All Episodes
Previous Next
April 3, 2007 - Rush Limbaugh Program
36:35
April 3, 2007, Tuesday, Hour #1
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Welcome to today's edition of the Rush 24-7 podcast.
Hiya, folks, and how are you?
It's great to be with you.
We've got broadcast excellence.
Next three hours, fastest three hours in media.
It is a privilege to be with you, a thrill, a delight and an honor.
And as always, looking forward to talking with you when we get to the phones.
The telephone number is 800-282-2882, and the email address is rush at EIBNet.com.
Well, here come the it's Panic City again, the 2007 Atlantic hurricane season.
According to the experts at the University of Colorado, or I'm sorry, Colorado State University.
That's the team that's headed and founded by William Gray.
17 tropical storms, nine will strengthen into hurricanes.
They don't know where they're going to hit, of course.
Well, I don't know.
Maybe they do, and they're just holding back on us.
But I remember last year, a prediction came out, nothing happened.
Revised the prediction.
That was wrong.
Revised the prediction again.
Supposedly, El Niño's gone or is waning in the Sahara dust storms, which do affect a lot of our climate, might have had an impact on the down hurricane season last year.
Both those elements are said to be less problematic this year.
The problem with El Niño, or not the problem, the good thing about El Niño in the hurricane regard is that it creates upper-level winds right across the Atlantic basin, just rips the tops off those hurricanes when they form.
And when you rip the top off a hurricane, you pretty much destroy it.
And that's what happened.
They think.
They're not sure, but that's what they think last year.
So anyway, 17 tropical storms, nine of which will become hurricanes.
And I'm just wondering if on June 1st, the traditional opening of hurricane season, he will have drive-by media camera crews on the beaches in South Florida.
And of course, we know we will in New Orleans, scanning the skies, looking for hurricanes that might form anywhere near 15, 2,000 miles away.
And it'll be time to scare everybody.
It's something that happens every year, and yet it'll be treated as something unprecedented.
So just get ready for it.
The president went back to television today, had a news conference outside in the Rose Garden today.
Here's a portion of what the president said.
The Democrats in Congress continue to pursue their bills.
And now they have left Washington for spring recess without finishing the work.
Democrat leaders in Congress seem more interested in fighting political battles in Washington and providing our troops what they need to fight the battles in Iraq.
Democrat leaders in Congress are bent on making a political statement.
Then they need to send me this unacceptable bill as quickly as possible when they come back.
I'll veto it.
And then Congress can get down to the business of funding our troops without strings and without delay.
Right.
Not as forceful as the president could have been, but he's still out there basically telling these people, look, stop the theatrics.
Just get the bill up here so I can veto it so we can move on.
Meanwhile, Dingy Harry is saying, hey, you know, not only are we going to not do that, we're going to cut the funding and we're going to set a troop level.
We're going to do both things, Dingy Harry.
And if he doesn't have the votes, he's going to keep trying for it.
So they've cast their lot, and the president understandably put the responsibility for this on the Democrats.
The bottom line is this.
Congress's failure to fund our troops on the front lines will mean that some of our military families could wait longer for their loved ones to return from the front lines.
And others could see their loved ones headed back to the war sooner than they need to.
That is unacceptable to me, and I believe it is unacceptable to the American people.
Congress's most basic responsibility is to give our troops the equipment and training they need to fight our enemies and protect our nation.
They're now failing in that responsibility.
And if they do not change course in the coming weeks, the price of that failure will be paid by our troops and their loved ones.
And one more with the president again telling the Democrats, stop the theatrics.
I think the voters in America want Congress to support our troops who are in harm's way.
They don't want politicians in Washington telling our generals how to fight a war.
There's been a political dance going on here in Washington.
They need to come off their vacation, get a bill to my desk.
And if it's got strings and mandates and withdrawals and pork, I'll veto it and then we can get down to business of getting this thing done.
And we can do it quickly.
It doesn't have to take a lot of time.
And we get to get the troops funded and we go about our business of winning this war.
So the president obviously believes the Democrats here are just engaging in theatrics.
He thinks that that's what they're doing.
Okay, you got the game out of the way.
You got the theatrics out of it.
Come back and give me the bills so we can get going.
And I think I don't know if he actually thinks that.
That's how he sounds.
And I think if he does believe it, he misunderstands them.
I think that he's, I can't believe that.
I can't believe he misunderstands their intent.
They own defeat.
I mean, they are wedded to, folks, I keep telling you this.
I'm sorry to sound like a broken record.
They cannot afford victory politically.
They cannot allow it to happen.
They are dead serious.
By the way, that last bite was in response to a question from David Gregory, and the question was this.
You said the Democrats are undercutting troops the way they've voted.
They're obviously trying to assert more control over foreign policy.
Isn't that what the voters had elected them to do in November?
Bush didn't answer that.
But clearly, that's not what voters elected them to do.
And I'm not going to waste time here going through the analysis of the November election results.
Well, the Democrats did not campaign on that.
They didn't campaign on anything, and yet they're out there claiming a minority.
It's this simple.
If that's what the election had been about, the president wouldn't have the fortitude to stand up to it.
If the election had been about that, getting out of Iraq, I mean, he's recognized Democrat electoral victories in a number of other areas, having meetings with them and this sort of thing.
And you wouldn't have as many Republicans holding out.
The Republicans have counted votes.
They've got a letter, a promissory letter from 154 Republicans in the House to the president to sustain his veto.
And that's plenty needed to sustain the vetoes.
So, you know, I don't know, this treaty, there's just a golden opportunity here.
These people are not engaged in theatrics.
It's time to hit them hard on the fact that this is serious stuff.
It's time to hit them on the fact that they are attempting to secure the defeat of the United States, the United States military, not only in the Iraqi theater, but also in the entire war on terror.
You know, I got a lot of email notes last night from people who are watching last night's episode of 24.
Did you watch it last night, Snerdley?
Do you like it?
A couple people sent me notes and said, you know, I'm afraid the show's jumping the chark.
And I said, what do you mean jumping the shark?
We're going to jump the shark.
And well, I mean, the evil Russian guy, Grudenko, cutting off his arm in order to get rid of the isotope they'd injected to track him.
And I said, come on, that's pretty accurate portrayal of the kind of commitment we face in these people.
And somebody else said, no, I think they jumped the shark when they lit off the nuke in episode four.
And I said, well, I don't know if I don't think they've jumped the shark on this show.
It'd be in 24 by any stretch of the imagination.
But even though this person says, even though he thought that they jumped the shark by lighting off the nuke on episode four, it was still a good thing to show the American people what's possible.
And I wrote back and I said, you know, you're missing the whole point here.
In the first place, the Democrats and the drive-by media have done a bang-up job of convincing a whole slew of Americans there is no war on terror.
9-11 was an isolated episodic event, and it doesn't portend anything.
And a lot of people, we haven't had an attack on this country since 9-11.
That was 2001.
This is 2007.
And we're basically five and a half years away from that attack, approximately.
And a lot of people have wanted to forget it and have been able to forget it because of the lack of an attack and the way that the whole Iraq war is being portrayed by the drive-bys and the Democrats.
People, you know, I think they're looking at 24 now just as a television show.
They're judging it on the base of a television show.
I don't think people are watching 24 right now in the guise of understanding what could happen or what is possible in this country.
But I'm serious, sternly, I do think a lot of people, because they wanted to forget it.
It's traumatic, and we don't show the pictures of it very often.
And you couple that with the way the Democrats and the drive-bys have been talking about the whole business.
We don't been long in Iraq.
It's now our fault that the Brits are saying it's our fault that the Iranians took these 15 hostages.
It's always our fault.
Exactly what I told you Friday.
We're the big guys.
We don't have any excuse for doing what we do.
All of the minorities out there, the smaller nations, they have every reason.
They can break the law.
They can violate Geneva.
They can do whatever they do because they're up against us.
That's the liberal mindset.
Now, we had 19 people flew themselves into buildings with our airplanes and they didn't just cut off their arms, ladies and gentlemen.
They created a burning inferno, brought down two buildings of 220 stories of buildings in a fireball.
It was thousands of degrees.
And people have found a way to forget it.
Now, a little off on a tangent here, but the bottom line is that the Democrats are invested in the concept of obliterating 9-11 from as many memories as possible and convincing as many Americans as possible there's no need for a war on terror.
And in fact, the war on terror is causing Muslims to hate us.
And that if there are any future attacks, it's going to be because of Bush.
That's what's being set up here.
That's why I don't think what the Democrats are engaging in is theatrics.
I don't think that Dingy Harry or Nancy Pelosi, any of these people are engaged in theatrics at all.
We're seeing them as they really are.
They are telling us who they really are.
They're not actors on a stage.
These people are emboldened.
They're feeling confident, all kinds of self-esteem.
They're unabashed in showing us who they really are and what their objectives are.
And we haven't even gotten a Nancy Pelosi in Syria.
We'll do that when we come back.
At the President's Rose Garden press conference today, I got a question from an unidentified reporter said, you've agreed to talk to Syria in the context of the international conferences in Iraq.
What's so different or wrong about Pelosi having her own meetings there?
You worried?
By the way, this was Jennifer Lovin from the Associated Press.
And of course, it's a typical high school clique question.
You jealous of Ms. Pelosi.
What's so different and wrong about her having her own meetings there?
And are you worried that she might be preempting your own efforts?
In other words, a reporter asking, are you worried she might get something done where you failed?
Photo opportunities and/or meetings with President Assad lead the Assad government to believe they're part of the mainstream of the international community.
When, in fact, they're a state sponsor of terror, when in fact they're helping expedite, or at least not stopping, the movement of foreign fighters from Syria into Iraq, when in fact they have done little to nothing to rein in militant Hamas and Hezbollah, and when, in fact, they destabilize the Lebanese democracy.
The position of this administration is that the best way to meet with a leader like Assad or people from Syria is in the larger context of trying to get the global community to help change his behavior.
So the president basically says, well, look, the guy's a state sponsor of terrorists, terrorism, and they're not part of the mainstream of civilized nations.
Going over there treating him like that sends a mixed message.
And what it also does is undermine the U.S. government's approach here.
And make no mistake, that's Pelosi's intent.
Pelosi's intent, along, and she got three Republicans with her over there, folks.
It wasn't hard to find three Republicans that want to try to score points at home in some districts that might have a majority pro-war people or anti-war people.
You never know.
But she's over there trying to undermine the United States.
Now, in her mind, she's trying to undermine George W. Bush.
And in her mind also, she's trying to establish an identity and a career for herself.
Can't take that out of it.
I mean, she's the queen bee.
And, you know, not mentioned here is the reaction that somebody like Hillary Clinton will have to this.
Not sitting well in a lot of places, but you'll never hear that stated publicly.
Yesterday in Lebanon, Pelosi spoke to the press a portion of what she said.
Of course, the role of Syria in Iraq, the role of Syria supporting Hamas and Hezbollah, the role of Syria in so many respects that we think there could be a vast improvement.
So therefore, we think it's a good idea to establish the facts to hopefully build some confidence between us.
We have no illusions, but we have great hope.
Well, goody-goody.
Yeah, let's run the foreign policy of the U.S. on hope.
You are totally delusional, Madam Speaker.
Do you think Basher Assad has the slightest idea of dealing with you as the leader of this country?
You are a pawn, and he recognizes it, and you are being used.
You think you're getting something done for yourself personally, maybe for your party, and then lastly for your country.
You are simply being set up and used.
Basher Assad knows he's never going to have to answer to you.
He's never going to have to deal with you.
You go over there and you permit these people to continue to undermine the United States.
You're just nothing but a useful idiot.
Now, this is not new for the Democrats.
There is a story in the San Francisco Chronicle today.
Pelosi's seen moving around Bush in Mideast.
A bold step.
Analysts call speaker's trip a big deal, but how much can she do?
Her sidekick, Tom Lantos, in this article on page two, says, yeah, he's from San Mateo.
He's chairman of the House Foreign Relations Committee.
He's with Pelosi.
And one Republican lawmaker, this story, says, we have an alternative Democrat foreign policy.
I view my job as beginning with restoring overseas credibility and respect for the United States.
So Pelosi is simply trying to repair the damage that George Bush has caused.
And the Democrats have their alternative foreign policy.
The Speaker of the House has an alternative foreign policy, and she's over there trying to establish it.
Now, as I say, this isn't new.
I don't know how many of you were paying close attention to these kinds of things back in the 80s, but we've talked about this before.
The Contra Wars down in Nicaragua.
It had Daniel Ortega, the Sandinista leader, and he was the beloved dictator.
He's a communist.
He was a puppet of the Soviets at the time, beloved by the American left, went to New York constantly.
I remember a story, went window shopping for some sunglasses with Peter Paul and Mary, well-known folk singers.
I think he actually bought some sunglasses somewhere in New York, walking down the street in Manhattan.
The guy was a constant, he was just a constant visitor, constant favorite.
But we had the Bolin Amendment, and the Reagan administration wanted to fund the opposition, the freedom fighters called the Contras, opposed to the communists.
And the Democrats, who ran the House at the time, would not allow it.
And they passed the Bolin Amendment and led to the Iran-Contra scandal with all the Ollie North stuff.
I don't want to rehash that.
What I want to remind you of is that during this incredibly tense time, numerous Democrats are going down and conducting their own foreign policy with Ortega, several of them.
In fact, after Reagan made a speech one night, the then Speaker of the House, Jim Wright, known affectionately here as Fort Worthless Jim, put together a Dear Commandante letter signed by a bunch of House Democrats.
Jim Jones, who was then from Oklahoma, left the House and went on for a while, ran the American Stock Exchange in Chicago.
But a number of others, George Miller from California, Northern California, a whole bunch of them, since, Dear Comandante, please forgive our president.
Essentially, this is what they said.
Our president's a little bit nuts, and do not mistake his words for the words of the people of this country or your friends, the Democrats and the House of Representatives.
After such a letter, Ortega would flit off to the Soviet Union and come back with another $500 million in funding to keep his revolution going and try to take the country communist.
Everybody was afraid they were trying to establish Soviet beachhead there in Nicaragua, much as they established in Cuba.
And so the Democrats have a long history of sidling up to totalian, totalitarian dictator types, even communist enemies of the United States.
So this is nothing new for the Democrats.
And they were saying about Reagan the same thing they're saying about Bush.
He's a danger.
He's an embarrassment.
He's a clunkhead.
He's a dunce, making our country look bad around the world.
This is horrible.
We have to do something to fix this.
I remember one time when Ortega went to Russia after getting such a support letter for the Democrats, went off to Russia.
After Democrats voted against Contra aid, Ortega flits off to Russia, comes back with the $500 million in aid.
Democrats are embarrassed as hell.
And they sent George Mitchell down there, or George, George Miller, who was still in Congress in Northern California, went down there to lecture Ortega.
Hey, you can't do this.
Don't embarrass us this way.
And it got to the point where I kept asking, what in the world, you guys are supporting a country?
We are not.
We are not supporting.
Well, how would it be any different if you were?
I mean, your votes are the same.
You're voting against anybody who would try to drive them out.
You're voting against freedom fighters.
So Pelosi's trip is no different than the past what Democrats have done.
Sidle up to the enemies of the United States, hold them in great regard, and attempt to undermine the foreign policy of the country when they are not in power to make it.
They cannot, they do not make U.S. foreign policy.
That's not the role of the House.
It is not the role of the Senate.
It's the role of the executive branch.
We'll take a brief time out and be back after this.
Welcome back, folks.
You people watching here on the ditto cam at rushlimbaugh.com may have seen this little polar bear doll sitting here in my microphone boom.
And it is my effort to campaign for the Nobel Peace Prize to indicate that I have compassion and understanding for the plight of the polar bears.
In fact, I'm going out and actually I was given a little polar bear doll here, little red ribbon on it, cute little thing.
And that's some of you wondering what it is.
I don't know if you can see it clearly on your screens at home, but it is a little polar bear doll.
I am Rush Limboy, your highly trained broadcast specialist, and by consensus, the most accurate media figure in America today.
By consensus, I mean that the vast majority of the American people listen to this program.
This program with the largest media audience of its kind.
Therefore, what I say has been endorsed by consensus by virtue of that listenership.
Therefore, I'm the most listened to and the most accurate and therefore a source authority.
Anybody who disagrees is simply a rush denier.
Your phone calls are coming up, 800-282-2882.
First, you got to hear this.
On CNN today, anchor Tony Harris is talking to David Rodham Gergen.
And he says, What are your general thoughts and impressions of what the president had to say this morning at his press conference?
With most administrations in the past, knowing if a showdown was coming, people would start angling for, okay, after the showdown, how do we get together?
How do we sort of compose our differences, reconcile our differences, and go on?
Most presidents you see at this point, when they're as weak as this, become agile.
They begin moving around.
How do I maneuver out of this situation?
How do I maneuver out of this corner?
This president is not trying to do that.
I think you're right on that one.
Well, thank you, Tony.
Tony Harris, the anchor at CNN.
I think you're right about that.
David Rodham Gergen.
Here's the thing, folks.
What is the compromise?
David Rodham Gergen, very, very aghast here that Bush is so confrontational when he's so weak and he's not working on compromise.
Somebody tell me how in the hell do you compromise between defeat and victory?
Where's the middle ground between the two?
The only way I see it is: well, if you want victory, you've got to give up victory, and you've got to compromise with defeat.
And maybe you won't want to go with defeat as soon as the Democrats want it, but maybe what you say is, okay, we'll lose in two years or three instead of next March.
Instead of a year from now, let us lose two.
This is like negotiating on the minimum wage, although the stakes are not as great here.
Defeat and victory.
I don't know where the compromise is, but if you're going to Democrats want three bucks an hour to increase the minimum wage, and a Republican says, well, I'll give you a buck and a half and Democrat.
Okay, deal.
And everybody goes, yay, yay, kumbaya, we got compromise.
We had no compromise.
We have a Republican cave-in when that happens.
You accept the Democrat premise.
Or right here, David Rodham Gergen, everybody else wants Bush to accept the Democrat premise.
That's what they mean by compromise.
Accept defeat.
You're defeated, Mr. President.
You don't have any support.
The American people are against you.
Nobody on Capitol Hill's got your back.
You got to give up.
You've got to admit defeat.
You have to allow the United States to lose this.
That's what the American people want.
I'm so sick and tired of Democrats running around saying the American people want X. American people want.
How do they know what the American people want?
You know, to broad brush stroke this like this is offensive to me.
But anyway, I don't know where the compromise is.
So what Gergen knows this.
Gergen, a relatively smart guy.
They're all advocating and trying to pressure Bush to compromise and admit defeat and secure it so that the Democrats won't get the blame for it.
You can't take that out of the equation.
Let's get some phone calls before we move on to the Mitt Romney situation.
The media, the media is just beside itself.
They cannot understand how in the world some dits, some Mormon like Mitt Romney got so much campaign contribution when he's so down in the polls.
Chris Matthews last night had saliva dribbling down the chin.
Can't figure this out.
Had to conclude, well, he's got to be getting money from rich fat cats out there because he's so low on the polls.
Where is he getting all this money?
Then the drive-by media in the print version here says, He's getting it from the Mormon church.
No, he's not getting money from the Mormon church.
He may be getting money from Mormons, but not from the Mormon Church or the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints out there.
Anywhere, they're beside themselves.
You know, because they've got, they tell themselves stories.
Okay, early, you've heard this.
It's becoming cliche.
I'm sick and tired of it.
The first fundraising totals at the end of the first quarter, March 31st, are the first polls.
And according to that theory, then whoever's down on the poll is not supposed to have much money.
You know who surprised everybody?
It's McCain.
McCain comes in $12.5 million, and the drive-bys are all over him.
Now they're trying to sandbag his report out of Baghdad that he was able to walk around in a security zone all unharmed and so forth.
And the same drive-by media that he considered his base is trying to destroy him.
New York Times and out there found a couple ringers that supposedly run market shops in Baghdad.
Who's he kidding?
I mean, they had an increased security detail.
We're not safe here.
McCain's crazy.
It's all over the place.
McCain's nuts now, and his fundraising is way down.
He's blown it.
The American people don't want to go to war at Iraq anymore, blah, blah, blah.
$1,200 million is paltry compared to others.
McCain says, well, you know, I really don't like asking people for money.
Other people are saying this is what McCain fine gold gets you.
Anyway, the real story, though, with the drive-bys is Mitt Romney.
They just.
Oh, and then Rudy.
Rudy said, leave my wife alone.
Now, this worked for a couple other candidates.
Let's see if it works for Rudy.
No, it's not going to work for Rudy.
In fact, when you get up and say, leave my wife alone, you may as well be painting a target on front and back of her shirt.
Go and attack me, Rudy said.
I welcome it.
I has plenty about me to attack, but leave my wife alone.
Leave her out of it.
You know, if she's going to be with you everywhere on these things, I mean, you're inviting it.
Anyway, all that coming up, I want to grab some phone calls here before we get to his funny audio soundbites on Romney.
This is Mike in Cincinnati.
Nice to have you on the program, sir.
Welcome.
Consensus Dittos from Cincinnati.
Yes, sir.
Appreciate that.
It'd be real interesting to see when Miss Pelosi gets back if she does the responsible thing and trots up to the White House and reports her talks all over the Middle East through the president like she should, even though she was asked not to go.
Or do you think there is some space reserved in the Washington Post or the New York Times for a Joe Wilson-like op-ed?
Yeah, I don't think Bush would even see her if she wanted to go up there.
I hope not.
He'd probably farm her off to Karl Rove or Josh Bolton.
I don't think he would see her.
I don't think he would think what she has to say is important.
I would hope that.
I would hope that would be the case.
We can expect all kinds of op-eds.
We can expect media fawning.
It's going to be like the Queen returning home.
He'll roll out the red carpet.
Oh, it'll be huge.
It'll be huge.
Anybody that has the guts to stand up and try to publicly humiliate Bush will be loved and adored by the D.C. drive-by crew and half the others that live there as well.
So I'd look for an op, maybe a nationally televised press conference on that one.
I wouldn't put it past.
There are a lot of people that suffer delusions in that town.
She actually thinks that she was elected to a position far more powerful than the Speaker of the House.
Hershey, Pennsylvania, Glenn, thanks for calling.
You're next on the program.
Great to have you with us.
Thank you, Rush.
Hey, isn't it unconstitutional for Pelosi to be running her own foreign policy?
As a matter of fact, any of the Democrats that go over there to tour the area try to whip up support for their premise, isn't that operating their own foreign policy?
I don't know if it's unconstitutional.
I don't think it might be.
That'd be a stretch.
It's to me a far more real-world violation, and that is respect and common sense.
This is clearly an effort to undermine not just President Bush, but the entire United States foreign policy.
And don't forget the premise.
It's based on the premise the world hates it.
It's based on the premise that people like Bashur Assad are genuinely nice guys.
And Hezbollah and these people are generally nice guys.
It's just that we make them who they are.
We support Israel.
We provoke them.
We're out there killing Muslims and so forth.
It's our fault.
So Pelosi and her gang want to go over there, try to show Basher Assad, we're not bad people.
You can work with us.
Do what you can to get us elected in 2008.
And we'll do what we can here to demand fences because we know you're not a bad guy.
Being an idiot, being a sap, being suffering delusions of grandeur are all not unconstitutional.
If they were, half the people in Washington would be in jail.
Understood.
All right.
Thanks for the call.
Pat Chicago, Illinois, on WLS.
Welcome to the EIB Network.
Oh, Megadittos, Rush.
I'm for Klump.
This just makes my day.
Well, appreciate that.
Thanks for the call.
My point is that I was thinking about how much the Al-Qaeda and Democrats have in common when the Democrats tenacially pursue the Republican dé jour, this one being Gonzalez, and the Al-Qaeda are tenacious enough to keep going until the Democrats pull us out.
Well, now some people are going to blanch at a comparison of Pelosi and the Democrats to Al-Qaeda.
Yeah, well.
Well, the Democrats haven't blown up any buildings yet.
Some of their supporters did in the 60s.
But they haven't done any of that.
Well, just their tenacity, just their, you know, stuff that just doesn't make any sense.
I'm going after Gonzalez for nothing.
No, no, that makes total sense if you understand who they are.
It makes total sense.
This is, you know, I'm up against it on time here, coming up to the next break.
But ever since Watergate, the Democrats' lesson that they think they learned is that the route to power is via scandal in the Republican Party, creating it as often as possible, lying about it if necessary, creating in the minds of as many Americans as possible Republican administrations, individuals who are corrupt, and do that rather than run on the things they actually believe, which they didn't do in November.
They ran that trick again, just as they have frequently, and they tried it constantly since Watergate.
But, you know, one thing you said, they are tenacious.
These are people.
Here's the best way I can describe this.
You and I, we go to work every day and we finish work, and most of us try to leave work at the office as much as possible and have other things going on in life.
Our kids, well, your kids, I have none, and your grandkids, or whatever.
You try to, I know work takes a lot of time, and some people don't get away from it as much as they would like, but you still try.
Most people are not scheming 24-7 about personal advancement or whatever.
There's a balance.
Now, the Democrat and the Republicans are the same way.
I'm convinced.
In Washington, these people are pit bulls, the Democrats.
24-7, they are plotting.
They are coordinating.
Your word was tenacious.
They know they have the drive-by media as willing accomplices, so there's a lot of coordination.
If not implicit, then it's not direct, it's implicit.
And they are constantly, when they leave Capitol, they go home, they have meetings, they go to the bar, they go wherever, and they plot the next day's strategy, and they plot the day after that, and they plot the week, and they plot the year.
And they have meetings with people who advise them on the right words to you.
Republicans go home and whatever they do.
It's a different mindset.
The reason for it is that Democrats and liberals require for anything they want to happen to have an iron-fisted control of government.
It is their dream.
It is their passion to wholly control and run the government.
Republicans have no such dream.
The thing they want to do with government is limit it and restrain it.
They don't want to populate it and become part of the bureaucracy.
And that's one of the differences.
That's the tenacity that you're talking about.
It's their lives.
Everything they do is oriented toward gaining and holding and amassing their power.
And their strategy for accomplishing that is to destroy as many Republicans as possible, not just defeat them.
We'll be right back.
Stay where you are.
Our hero, Vice President Dick Cheney, yesterday, Birmingham, Alabama.
And when you listen to this, see if you can find something in here that what's the way to put this?
Well, the Vice President's making an incorrect assumption.
It's time the self-appointed strategist on Capitol Hill understood a very simple concept.
You cannot win a war if you tell the enemy when you're going to quit.
The fact is that the United States military answers to one commander-in-chief in the White House, not 535 commanders-in-chief on Capitol Hill.
All right, now, what's the flaw in what the vice president just said?
I'll tell you what it is: you cannot win a war if you tell the enemy when you're going to quit.
The flaw is his assumption that Democrats want to win the war.
They don't want to win.
Folks, if they cared about winning the war, they wouldn't be doing any of what they're doing.
Now, I know what the vice president is trying to do.
He's not actually talking to the Democrats here.
He's speaking to his audience and whoever else happens to hear his remarks.
And in that sense, it's a brilliant state.
You can't win a war when you tell people you're going to quit.
He is calling the Democrats quitters.
And he's making no bones about it.
They own defeat, calling them quitters.
And that's actually a good, very simple word to convey to the American people about the Democrats and their objectives here.
Ron and Houston, thanks for calling.
You're next on the EIB network, sir.
Hello.
Omega Ditto's mighty one.
Hey, the reason I called, this has been a point of frustration for about the last three months right now.
How long is everybody going to forget how many times the Democrats have tried to give away everything this country's done?
And I'm to the point now, I'd like to offer up the money to basically put most of the Democratic Party on riddling because they're becoming an out-of-the-control reality program.
In fact, they may be the basis for the original reality programs out there.
Can you explain to me how they keep getting away with the junk they're putting out there?
And they do it over and over and over again.
I watched it during Reagan and when the huge threat of the Soviet Union was out there, you know, we basically dispeled the fact that the Soviet Union was basically kind of a rusty bucket ready to fall over.
But until the day it happened, Reagan was looked at as a fool.
I'm not particularly a big fan of George Bush, but George Bush can get the job done.
Let him be president.
I'm sorry.
I want to just scream right now.
If I understood everything you're saying and your call is a little distorted, you're wondering how in the world do people keep falling for the same Democrat trick?
It's the same thing over and over and over again.
I'm an ex-Navy officer.
I spent a lot of time out on USS aircraft carriers.
I spent a lot of time watching situations that I'm sitting there watching what's going on, and I'm listening to what the media is putting back out in the States, and there's no correlation.
Well, I explained this.
Look, there's so many factors in this answer.
In the first place, the public education system.
Young skulls full of mush have grown up not learning about history.
They've grown up being told that Bill Clinton was a great president, Abe Lincoln's worth one paragraph.
They've, in many cases, grown up and been told that the white settlers of this country, the original settlers, were racist, sexists, bigots, homophobes.
They've been inculcated with conflict resolution that tells them that we're the problem and we have to cave and give up.
We also have a bunch of people here in a nation of prosperity and vast affluence who don't have to pay attention to these uncomfortable things if they don't want to, and they don't have to, quote, sacrifice.
And as such, when the Democrats and the media in concert convince them there's no problem, something they'd like to hear, and so they believe it.
Back in a sec.
Up next, we'll take a look at Mitt Romney being savaged for how much money he is raising and from where and whom, despite being so low on the polls.
The drive-bys just don't think this possible.
Sit tight.
▲
Export Selection