All Episodes
Previous Next
Nov. 7, 2006 - Rush Limbaugh Program
36:29
November 7, 2006, Tuesday, Hour #3
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
And greetings to you music lovers, thrill seekers, and conversationalists all across the bountiful fruited plane.
I am Rush Limbaugh, real anchorman of this country, serving humanity on the cutting edge of societal evolution, 800-282-2882.
If you'd like to join us on the phones, the email address rush at EIBnet.com.
Have you all seen the video of Faith Hill last night at the Country Music Awards?
You know, she was up for some award.
I don't know what it is because I didn't watch it last night, but I've seen this on YouTube.
You can see the link if you go to the Drudge Report.
You know, when they have these nominees, four or five of them for some award, and they're getting ready to announce the winner, they put cameras on all of the nominees.
So you can see all the nominees' reactions.
And Faith Hill, before a winner is announced, opens her arms wide as though she's prepared to accept congratulations for winning.
Except she didn't win.
Somebody else did.
And the camera, who televised this last night?
CBS, I guess?
Whatever network televised it.
Camber was on her.
And the moment one of her competitors was announced as winning, Faith Hill gets this exasperated look on her face and goes, what?
And they've looped that in slow motion now on YouTube.
What?
And I'm just hoping that it's a precursor for Nancy Pelosi.
That when the results are announced tonight, that Nancy Pelosi's reaction is, what?
It would be so sweet, were that the case.
Anyway, I mentioned earlier in the program a piece that I wish had seen it earlier, and I wish it had been published earlier.
It is very long.
I founded it at realclearpolitics.com, but it first appeared in print in the Rhinoceros Times of Greensboro, North Carolina.
And it is a piece written by a Democrat by the name of Orson Scott Card.
I do not know who Orson Scott Card is, but I want to share with you some of the quotes from his lengthy piece.
Even though, you know, I read most of it, and what I read is just put so well in this piece.
And I think it is amplified by the fact that it is somebody who proudly claims to be a Democrat.
Let me give you just some pull quotes and then read a couple of lengthy quotes.
One of the quotes in this article is, Bin Laden predicted it, the Democratic Party in America is following his script exactly.
Another.
And when you sum up the others with any kind of rational understanding of military history, the only possible conclusion is that this is the best-run war in history with the fewest mistakes and casualties.
Another quote.
For the sake of our children's future and for the sake of all good people in the world who don't get to vote in the only election that matters to their future too, vote for no congressional candidate who even hints at withdrawing from Iraq or opposing Bush's leadership in the war and vote for no candidate who will hand control of the House of Representatives to those who are sworn to undo Bush's restrained but steadfast foreign policy in this time of war.
This is a Democrat Orson Scott card, and it's entitled The Only Issue This Election Day.
Let me give you a little bit more lengthy excerpts from this piece.
Pardon the sniffles here.
There is only one issue in this election that'll matter five or ten years from now, and that's the war on terror.
And the success of the war on terror now teeters on the fulcrum of this election.
If control of the House passes into Democrat hands, there are enough withdraw-on-a-timetable Democrats in positions of prominence that it will not only seem to be a victory for our enemies, it will be one.
Unfortunately, the opposite is not the case.
If the Republican Party remains in control of both houses of Congress, there is no guarantee that the outcome of the present war will be favorable for us or anybody else, but at least there will be a chance with the Republicans.
I say this as a Democrat, for whom the Republican domination of government threatens many values that I hold to be important to America's role as a light among nations.
But there are no values that matter to me that will not be gravely endangered if we lose this war.
And since the Democrat Party seems hell-bent on losing it, and in the most damaging possible way, I have no choice but to advocate that my party be kept from getting its hands on the reins of national power until it proves itself once again to be capable of recognizing our core national interests instead of its own temporary partisan advantages.
To all intents and purposes, when the Democrat Party jettisoned Joseph Lieberman over the issue of his support of the war, they kicked me out as well.
The party of Harry Truman and Daniel Patrick Moynihan, the party I joined back in the 70s, is dead of suicide.
Or as Tom Lantos would say it, suicide.
I recently read an opinion piece in which the author ridiculed the very concept of a war on terror, saying that it makes as much sense as if after Pearl Harbor, FDR had declared a war on aviation.
Without belaboring the obvious shortcomings of the analogy, I will agree with the central premise.
The name war on terror clearly conceals the fact that we are really at war with specific groups and specific nations.
We can no more make war on a methodology than can we make war on nitrogen.
However, there are several excellent reasons why the war on terror is the only possible name for this war.
One, this is not a war that can be named for any particular nation or region.
To call it the Iraq War, the Afghanistan War, would lead to the horrible mistake of thinking that victory would consist of toppling certain governments and then going home.
In fact, it is precisely the name war in Iraq that is leading to the deep misconceptions that drive the Democrat position on the war.
If this were in fact a war on Iraq, then in one sense, we won precisely when Bush declared victory right after we occupied Baghdad.
And in another sense, we might not see victory for another five years or even a decade, a decade in which Americans will be dying alongside Iraqis.
For a war in Iraq to linger this way is almost too painful to contemplate, but we're not waging a war in Iraq.
We are waging a world war in which the campaigns to topple the governments of Iraq and Afghanistan were brilliantly successful, and the current lukewarm war demands great patience and determination from the American people as we ready ourselves for the next phase.
Number two, we cannot name this war for our actual enemies either, because there's no way to name them accurately without including some form of the word Islam or Muslim.
It is our enemies who want to identify this as a war between Islam and the West.
And if we put these pages out of order because I didn't want to read the whole thing.
Let me just get to the next salient point, and it is this.
North Korea might go through a paroxysm of defiance, but they would still understand the lesson.
America will not be bullied by tyrants.
We will stand for democracy, destroying our enemies at the time and place of our choosing.
Negotiations with North Korea would instantly take on a very different tone, and China's attitude, too, would become considerably more cooperative with us.
And this is the victory that awaits us, and it remains possible for two reasons only.
America's brilliant, brave, and well-trained military, which protects not just power, but decency and compassion wherever our soldiers go.
And two, President George W. Bush, who, regardless of his critics and detractors, has steadfastly pursued the only course that holds the hope of victory without plunging us into a worldwide war with a united Islam or isolating America in a world torn by chaos.
If we, the American people, are stupid enough to give control of either or both houses of Congress to the Democrat Party in this election, we will deserve the world we find ourselves in five years from now.
But Bush, being the wise and moderate politician that he is, may actually be able to continue his foreign policy despite the opposition of a Democrat Congress.
So it's, well, I'll try to link to this.
This thing must print to 12 pages.
It goes on and on and on.
This guy is Orson Scott Card.
I had not heard of him.
I still don't know who he is.
I didn't Google him last night.
I was in a big hurry.
But this was originally published in the Rhinoceros Times at Greensboro, North Carolina, and I found it at RealClearPolitics.com.
And it was published yesterday at Real Clear Politics.
So Coco will find a link and put it up at the website, and you can read the whole thing.
A quick timeout.
I mean, this is powerful stuff coming from a Democrat.
Ashley says the worst thing that could happen for the future of this country is for his party to take control of both houses of Congress.
Quick timeout, folks.
Back with more after this.
And by the way, it's not just Orson Scott Card who is warning against Democrats achieving power.
No less than Michael Kinsley today in the Washington Post.
What would a Democrat House of Representatives under Speaker Pelosi be like?
Well, the Republicans have been painting an unattractive portrait of Democrats roasting young children on a spit in the Capitol Rotunda and whatnot.
Hoping for a more encouraging view, I picked up a new direction for America.
The 31-page manifesto released to little acclaim by House Democrats in June.
By all means, read it, but do me a favor and vote first.
He goes on to rip this.
He rips their manifesto, their so-called contract with America.
But it is on page three of this piece that it really gets interesting.
For national security in general, writes Mr. Kinsley, the Democrats' plan is so according to type that you cringe with embarrassment.
It's mostly about new cash benefits for veterans.
But regarding Iraq specifically, the Democrats' plan has two parts.
First, they want Iraqis to take on primary responsibility for securing and governing their country.
Then they want responsible redeployment, which is a great euphemism, of American forces.
Now, older readers may recognize this formula.
It's called Vietnamization, the Nixon-Kissinger plan for extracting us from a previous mistake.
But Vietnamization was not a plan for victory.
It was a plan for what was called peace with honor.
It is now known as defeat.
So Michael Kinsley in the Washington Post, thanks for your timeliness here, Michael, writes on election day that the Democrats' plan for Iraq is a plan for defeat.
On Sunday, that's exactly what Liddy Dole said on Meet the Press, and she was savaged by Chuck Schumer and Rah Emmanuel.
They're content with losing, she said.
Here is Michael Kinsley writing the same thing, and this man, Orson Scott Card, who I've never heard of, piece I read earlier, basically warning us that that's exactly what will get his defeat.
And five, ten years from now, we are going to regret it if it happens.
To the phone, Scott and Lee Summit, Missouri, this outside Kansas City.
Great to have you with us on the EIB network.
Hello.
Rush, I am so pumped to be talking to you right now.
Thank you.
I am a proud, happily married 27-year-old living right here in Lee Summit, Missouri, and I'm also a proud big pharmaceutical sales rep. Uh-huh.
Big pharma, eh?
That's right.
Well, listen, I just wanted to tell you, Rush, that I obviously wanted to thank you for your extensive analysis on this Amendment 2 deal out here.
And I'll be honest with you.
I was on the fence, and I happened to listen to your radio show that day whenever you were off, I was talking about the Michael J. Fox issue, and really made up my mind to vote no.
And this morning, I made a few calls on my mom and my sister-in-law.
Both of them were on the fence.
They pretty much weren't going to vote because they were just pretty much, you know, they just were so confused about the issue.
Well, this morning I called them and I convinced them to vote no on it.
But I wanted to thank you, Rush, for all that you do for us out here.
And we're just, we're hoping and praying this is going to go no.
But I wanted to thank you again, Rush.
Well, I appreciate that.
Back in September, the Amendment 2 was, I think, at 59% approval, and yesterday it was at 47.
So 12 points had been shaved off at a 47-47 tie with the yes and no forces.
I mean, there's so much about this.
It's so misleading.
It basically is an investment group, a couple, trying to buy federal research for their company via a state constitutional amendment.
Not a law.
This is a constitutional amendment.
And the campaigning for this was so disingenuous.
You know, if you follow the Michael J. Fox thing, you know what I said.
Let me treat to a classic example of what I was talking about.
In the Michael J. Fox situation, it was totally overlooked and ignored by those whose job it is to explain things to people.
You ever heard of the name Jack Carter, Jack Carter's Jim O'Carter son, and he's running for the Senate out there in Nevada.
Hoping to generate attention for his boss, late in an underdog campaign, an aide Democrat Jack Carter solicited the mother of an Iraq war casualty to appear alongside Jack Carter at a rally or news conference last week.
But if it was looking for a willing ally, the Carter camp evidently picked the wrong mother.
Eleanor Dockler of Las Vegas said she was insulted by the overture, which was made in a blind letter.
The Jack Carter campaign sent out blind letters, and the blind letters began, I hope I've reached the right Eleanor Dockler and that you are the mother of Nick Anderson.
If not, please disregard this letter.
The letter asked Eleanor Dockler if she would appear with Jack Carter at an event where the candidate would be criticizing the Iraq policy of President Bush and the Republican incumbent John Ensign.
Her participation could help draw media coverage, she was told.
I read the letter, said Eleanor Dockler, and I thought, this guy is an expletive.
Her 18-year-old son, Nicholas, was killed on November 12, 2004 in the Anbar province.
She said she kept her annoyance to herself until she saw Carter on television with paraplegics at an event to promote stem cell research, similar to the idea his aides pitched her on Iraq.
It was almost like he was exploiting these people.
Now, here is an average American, the mother of an 18-year-old killed in Iraq, solicited by a Democrat to go on stage and exploit her son's death along with some Iraqi paraplegics, Iraq veteran paraplegics, to exploit stem cell research.
And she saw it for what it is.
And folks, I'm telling you, this is progress.
And this is the sole reason why I didn't let go of this Michael J. Fox business.
This is a standard technique that the Democrats have used most of my adult awareness of politics, parading victims before the American people as unassailable.
You can't criticize them.
So they get to say whatever they want in the political arena of ideas.
In this case, Jack Carter wanted to bring all these people up to rip Bush to rip the Iraq war with a bunch of people who were immune from criticism because they were victims.
They were suffering from something.
In this case, the mother of a dead soldier or soldiers who had become paraplegics.
And Mrs. Dockler said it was almost like he was exploiting these people.
Now, James Taranto at opinionjournal.com said, almost like, Mrs. Dockler, you have a gift for understatement.
Jack Carter, by the way, is the son of the worst president of the latter half of the 20th century.
There is something especially revolting about the attempt to exploit American servicemen by painting them as victims rather than heroes, a political technique pioneered by John Botch Kerry, who told a Senate committee in 1971, I call the media.
I said, if I take some crippled veterans down to the White House and we chain ourselves to the gates, will we get coverage?
Oh, yes, we'll cover that, said the media to John Kerry.
Last Friday, we attended a dinner, this is Taranto writing, sponsored by the Soldiers, Sailors, Marines, and Airmen's Club for wounded veterans planning to participate in yesterday's New York City Marathon.
We were the guest of Heather Robinson, who profiled the club's executive director.
At our table was a young man in 2003, lost a leg to a roadside bomb in Iraq.
Talking to this guy was an inspiration.
He evinced not the slightest bit of bitterness.
And he went on at some length about the good work he and his buddies had done in Iraq, making clear that he still believes in the mission.
At the end of the evening, we thanked him for his sacrifice.
He replied, it was just a bad day at the work at the office for me.
Now, if Jack Carter and John Kerry think America's servicemen are victims or predators or whatever else they think of them or losers, they should try actually spending some time with them.
Just maybe they'd be as impressed as other people are.
Well, this is, folks, this is no different than what Claire McCaskill did in Missouri.
It is no different than what Ben Cardin did in Maryland.
It's no different than what Jim Webb ended up doing in Virginia.
They all used Michael J. Fox in his ad.
And Jack Carter was using injured military personnel from Iraq and tried to get a mother of a soldier, 18-year-old son of hers, killed in Iraq in 04 to come on stage and be exploited, running against John Enson.
So this is what was going on in Missouri with Amendment 2.
It's what's been going on in other states with stem cell research.
Jack Carter's happening to do it with a war in Iraq.
This is how Democrats do it.
And I'm not going to stand by anymore and not comment on it.
I'm just not, I don't care what they say about me.
We'll be back in a second.
All right, I had a chance.
I googled Orson Scott Card because I don't like sitting here not knowing who somebody is.
He is a prominent science fiction and historical fiction author.
And he's won some awards in the late 70s.
He wrote a futuristic military novel called Ender's Game.
And that became a series of books, I'm told, written by Card.
And then a parallel series, The Shadow Series, posits World War in the Future and How It Could Be Stopped.
He's a Mormon, a member of the Church of Lisa's Jesus Christ Latter-day Saints, and he's basically a science fiction and historical fiction writer.
And we have linked to his piece at rushlimbaugh.com.
It's on RealClearPolitics.com, but we've linked to it.
So if you want to read the whole thing, and it's long, but I would heartily recommend it.
is extremely worthwhile.
I've probably destroyed his reputation among his Democrat buds now, but that's the risk he takes in publishing this stuff.
Chris in Dayton, Ohio.
I'm glad you waited.
Welcome to the EIB network.
Hey, Mr. Linbaugh, thanks for taking my call.
You bet, sir.
Sir, I'm active duty military.
I was in Iraq this year.
I was in a unit that was training Iraqi soldiers.
And I just wanted to say to you and your listeners, I know a lot of them may be still headed to the polls today based on everything they've heard on TV about all the pundits saying we can't win over there in Iraq.
We're not winning over there.
They may be voting to, quote unquote, change the course in Iraq.
And I just want to let you and your listeners know that I was there in Iraq.
I was in Baghdad and areas around Baghdad.
And my perspective is we are winning over there.
We are on the right track.
And in fact, we're closer to victory than a lot of people may think if they only get their information from the news.
And the worst thing that we could do right now is quit before the job is finished.
Why?
I mean, what are the American people, those Americans who want to pull out of there because they're just uncomfortable with all this, why are they wrong?
Tell them why they're wrong.
What would be bad about pulling out now?
Well, they see the violence and they see that one side of it that it's really violent over there.
They hear about the IEDs and the car bombs and the snipers.
What they don't hear is the other side of that.
Amidst all that violence, that violence was going on when I was over there, we were making progress in turning over responsibility to the Iraqis.
And despite all those dangers, not just the coalition troops, but to the Iraqis themselves, these people were showing up to work and serving in the Army, serving in the police.
So they're braving those dangers.
They've shown their commitment to stand up and fight for a free Iraq.
Same thing with you here about the sectarian violence.
You hear on the news from the pundits that the Sunni and Shia, oh, they'll never get along.
There'll always be civil war and sectarian strife over there.
My perspective is, Rush, in my unit, the Iraqi soldiers that we were training were a mixture of Sunni and Shia and even Christian.
And they were serving together in the same unit.
So yes, there's Sunni and Shia that are trying to kill each other over there.
There's far more that are serving together to try to build a free Iraq.
What would happen to the country, Chris, if we pulled out and Democrats get control and somehow maneuver us to get out of there?
What would happen to the country?
Well, the first thing that would happen, Rush, is I think that we would undo what those who made the ultimate sacrifice over there, the thousands of soldiers and sailors and airmen and Marines who didn't come back from over there, we would undo everything that they've accomplished.
But in terms of what's going to happen next, what's going to happen next is that all the commitments that we've made to the Iraqis, some of whom I've served with and talked with about where their country is going, where the future of their country is headed, we would be undoing our commitment to them.
There were plenty of Iraqis that came up to me in the course of the work that we did.
We worked in a system where we were trying to equip all the Army units in the Iraqi Army.
Well, that's what I'm getting at.
If we pull out the next six, are they ready to defend the country or will it descend into utter chaos?
Well, Rush, if we arbitrarily pull out before the job is finished, it could.
The problem is that we're making progress steadily every single day.
When I was over there, every day, every week, we were turning over more and more responsibility to the Iraqis.
There was jobs that when I first got there, coalition troops were doing, but when I left, Iraqi soldiers were doing.
So the progress is there.
But if you just arbitrarily say, oh, well, we're going to quit, then what happens is you undo your commitment and all the progress that's being made, the Iraqis say, well, if the Americans aren't going to stand with us, then what's the point?
There were plenty of Iraqis that came up to me and said, you need to stay.
We're not ready yet, but you need to stay.
But they were making progress and getting to where they needed to be.
It's just a question of do you stay there and finish the job?
Or do you say, well, it's too bad.
It's too dangerous.
The SUNY and Shia are never going to get along, so let's just quit.
And that's what I think a lot of people mean when they talk about changing the course.
They say, well, we're not on the right track over there.
They don't realize that progress is being made every single day when they only get one side of the space.
Well, it's not just that.
We've got a generation of Americans, Chris, that has no knowledge or virtual experience in their lifetimes of a real war.
And so they don't understand what it is, and they don't understand the vagaries.
They don't understand how it's not predictable and you can't go in and have a plan and have it executed flawlessly and get out.
There's just a lot of misunderstanding about things.
But in addition to the country falling apart and descending into further chaos, you'd have to ask yourself this.
Who else would ever ally with us again when we needed to go somewhere else in the world to stop something?
If we keep pulling this Vietnam stuff and pulling out of there and declaring victory with our tails between our legs, who's ever going to join us at another moment in time when it is necessary to take on some and it's going to be, if we pull out of there, we're just going to be taking them on somewhere else at some point because they're not stopping.
And look at when you got Michael Kinsley of the Washington Post writing about this today and some of these other Democrats, I think there are a lot of people who understand this piping up a little late in the process.
But look, all that aside, how have you been treated, Chris, when you got home?
How did people in Ohio react to you?
Oh, Rush, we're supported.
I mean, that's the other thing you don't hear is that you hear about how America doesn't support the war to support the effort.
The troops that when we come back, we're obviously supported.
It's not like how we, I wasn't alive then, but you hear about how Vietnam veterans were treated when they came back.
America supports us.
And not only back here, but when we were over there, America was just anonymous people, organizations were sending us things all the time, care packages.
They support us, and that was great for morale.
What I would encourage any of your listeners that may be going into the voting booth to do is don't take my word for it.
I may just be one person, but at least if you're going to go into the voting booth to quote unquote change the course over there, at least find one service member to get the facts from someone who is actually over there.
Don't just get your facts from the pundits on TV.
Find one service member and ask them, what progress are we making over there?
What's actually going on on the ground over there?
Because I think that there's plenty of people that have come back that can tell you what's going on over there.
And they may tell you that.
Like I said the other day, to a man and woman, every one of you who have come back from Iraq and have seen the coverage of that war on television here have basically said the same thing to me that you have said, that there is much progress that's not being reported.
In fact, it's becoming like a broken record of sorts.
But the nation thanks you, and the nation thanks your family, and your bravery and courage in standing up for your beliefs and acting upon them is admirable and inspirational.
And I'm honored to have you as a member of this audience.
That's Chris in Dayton, Ohio, just back.
Speaking of courage, you want to hear some of the Providence Journal.
This is fascinating.
Bill Clinton swooped into Rhode Island yesterday to try to help push Sheldon Whitehouse across the finish line in his race against Lincoln Chaffee for the Senate seat in Rhode Island.
Chafee said it was a sign that the Democrats were pressing the panic button.
But White House played up Clinton's visit as a sign of the national importance of the Rhode Island Senate race.
In other words, the importance of dumping Chaffee to punish President Bush.
The Providence Journal captured Chafee's retort.
Here's what Chafee said.
He called Bill Clinton disingenuous.
Chafee said it infuriates me that President Clinton is coming and saying, get rid of Senator Chafee, the guy that voted against the war when his own wife didn't vote against the war.
I know they're separate people, but I voted against the war.
He should be here saying we need more people like me, Lincoln Chafee in the Senate, working on both sides of the aisle, casting good votes, unlike his wife on the war.
I haven't seen this kind of courage out of Lincoln Chafee in I don't know how long.
You go up against Bill Clinton and attack his wife, you better have a hideout.
Back in just a second after this.
That's some audio soundbites coming up here first.
But first, ladies and gentlemen, the Reverend Zach has written a column today in the Chicago Sun-Times, and the headline's all you need to read.
We know what voters want.
Can the system record it fairly?
Now, my question is: how does the Reverend Zach know what the voters want?
And if it turns out that the voters don't want what the Reverend Zach claims they want, does that mean the system wasn't fair?
Here's a little paragraph.
Another story will emerge after the election, just how broken our election system is.
The president champions democracy abroad, but does nothing to strengthen it at home.
States are passing new restrictions on voting, requiring official forms of identification.
Hell, I have to show two IDs when I go vote.
I have to show a photo ID and my voter registration card.
You have to do the same thing.
I have never been, and they know who I am.
I'm expecting when I go in there, I hate you for what you say and get it.
I just know it's going to cause a ruckus in there.
But I've always had to show my voter I, my voter registration card, and a driver's license photo ID.
So I'm going to take in four or five things.
I'm going to think it's a passport, birth certificate, where it says I'm a woman.
You can do that in New York pretty soon.
They're going to set that up.
That means you can get into an all-girls school if you're a guy just by claiming you're a woman.
You can.
All right.
Audio soundbite time will start last night on the Fox News channel, Hannity and Colms.
Pat Caddell is asked by Colms what he thinks of the election.
I'll tell you right now, the Republicans have managed to get their base stirred up.
And I go back to the fact I really underestimated my carry thing.
They could put a face on in their base and among independents that, oh my God, because he is the potential head of the party of most voters.
And in fact, as it came at the same time, everyone was, the press, I think, really screwed my party by going around and announcing the landslide was all over.
Yeah, exactly.
They're celebrating on a 10-yard line, and they haven't scored the touchdown yet, and they're spiking the ball.
Anderson Cooper 360 last night, political analyst and polling expert Bill Schneider is the guest.
Cooper says, for Democrats to say that they've really won, how well do they have to do tomorrow, Bill?
Better than expected.
Democrats' problem is expectations have been rising very fast.
We just heard it from the panel.
They're expected to win the House.
In fact, we asked in a poll, who do you expect to control Congress?
60% of Americans said they expect the Democrats to win the House, and there's an increasing expectation they're going to win the Senate.
If the Democrats make big gains but don't win the House, it'll be a devastating defeat.
And if they make gains and don't win the Senate, it'll be a disappointment.
Yeah, right.
Who first put forth this theorem two weeks ago?
It was I, ladies and gentlemen, about the bar being raised so high.
And they bring this up now.
They're getting nervous.
This is all being driven by these polls on the weekend narrowing.
Terry McCauffle was on Today's Show Today with Matt Wauer, and they have this exchange.
If the Democrats fail to win the House or the Senate with all the negatives that have piled up on the Republican side, is it time to pack up the tent and go home?
Do the Democrats have to start from scratch?
Well, I feel very confident where we are tonight.
And I remind you, in 2000, Al Gore did win the popular vote.
And in 2004, John Kerry, if he had shifted 60,000 votes in Ohio, would be president today.
We have an agenda out there.
And when we get control, Matt, I agree with you.
We've got to show the American public that the Democrats can lead this country, lead it effectively, and help all Americans.
So the burden is going to be on us, and we're going to deliver.
I believe that.
He didn't answer the question, though.
What if you lose?
Does it mean the end of your party punk?
And finally, this.
Do you remember Chris Matthews last week characterizing his view of Tennessee voters?
This was during the RNC ad against Harold Ford, the blonde babe.
Call me Harold.
I met Harold at a Playboy Party.
Remember that ad, and they said, that's racist.
You can't.
And Chris Matthews said, well, I wonder how people in Tennessee, these good old boys, you know, we're in a roadside tavern at midnight drinking beer and smoking cigarettes.
And that ad comes on.
What do you think their reaction is?
Of course, he was trying to portray them as a bunch of racist hicks who would applaud the ad, applaud the ad.
So last night on Larry King Alive, Representative Harold Ford Jr. appeared.
And Larry King says, what are you going to be watching all day, Harold?
I will travel to Jackson tomorrow.
One of the great stories in our campaign is our stop at the Little Rebel Bar and Grill, a little place with a lot of Confederate flags every which way.
I'm one of their favorites.
They have my paraphernalia campaign materials up everywhere.
We'll go there tomorrow for lunch where we really kicked off this campaign and energized this campaign.
We've had a great campaign manager and one of the unseen campaign managers has been my Lord and Savior.
I got great confidence.
People in my district and our state want change and it's all in his hands now.
Holy cow, ladies and he's going to go to a roadside bar, the little rebel bar and grill, and a bunch of Confederate flags are going to be all over the place.
Good thing George Allen doesn't show up there.
And then he's going to thank his number one campaign manager, his Lord and Savior.
I thought the separation of church and state, I thought we're supposed to keep all this stuff out of politics.
But yet here we are, ladies and gentlemen, Harold Ford, the Confederacy and Jesus.
But confirming Chris Matthews' vision of who goes to these things, these roadside bars.
Chris Matthews wants to know what they're going to be doing.
Harold Ford's going to be in there with them drinking beer, whatever, eating barbecue amongst the Confederate flags and praying to Jesus.
Stephen Trucker, a trucker in North Georgia.
Welcome to the program, sir.
Oh, Rush, what a privilege this is.
God bless you.
Thank you so much for what you've done for our country.
And when I was in college for broadcasting, you were the person that I looked up to most because I figured if I measured my success by yours that I could really do great things.
Well, what I want to ask you about, I'm a little bit concerned if winning the House and also the Senate would be good for the Democratic Party.
And the reason why is could it possibly mean a robbery between Nancy Pelosi and Hillary Clinton since I think both you and I agree that Hillary's going to be the 08 candidate for the Democratic ticket in 08?
There's not going to be much competition there because Ms. Pelosi does not want what Hillary wants.
So there won't be any competition.
And besides, when it comes to that, the media We'll be devoting enough time to both to satisfy their needs and desires when it comes to media attention.
The interesting effect will be what all that attention has on the electorate.
What we'll never hear is the truth about Nancy Pelosi, her husband, a combined wealth of $55 or $60 million, $25 million winery in Napa, non-union workforce.
They own some restaurants, non-union employees.
She's opposed to any reform of illegal immigration because she gets some employees for a winery.
Richard Schweiker had this, Schweitzer, in his book.
Virginia Board of Elections confirms ABC News the FBI is investigating claims of voter intimidation in Virginia.
We'll be back in just a second.
Stay with us.
I'm not going to insult your intelligence by saying, okay, folks, if you haven't voted, go vote.
What I am going to say is if you go vote, do it right, please.
▲
Export Selection