going to be hellacious.
It's going to be horrible.
And then there was even some Democrat speculation that Karl Rove had timed the verdict to come out on Sunday as a November surprise, just like Rove is manipulating the gasoline prices.
Well, from what I have read, ladies and gentlemen, they are dancing in the streets in Iraq.
Well, of course, in TikTok, they're mad.
That's where Saddam's from.
But countrywide and in Baghdad, these riots have not taken place.
In fact, they kicked Ramsey Clark out of the courtroom.
They said, no, Mr. Clark, you are the disruption.
You get it.
They threw him out.
All of the things that they told us, just like they told us the elections wouldn't happen.
I'm talking about the liberals in the media.
Just like they told us that there wouldn't be enough voter participation if the elections were held.
It was too soon.
Everything they've said wouldn't work has worked.
Now the Iraqis are not rioting.
They're celebrating.
They're throwing parties.
They're happy for this.
And now we've got international experts.
And I'm getting back here, Pete, to your point about what you quoted as victory being a moving target over there.
We have the New York Times and the European Union.
European Union, I think death penalty is uncalled for, they're saying collectively there.
They're totally opposed to it.
It doesn't make any sense.
It won't advance anything.
New York Times has gone out and found legal experts and human rights activists.
How quaint.
To question the validity of the proceedings in the trial and to suggest that perhaps Saddam did not get a fair trial.
The Democrats continue, if you just give them a chance to show us whose side they're on.
This illustrates something else, too.
They have a total misunderstanding of how Arabs, Iraqis, do things.
You know, one of the reasons we didn't put Saddam on trial was to let the Iraqis do it themselves.
And everybody that's critical now of the verdict and the sentence of hanging is running around saying, well, this is a convoluted system.
War crimes trials like this.
This has been a mockery.
Why, Nuremberg, that's the model of a war crimes, driver.
This is crazy.
This is a 39 days of testimony.
Well, it's not nearly enough.
Saddam didn't have a chance.
His attorneys are being murdered and judges are being murdered.
It's the way they do things, folks, and we left it up to them.
They have a court system.
We didn't impose one on them.
They have a court system.
They have a trial system.
And this one that's being used here is far better than Saddam's.
If Saddam thought you were guilty and wanted you dead, that was it.
Saddam had a trial.
They're just different than we are, but we have all of these pinheads, these pointy-headed intellectuals who are running around trying to throw their standards of everything onto the Iraq conflict, from the war to the judicial system to how we're handling the friction between the three rival tribes, the Sunnis, the Shiites, and the Kurds, when in fact, this is the way they do things.
It may look like a mess to us.
It may look like a mess to these intellectuals who have all these fears about war crimes trials, but this is how they do it.
And that was the whole point of granting them sovereignty to handle their own affairs in their country, democratic fashion.
So, I mean, all these people say we shouldn't be imposing our, now what they want us to impose our court system on these people, even though we shouldn't be imposing democracy on people, we shouldn't be imposing ourselves.
We shouldn't be doing, now all of a sudden we should.
And why?
Because the Saddam verdict is not what they wanted.
They don't like the hanging.
They're afraid of the political results.
Democrats are running around saying, it won't mean anything.
It won't mean anything to you.
Okay, then why are you worried about it?
I'll tell you, just on the face of it, just with the basic news that's attached to this, it establishes that there was a worthwhile reason to rid this place of the guy.
At that elementary level of this, it scares the Democrats all to hell.
You think I'm, no, I'm not making it up.
It's the UK Telegraph.
Saddam death sentence sparks dancing on the streets of Baghdad.
Thousands of Iraqis sang, danced, and unleashed celebratory bursts of gunfire yesterday as Hussein finally faced the consequences of his tyrannical rule in a Baghdad courtroom.
At the conclusion of his 13-month trial, the former dictator found guilty of crimes against humanity and told by the chief judge he would be hanged.
Saddam was shaken but defiant as the sentence was read out and the court set up to try him and his allies.
He tried repeatedly to drown out the judge by shouting, God is great and long live Iraq.
His defense team condemned the verdict as victor's justice.
My friends, remember this.
When we meet at dawn tomorrow, remember this.
Saddam Hussein would never have been convicted for war crimes if we had listened to Democrats.
The verdict that came out over the weekend would never have been reached.
Saddam would still be in power because the only real war criminal in Nancy Pelosi's America is George W. Bush.
This is all your choice tomorrow.
We meet at dawn.
That's what we do here, ladies and gentlemen, to make the complex understandable.
By the way, last week, it looked like the Democrats are winning big according to all of these polls.
The market stumbled, the stock market.
This is a poll that I believe, by the way, the stock market's up 105 today.
Techs are strong.
Corporate deals lend support.
Oil is rebounding.
Don't discount the fact that these polls came out late last night, late yesterday afternoon, and are having an effect on the stock market.
The Dow Jones Industrial Average is up 105 right now.
The NASDAQ is up around 33.
We welcome to the program Senator Mitch McConnell on the phone with us from Owensboro, Kentucky.
Senator, it's great to have you with us, giving us a little time here.
I know you're busy today.
Glad to be with you, Rush.
I think the liberals are in for a surprise tomorrow.
Well, I want to ask you about what you thought of all these polls narrowing things here, the three polls mainly from yesterday.
Well, even if you look at the latest polls from specific Senate races, I think the chances of our retaining our Republican majority in the Senate have gone up dramatically here in the last few days.
Pretty darn confident we're going to have a Senate majority again.
I don't know by exactly what number, but I think we'll have enough to organize the Senate, and that will be, of course, good news when it comes to trying to get judges confirmed.
Do you really, oh, I'm going to make a note of it, I need to ask you about that, judges.
J-U-D-J-E-S, for those of you in Rio Linda, do you really think the Republicans have come back, not just in the Senate, but the generic ballot as well, from such low margins a month ago to now being where you see the race?
Has that really been it?
Have these polls been an accurate reflection of where you've been?
Well, I think we have come back.
I heard you earlier on the program talking about the Pew poll, the Gallup poll, and the ABC post-poll.
And if we can get within four or five points on the generic ballot, then that really eliminates most of the atmospheric problems and allows these races in the Senate, at least, to stand on their own two feet.
And we think races like the one in Virginia with George Allen and Missouri with Jim Talent, in Montana with Conrad Burns.
Now, let's look at him.
Conrad Burns had been written off for a year.
Now, what's bringing these guys back, do you think?
I think they're beginning to figure out, thanks to the help of people like you, what the Democrats might do if they've been in the majority.
You know, 12 years is a long time.
A lot of younger Americans can't even remember when the Democrats were in the majority.
And, of course, they're not going to say much about what they would do if they did get in the majority.
So we've been reminding people around the country what Democrats do.
You know, they'll wave the white flag in the war on terror, raise our taxes, and try to impeach the president.
Yeah, there's a story in the Washington Times today quoting the tag.
Well, using tax foundation data, family of four, two children under 17, $50,000 a year, currently pays around $1,500 in taxes.
Without the Bush tax cuts, it'd be $3,300.
You know, they always say they just want to raise taxes on the rich.
I always ask audiences, in fact, I did at a rally just a few moments ago, how many of you have a job?
Most of the hands went up, of course.
I said, congratulations, you're rich.
According to Democrats.
Yeah.
Well, it's going to judges.
Why has that been so absent in this campaign?
I mean, I don't know about individual races.
The candidates may have been talking about it, but it's such a coalescing issue for conservatives.
I think we should have talked about it more, frankly, because in the Senate, when it comes to appointments, committees are really important.
You can kill a nomination in committee.
On legislation in the Senate, it really doesn't make a whole lot of difference.
You can get legislation up almost anyway, so it's pretty hard to kill a bill, any bill, in committee.
But you can do that with a nomination.
And so control of the Senate is absolutely essential to being able to get the president's judges out of the Judiciary Committee, which has a Democratic lineup, as you know, Rush.
It's pretty nasty and pretty partisan and pretty liberal.
Getting his judges out of committee, once you get out on the floor, we have better luck.
Is it Senator Leahy who would be the committee chairman on judiciary?
Senator Leahy would take over.
So he'd be reading his book, not under the apple tree up in Vermont, but in Washington in the chairman's seat.
Well, he's not been very receptive to our judicial nominees.
And the rest of the lineup is familiar to most Americans.
Ted Kennedy is on that committee, and Joe Biden, and Dick Durbin, and Chuck Schumer.
You know, it's a lineup of honorable but certainly partisan left-wing Democrats who clearly want to make it impossible for the president to continue the excellent job that he's done in remaking the American judiciary.
Yeah, I think ⁇ tell you why I think this is crucial.
One of the things, and I mentioned this in the first hour to my audience, our strategy here in terms of the way the radio program is conducted is just to create as many informed, active voters as possible in the theory that if you win elections, you get what you want.
And the way to legitimize victory is with informed voters who then create a mandate with their majority.
The liberals are having trouble, Democrats are having trouble winning at the ballot box other than Bill Clinton in the last 12 years.
And so they still control these institutions, such as the judiciary, which they then use to undermine the will of the people.
And we've seen this, Senator, in the way the judiciary, Clinton appointees, has dealt with detainee interrogations, trying to conduct the war on terror as a legal concern rather than as a war, trying to strip powers from the commander-in-chief, the president.
That's why I've wondered why this whole thing has not gotten a whole lot of national attention, even from the White House, because it is crucial to have Republican chairmanships in the Senate, particularly the Judiciary Committee, in order to get these nominees out.
You're absolutely right.
I think the legal parts of the war on terror, whether it's terrorism surveillance, they don't want to pass that legislation.
Detainee treatment, we did manage to get it through, but it's noteworthy what a heavy percentage of Democrats in the House and Senate voted against the Detainee Treatment Act.
I mean, a stunningly large number.
You reverse the margins and let the Democrats be in charge of either House of the Senate.
And it will not only hamper the war on terror on the military side, because we know they want to cut and run in Iraq.
Their only argument is over whether we do it tomorrow or six months from now or a year from now.
We know they want to do that.
They also don't want us to listen in on terrorist phone calls from overseas.
They want to have an incredibly intrusive policy on detainee treatment, which presumably would allow all of their plaintiff lawyer friends to file multiple lawsuits over whether some terrorist at Guantanamo liked the movie last night.
That's their whole orientation.
So elections have consequences.
And if we put these people back in charge, the American people are going to pay the price.
Talking with Senator Mitch McConnell of Kentucky, Senator, you just went through a litany of beliefs, policy beliefs of Senate Democrats and how they voted.
Why do they seek to undermine the Patriot Act?
Why do they seek to undermine terrorist interrogation?
Why do they seek to undermine the foreign surveillance program that allows us to learn what they're planning and where?
It's hard to understand.
I mean, these are far-left people who are consumed by the notion that either our troops in Iraq or our law enforcement personnel, if not sort of watched over by the nanny state, are going to violate somebody's rights.
I mean, the truth of the matter is, incidences of abuse are quite rare.
In our country, we treat people properly.
We don't abuse prisoners.
We go to incredible lengths anytime we're in a military conflict to avoid collateral damage.
There's no other country in the world that operates with that high level of discretion and restraint that our country operates.
Which makes their positions hard to understand intellectually.
It really does.
I think I understand them ideologically, and that is they'll do anything they have to right now to win, undermine any policy the president has, and then perhaps in their own minds fix it later using their elitism and smarter than everybody else in the room attitudes.
Time is dwindling.
Couple more things.
Senator Lieberman looks like he's going to win.
You're going to make a play for him to join Republicans?
Well, I think it's unlikely that Joe would become a Republican, but I'll tell you this.
He was already an independent constructive centrist in the Senate, and if the Democrats thought he was independent before, they ain't seen nothing as to how independent he's likely to be after this experience he had this year, where he got purged, in effect, for not recanting on supporting the effort in Iraq.
Has he said what he's going to do in terms of...
Yeah, he said up there in the campaign that he'll continue to caucus with the Democrats.
I believe that he will.
But I do think he'll be even more independent than he's been in the past after what he had to endure this year.
Senator Reed, who I met for the first time about 10 days ago, is calling for, and I find this interesting, by the way, from the crowd that has assumed they've got this sewn up for the last month or two, calling for power sharing if it comes down to 50-50.
That was a disaster when Trent Lott shared power with Dashall because they went and got Jim Jeffords, and it was a total mess.
What's your thinking on power sharing if it's 50-50 the way that it's done?
Well, unfortunately, the rules of the Senate are subject to the filibuster.
So the way we organize the Senate ends up having to be negotiated because, as you know, Rush, and you've informed your listeners on frequent occasions, in the House, a majority is a majority.
In the Senate, a majority is not enough.
You have to have 60 on virtually everything.
We're talking about committee chairmanships here.
Reed will be ⁇ I'm sorry.
We're talking committee chairmanships here.
No, but I know.
But Reed will be ⁇ at the beginning of each Congress, we have to pass what's called an organizing resolution. That's subject to a 60-vote threshold. So it does have to be negotiated. And there's no way under Senate rules that you can run roughshod over that with a mere 50 votes. So it'll probably be,
if we were to be so unfortunate as to be back in a 50-50 situation, be very difficult to avoid under the rules of the Senate because the majority simply doesn't have the ability to dictate a better deal. So what would happen in a 50-50 setup if with existing Senate rules you had co-chairmen of the committees? No,
we had after the 2000 election, we had chairman, but the ratios on each committee were not very good. I mean, it was basically the same number of people, and the staff was pretty balanced as well. So it's gridlock. Well, yeah. I mean, it's not, you know, it's not great, but you still do have the committee chairman, which allows you to control the agenda. We still will have the ability, hopefully, to get judges out of the Judiciary Committee. No, I mean, you know, 50 is not as good as 55,
but I'm not anticipating 50. I think we're going to do better than that. Terrific. Senator Mitch McConnell of Kentucky, thanks so much for the call. It's always a thrill to talk to you because you're one of the few who will tell us what's really going on, what you really think about the Democrats and the Liberals, and people love that this time of year,
especially. Thanks so much. Thanks, Rush. Enjoy the pressure. You bet. Senator Mitch McConnell, we got a quick timeout. By the way, Tony Snow is floating with us here today. He's with the president all over the place. We hope to get a couple minutes with him a little bit after the top of the next hour. Back after this. Stay with us. Back to the phones we go now at 800-282-2882 to Kensington,
Maryland. This is Carla. And Carla, it's great to have you with us. Hi. Hi, Rush. Mega Ditto's from Kensington, Maryland, and Free At Lasting Republicans. Have you called here before, Carla? I have never called. I have to say that. I've been over years. All right. Well, your voice sounds familiar,
but the name didn't ring a bell. Oh, well, Kensington's known for, we're the town that tried to ban Santa Claus a few years back. Oh, yeah. We laugh. That's all you can do. It's all you can do. Yes. My point that I wanted to make when you were discussing earlier that Democrats are worried,
of all the places in the country that they could have sent Bill Clinton, he was in PG County last night. That would be Prince George's County for those of you who really worried about this state as well. They should be. Yeah,
they should. Well, I think he, yeah, it is interesting he went in there because Michael Steele got the major endorsements of black leaders last week. If you read the Washington Post, you wouldn't have known that, but yes. Yeah, Wayne Curry,
several very prominent leaders in the black community. We have a great bite from Michael Steele slamming the meeting. In fact, I want to play two bites while you're on the phone here. We have Clinton on Saturday making this campaign stop with Ben Cardin. I want you people to listen to this now. And keep in mind John Kerry apologizing for his botch joke,
which was not a botch joke. He meant to say what he said. Listen to what Clinton says here. For us because our opponents are no good. And because they'll tax you into the poorhouse. And on the way to the courthouse, you'll meet a terrorist on every street corner. And when you try to run away from the terrorists, you'll trip over an illegal immigrant. Isn't that their thing? That's what they're saying. Now, stop and think about this. Here you've got another Democrat. No, no,
no. You're laughing in there. You've got a Democrat joking about terrorism. You've got a Democrat joking, a former president joking about open borders. You have a Democrat who makes the point that the Republicans are saying you've got to vote for us because our opponents are no good. They'll tax you into the poorhouse, which is true. And on the way to the poorhouse, you'll meet a terrorist on every street corner. And then that audience laughs. It's obvious that the president of the United States never took terrorism seriously,
and he doesn't now. And neither does his party. And when you try to run away from the terrorist, you'll trip over an illegal immigrant. Well, there are about 15 million of them here. The odds of that are pretty good. And that's funny to him, too. Well, you look at what's funny to these people in the midst of a campaign. It's quite eye-opening. Now, let's go to Steele, who appeared on Fox News Sunday with Chris Wallace. He said, Lieutenant Governor, the Washington Post endorsed your opponent, Ben Cardin,
over the weekend. They had some very harsh words for you. The Post says that as Lieutenant Governor for the past four years, you've had marginal influence. That is pitiful. It is absolutely pitiful. And that's nothing more than what the Baltimore Sun said about me four years ago,
that I bring nothing to the table but the color of my skin. They were just a little bit more sophisticated in their ignorance. My conversation with the editorial board didn't go the way they wanted it to go because I wouldn't kowtow and answer the questions the way they wanted me to answer them. I'm my own person. I don't care about the Washington Post. The Washington Post is not going to get me elected. The Washington Post is not going to prevent me from getting elected. There are a bunch of folks,
as I told them in the interview, who sit in an ivory tower who have no clue what real life is about out here. It's easy to pontificate when you don't have to put a vote on the line, when you don't have to look a voter in the eye and let them know what you really think. So what they come after me. Now, how many times have you seen the Washington Post do a second editorial on a candidate that they didn't even endorse? It makes no sense. So clearly, I must be winning this race, and the Washington Post will have to write that headline, Steele wins,
and then eat it. There you have it. Michael Steele giving the mainstream media what for yesterday on Fox News Sunday with Chris Wallace. And he's right. They've editorialized against him twice. All he brings to the table is the color of his skin. Let me say that about Barack Obama and you see the two weeks of fallout. Let me say,
if all he has is his black face, you let me say that. Or about Harold Ford Jr. You let me say that. And it'll be a two-week firestorm. The Washington Post can say it about Michael Steele and there's a ho-hum. Baltimore Sun. Washington Post either way. Two weeks or 15 minutes here, Carla. Damn it. My mind won't keep up with my mouth. My mouth won't. I'm out of time now, Carla. I'm so sorry. In fact, hang on, Carla, if you want to, because you're a brilliant woman, if you want to hang on and comment on these two soundbites,
I'd love to hear what you thought since I promised you that chance. And we are back. Final hour upcoming. We'll get back to Carla, another woman who claims she got a phone call from me over the weekend. Sit tight, that and much more,
▲
Export Selection