All Episodes
Previous Next
Dec. 5, 2007 - Rush Limbaugh Program
36:09
December 5, 2007, Wednesday, Hour #2
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
And greetings to you, music lovers and thrill seekers, conversationalists all across the fruited plain, the award-winning Thrill Pact, ever exciting, increasingly popular, growing by leaps, and bounds, profoundly influential Rush Limbaugh program here on the Excellence in Broadcasting Network.
Great to have you with us.
Telephone number is 800-282-2882, and the email address is rush at EIBnet.com.
One more thing about this, and I'm going to move on to other things.
We supposedly now, because of this NIE report that came out on Monday, the key judgment, we supposedly find out here in 2007 that the Iranians halted the development of a nuclear weapons program in 2003.
We find out four years after the fact, in 2005, there was another intelligence report, not an NIE report, which states just the opposite of this.
Two years ago, we knew what we thought we know now.
Now, here's the question.
Do we find out, say in 2009, that they actually developed a bomb when another NIE report is issued in 2011?
We are four years behind times here with this report, is my point.
Four years.
And isn't it interesting how the Democrats all accept this as infallible?
When the intelligence says what they want it to say, it's believable.
When it doesn't say what they want it to say, it's suspect and it's been cooked.
Remember, Bush and Cheney cooked the intelligence to go into Iraq?
Now this couldn't possibly have been cooked because, no, this is exactly what the Liberal Democrats want.
So when are we going to learn that they have reconstituted Irbram?
How many years after the fact are we going to learn it?
We need a report.
Maybe a test boom that alerts us.
They're doing all this stuff way underground.
And there's a way to assuage fears on this.
South Africa ended its nuclear program, and they did it publicly.
They even offered advice to Saddam Hussein on how to do it to the satisfaction of the world.
Muamar Qaddafi did the same thing.
There was no doubt the IAEA, good old Mohammed Al-Baradai, is still being denied access and not given complete answers to their questions.
This is in a New York Times piece today.
So we are to accept the word of three State Department people, one of them with a grudge on Iran and not being listened to by the Bush administration.
North Korea is supposedly doing it now too, dismantling their nuclear program, and that's being done under some watchdog eyes.
But the Iranians are not being forced to do this.
We're just supposed to accept the report from these three State Department peoples, one of them, obviously with a grudge.
And then Mahmood could go out and claim victory.
And we're supposed to go, oh, Kumba, yeah, this is so wonderful.
The world is faith again, Mithril Limbaugh.
The faith world hath come throth upon us despite President Bush's war-mongering tenthief.
How do we know?
We're going to accept what's in this report as varied and inaccurate as intelligence has been in this country in the last 10 or 12 years.
There's a way to do this, and Mahmood will not answer any questions, and Mahmood will not let anybody in there to see.
In fact, Mahmood is out saying that they're doing it.
Now the report comes out and says they're not doing it, says, see, I'm not doing it.
Now, I'm not trying to scare anybody about this.
This is not the point.
I'm not fear-mongering or anything of the anything of the sort.
And I'm going to tell you this.
If, capital I, capital F, if We find out that this has all been trumped up by these three State Department people with grudges, one of them with a grudge.
I hope it is made public.
Well, it'll have to be if we find out this is bogus.
I'm reminded of the very brave and courageous State Department officials who refused postings to a new embassy in Baghdad.
Well, we're not going over there.
Well, what about our kids?
Well, it's a war zone.
We're not going over there.
This guy was trumped.
I'm making a big deal.
Where's this guy today?
Somebody got this guy off the front pages.
One of the reasons why is they came up with some volunteers to fill the posts.
But the original people who were assigned, many of them, I think it was 16, refused to go.
Well, it's a war zone.
Wait a minute.
State Department, you're all about diplomacy.
You're all about solving these kinds of crises with words and doctors and nurses and clean water and foreign aid.
Go over there and show us how it's done.
Now, all of a sudden, we have diffused the Iranian nuclear program with a report.
This doesn't pass the smell test.
There's nothing about this that passes the smell test.
Ladies and gentlemen, and I'm just, look, what I always do is follow my instincts and my intelligence guided by experience.
Not what I hope is the case, not what I wish happens, but something doesn't sound right, doesn't smell right here.
And it's troubling to me because it's a very, very serious consequence we're dealing with if this thing turns out to be wrong.
Presidential politics, let's go to the audio soundbites.
Last night on Charlie Rose's show on PBS, former Senator Fred Thompson is the guest.
Charlie Rose says, you constantly say in this campaign that you're a conservative.
What does that mean today?
It means things that are consistent with God's design for man.
It's consistent with human nature.
It's consistent with the lessons of history and the lessons of the ages.
They found form in the Constitution, I think, and what our founding fathers believe.
They understand that man can do great and wonderful things, but man is prone to err and sometimes do terrible things, that too much power in too few hands is a dangerous thing, that power is a corrupting thing.
In all of that, you didn't mention abortion, gay rights, all things that have been part of recent presidential elections.
Those, well, you're talking about different things there.
Those are issues that are before us, which derive from principles.
Now, this is just fabulous to me.
This is just great.
Here, Charlie Rose asks Fred Tom, well, what is a conservative today anyway?
And so Fred gives his definition of a conservative, and Charlie says, well, wait a minute.
I didn't hear anything about abortion or gay rights, all the things that have been part Of recent presidential elections.
Here's how Fred answered that, because Charlie Rose came back and said, principles.
What do you mean, principles?
Principles are what guides you in coming to positions with regard to issues.
You know, the Declaration of Independence said that our basic rights come from God, not from man.
The founders talked about, you know, life and liberty and the importance of that, and that everything is based on those basic principles.
And I take those principles.
And, you know, for example, I come to a pro-life conclusion there.
And when we had issues, you know, for eight years when I was in the United States Senate about whether or not the federal government should be funding, for example, abortion-related activities and things of that nature, you know, the application of those principles in that instance told me the answer was no properly.
I guarantee you, Charlie Rose is clueless here.
None of this, this is, he's maybe listening to, you know, Mongolese as Fred Thompson's going through all this.
You just, sometimes you have to laugh at these poor clichéd liberals who just live in the most closeted, cocooned world while thinking they are the most worldly and erudite among us.
How about this headline?
Romney fires landscapers for illegals.
Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney on Tuesday fired a landscaping company for using illegal immigrants to work on his lawn a week after a tussle with rival Rudy Giuliani over this issue.
You know what struck me about this?
You know what struck me about this?
Not that he fired the illegals, it's that they used the word illegal in the headline.
This is a Reuters story.
Romney fires landscapers for illegals.
Now, if this had been a Democrat, and if the story had even been written, the headline would have been, Democrat presidential candidate fires undocumented workers would never use the word.
When is the last time you saw the drive-bys use illegal?
They don't do it except now when they can tie it to a Republican, Mitt Romney.
We'll be back after this.
Don't go away.
By the way, I forgot to tell you something funny about the Mitt Romney situation.
The drive-bys actually went to Romney's place and they started talking to the employees of the landscape company.
And they say, how did you guys get here?
And these employees say, oh, we came in with a coyote men.
They pretty much just admitted they were illegals.
Drive-by goes, whoa, look at that.
Now, Romney hired the landscape company.
He did not hire the illegals per se.
You know, I don't know how many of you people hire landscape companies or painters or what have you.
Do you ask them if anybody, if everybody on their payroll is legit?
And if you did ask them, do you expect them to be honest with you and so forth?
So it's, this is just, it's just sort of the drive-bys go to Romney's place.
And these guys on the cruise, oh, yeah, we came in with the coyotes.
However, they got here that they admitted that they were illegal.
Listen to this.
This is Joe Biden.
Last night with Chris Matthews on Hard Boiled, Matthews says, why did we invade Iraq, Senator Biden?
Why were we threatening World War III with Iran?
Why did this administration, Cheney, and a president, keep pushing the war?
Why do they always want to fight or scare somebody?
What is it about if it's not weapons?
I can't prove it.
I think it's about our ability to try to dominate that region of the world and control oil.
The only thing I can fit together with Cheney and his gang is that they went to war.
They're smarter than they are acting.
They're smarter than they're acting.
They went to war in the hope that they would be able to do two things.
One, have a government that sat on a whole bunch of oil that still exists in the world that would be indebted to us.
Two, have permanent military bases in Iraq to dominate that part of the world to be able to control oil.
Not to go steal it for American oil companies, but to be able to control the price and control the access of it.
A very Machiavellian view.
You know, I have multiple reactions to this.
He's very deft here for Senator Biden.
Starts out, says he can't prove it.
He says, I don't think they're trying to get the oil for big oil.
Can I give you a real simple reality?
And it may be controversial, but it's inarguable.
This is a world that runs on fossil fuels, folks.
And it's going to run on fossil fuels long after you and I and your grandkids are dead.
It is going to run on fossil fuel.
Look at you're not wind, solar, all it's pipe dream stuff as we sit here and speak now.
Would somebody explain to me what is so immoral about the leaders of this country attempting to maintain a supply and access to the fossil fuel that runs the world and runs our economy?
It is the fuel.
I'm not suggesting Biden is right.
What I'm suggesting here is that even if a part of all of this strategy here is to maintain the free flow of oil at market prices, what in the name of Sam Hill is wrong with that?
What's the crime?
Where's the immorality in it?
What's wrong with having a friendly nation in the Middle East allied with us?
What's wrong with this?
Biden says all of this as though he's indicting Cheney and Bush as criminals over oil.
Now, I know this kind of thing plays well with these nut bins that make up the Democrat Party base.
But I ask you as just a serious question of human being to human being, what in the world is so immoral or wrong or irresponsible about trying to maintain the free flow of oil at market prices for the purposes of the U.S. economy and its growth?
That's jobs, that's people's lifestyles, that's people's lives.
What is so wrong with this?
I am not conceding that's what this was all about.
I'm only reacting to Biden and his attitude here that somehow a nation that thrives and lives and depends on and requires the free flow of oil at market prices is somehow criminally disposed if it seeks to maintain the free flow of oil at market prices.
Hell's bells, folks.
Somebody's got to do something to protect us from liberals and Democrats.
We can't drill for our own oil in Alaska.
We can't drill for it in the Gulf.
All the Chikoms and the Cubans and the Mexicans are and the Brazilians are, but we can't.
We can't open our capped wells that were capped back in the 80s and get that flow.
We can't do that.
We can't use our own.
Where are we going to get it?
This attitude that these Democrats, I mean, it's like I said yesterday.
We get up every day, come in here, and what this job has become in large measure is defending this country against these people and their screwball ideas.
You know, Senator Biden takes a train home to Delaware every day.
He doesn't have a place in Washington when he has to stay chums with somebody.
What does he think his Amtrak train runs on?
What does he think the lights and the air conditioning in his Senate office run of, the restaurants that he goes out to?
What does he think powers all of this?
This is just, this is the height of irresponsibility, this answer about oil.
He's trying to indict Bush and Cheney is only caring about that.
The rest of this was just a sideshow.
They actually want to get their hands on the world's oil supply or the Middle East's oil supply.
Somebody has to do something to get around the obstacles posed to growth and freedom in this country by liberal Democrats and the Democrat Party in general today.
Here is Steve in Saginaw, Michigan.
Steve, I'm glad you called.
Welcome to the EIB Network.
Hello.
Hey, Rush, Merry Christmas.
I got one question.
Why don't we let neighbors around Iran worry about the nukes they may or may not have?
If they have more to lose than we ever thought of having to lose, it's their oil field that they're going to lose.
That's if they don't have the ability to get it out of range of their, you know, the real tight neighborhood.
I mean, we could implement Star Wars and protect ourselves.
Who gives a crap about them and their oil?
Merry Christmas, though.
Who gives a crap about them and their oil?
Well, I mean, I want their oil, sure, but I mean, we worry about Ahmedinejad so much.
Why?
Who cares?
Well, it's a neighborhood.
It's the neighborhood that's going to get damaged more than we are.
I understand nuclear is not a good thing, but give me a break.
We protect our own borders, which Europe doesn't want to do.
But anyway.
Are you going to vote next November?
Oh, hell yeah.
Oh, no.
Why?
Oh, no.
Is that bad?
It's that bad.
Oh, my God.
It's that bad.
Have you ever heard of the concept of leadership?
Of what?
Have you heard of the concept, and do you understand the concept of leadership?
Leadership.
Leadership, yeah.
So the Saudis don't have any right.
They don't need to take control of their own little neck of the woods.
We got to do it for them.
We got to police their world.
Did you just, you were on hold.
Did you hear what I just had to say about the importance and relevance of oil to this?
No, I didn't.
I didn't.
But I did.
I know we do have to have oil.
I know that.
I'm not stupid.
Come on, Rush.
Then you need to open your eyes.
Why?
Because the Saudis cannot, they do not have an army.
They do not.
They can buy one.
The Iranians do.
That's not.
Can't they buy one?
The Iranians are slowly and surely surrounding them.
Have you heard about Hezbollah?
Have you heard about Hamad?
Have you heard of them?
They got more money than they're doing.
Guess who is funding them?
Guess who?
You know, the United Arab Emirates don't have a military.
Okay.
But it's more than that.
We're the United States of America.
We are the lone superpower of the world.
The things that are being discussed here regarding Iran have to do with our self-interest, our own national security, and protecting the free flow of oil at market prices is clearly in the top 10 of U.S. national security, maybe in the top five, and it may be even number one.
And as the leader of the, we cannot farm out our national security.
We cannot farm out our national interest to others who have really no interest in ours because they know we can take care of ourselves.
I really don't understand the idea.
Let them handle it.
Let them take care of their own.
We're talking nuclear here.
If Iran gets hold of, say, the Saudi oil supply and its own, you want to live in that world.
I'm getting so many emails from people.
Look, Rush, you know what you're talking about.
Shake it all over is not by the guess who, it's by the who.
No, it's the guess who.
Look, I am the former top 40 DJ, my friends.
I know this.
They covered this in 1965.
They were chips, something or other in the Excel series back there, but they were the guess who.
And in fact, the guess who is all excited.
I've added their song to the bumper rotation.
I got an autographed picture of the band.
I got two CDs with the song on it.
It's the guess who.
Don't doubt me.
Yeah, it came FedEx yesterday.
Brian brought it.
I didn't even know what it was.
Well, that's because you didn't open it.
I understand that.
And I didn't tell anybody until just now, but it's right over there.
Nice little letter from their agent up in Minnesota thanking me for adding a tune to the bumper rotation here at the EIB network.
One thing about this last caller that we had, what was his name, Mr. Sterley?
Do you remember?
I don't want to be disrespectful and we didn't write it down.
But this is not an Stephen Saginaw, Michigan.
This is not a neighborhood problem over there.
I think that's the thing people can't get their arms around here.
This is not a neighborhood problem.
I understand.
A little knowledge is okay, but you know what the biggest problem, it has a huge cost.
I'm not making a joke here.
Ignorance is the most expensive thing this country pays for.
Ignorance is what allows this global warming hoax to be believed by a bunch of people who simply are ignorant.
I'm not saying stupid.
They just don't know.
And yet they think they do.
It's like the example from yesterday.
In the last 50 years, CO2 levels in the atmosphere are up.
So are global temperatures.
Ah, well, see, CO2 is causing.
We don't know this.
We can't prove it.
It has yet to be established.
And yet, people believe it because in a linear way, it makes sense.
But it's total ignorance that allows the belief to happen.
Same thing here with the situation in the Middle East, be it Iraq, be it Iran, be it al-Qaeda, be it the war on terror free flow of oil at market prices.
Let them handle it.
It's not our problem.
It's ignorance.
And we pay a huge price for this.
The biggest price we pay for ignorance is electing so damn many Democrats, which is one of the biggest obstacles to progress and success in this country for the individual human being that I have ever encountered.
It is ignorance.
Devotion to ignorance.
Bliss, blissful ignorance.
Is the only explanation for the election of Democrats?
If people actually sat down and thought about this and learned what the differences in the two ideologies are, conservatism and liberalism.
See, liberalism didn't even think about it because it's all feelings.
It's the most gutless choice you can make.
All you have to do is be a liberal and you're a good person and you care and you have tolerance.
All this rock gut that's not even true.
It's just easy.
And your ignorance allows you to believe a hoax.
It allows you to believe a bunch of propaganda.
Ignorance, the most expensive thing we pay for in the United States.
Here's Pat in Houston, Texas.
Pat, welcome to the EIB Network, sir.
Nice to have you with us.
Meghadittos, longtime listener, a second time caller.
Thank you, sir.
I was a former CIA case officer, and I worked on two NIEs in the past, both of them on the Middle East.
Wait a second.
Can I ask you a question?
Yes.
You know, anybody, don't take this personally.
Please don't.
Anybody can call a radio show and say anything.
And I just want to establish, I didn't think former CIA people could talk about it.
Yeah, I can.
I've been gone for a number of years.
And you can't talk about specific actions, sources, methods, but you can generally acknowledge the agency.
Okay, you can acknowledge you were there.
Okay, proceed.
Thank you.
Okay, the NIEs are really tough pieces.
They are, by design, low-level classification releases of information.
And the material that goes in is classified on a low level.
It's confidential or secret.
So it really is this garbage in garbage out.
The actionable intelligence that's real-time of value has a much higher classification.
So, for example, anything that the NSA does is top-secret in code word.
By that nature, it can't be revealed or utilized or discussed for an ENIE estimate.
On the CIA's material, a lot of the agent material that you would get, the raw intelligence, would carry much higher classification than can be used in a national intelligence estimate.
So they are, by design, mostly INR, State Department, INR material.
Why not?
Because the text of the NIE is never made public.
The only people who can see it are intelligence committee members, the House and Senate.
The key judgment, the little summary that we got on Monday is made public, but none of the reasoning and none of the evidence or the intelligence that led to this key judgment will ever be known.
It can't be.
In the ENIE that has been released, there are a number of versions of this.
There is a top-secret classified version which will differ from the one that's been made public because it has real-time intelligence.
It has the protecting sources of methods.
So when you get to a very low-level classified release like this one was, it is dated material.
It is material that is acquired through less than sophisticated means.
So by design, it's a puff piece.
All right, let me ask you a question.
Hypothetical question, but this happens.
We will get a government report on jobs or a government report of the economy.
And then a month later, we'll get the revised version, and we'll find that economic growth was higher than the original release.
Jobs, many things of this nature.
Is it possible that in the coming days or weeks, when people have read this whole thing, that they might say, you know what, that was a premature conclusion that the full report doesn't actually say they gave up their program in 2003.
That was just in the key judgment, the little release.
Is it possible this thing's going to get reversed once somebody sees the whole thing?
Yes.
Because in those key judgment releases, it doesn't say that they restarted the program in 2005 or they restarted it in 2006 or that the Iranian Ministry of Defense is having shipments from Pakistan as we speak or from China.
That is so highly classified, it would not be in the NIE, but there will be reports delivered to the people with those security clearances that will identify precisely what's going on.
Is it troubling to you as a former spook that only now in 2007 are we figuring out that they supposedly shut down the nuclear weapons program in 2003 four years ago?
I wouldn't believe it.
I would believe that some State Department cocktail conversation came out where a Jordanian ambassador spoke to some State Department person in Amman Jordan and said that, and that got created into a legend, and that would be the result of a State Department key judgment.
I'm just saying that there's a lot of intelligence, raw actual intelligence, that never sees the light of day to an NIE.
However, there are lots of reports that are delivered to the top policymakers that are highly classified, that have a lot more accuracy, Tom.
Well, the problem with this is that it's been released, and now everybody believes that the nuclear program in Iran has been shut down, and people who are saying this ties the president's hands on increased tightening sanctions, future military action are exactly right.
So if that was the purpose, if there was a political purpose behind this key judgment released on Monday, then it's been successful.
Because even now, two weeks from now, if something changes, who's going to hear about it?
This is just, I don't know, doesn't pass smell tests to me.
And to listen now to the Democrats go wailing and just cheering this and so forth is doubly troubling to me because they're not even looking at the substance of the issue.
Pat, I appreciate the phone call.
I got to take a brief time out here, folks.
Much more straight ahead.
Stay with us.
In the EIB bumper music rotation.
What do you make of this, folks?
Chinese military has added mobile showers to its ever more sophisticated military arsenal.
State media reported today the camouflaged shower vehicle can be set up in five minutes, allows 20 men to shower simultaneously within a narrow 10 square meter, that's 108 square feet, space.
The introduction of the shower vehicle means that China's men and women in uniform can now get a hot shower once a week while out in the field.
China's military budget set to rise 17.8% this year, triggering fears abroad about how the rising Asian power plans to spend the money.
What do you mean?
How do they plan to spend the money?
If the military budget's going up 17.8%, they're going to spend it on military things.
The CHI-COMs.
That's why this Middle East thing is not a neighborhood problem.
These people are gearing up for something, even if it's just defense.
They obviously think they may need to defend themselves for some reason.
This, the United States of America, my friends, is a great country at serious risk in a dangerous world.
And it always has been.
Here's something.
This is a campaign trail here.
The 16,000-member New Hampshire affiliate of the National Education Association, that is the Teachers Union, has chosen to recommend to its members Mike Huckabee in the Republican primary and Hillary Clinton.
I'm not joking.
In Hillary Clinton in the Democrat primary, according to a source within the New Hampshire NEA, it is the first time the state affiliate has picked a candidate in the GOP primary, and it follows Huckabee's showing as the only Republican who spoke to the NEA convention in July.
So the New Hampshire NEA branch, the Teachers Union branch, endorsing Huckabee on the Republican side and Hillary on the Democrat side.
Wash your mouth out with that.
Kim in Williamsburg, Pennsylvania.
Welcome to the EIB network.
Hello.
Kudos, Rush.
Honor.
One question about this NIE.
What does this do to Israel?
If the Mossad sees something going on in Iran, aren't they just hamstrung?
Aren't they just...
No.
I mean, how can they...
The world is going to come down on them like a ton of bricks.
Did the world come down on them like a ton of bricks when I blew up a nuclear plant in Syria not long ago?
No, but there hadn't been an NIE about Syria.
It doesn't matter.
Doesn't matter.
No, the thing about that incident was that the Saudis, none of the Arab world issued a peep.
None of them said a word about it, and nobody knew it.
The Saudis didn't know about it.
The Israelis knew about it.
We might have.
And they went in there and they blew the thing to smithereens.
And I guarantee you, old Basher Assad and Mahmoud Ahmadinezad had to be scared and witless because the Israelis were able to penetrate radar.
They got in and out of there before the Syrians knew they'd been hit.
None of the Russian radar worked, none of the detection systems that they got from the Russians worked.
The Israelis were able to get in there stealthily.
Well, I hope you're right, but I just hope Israel doesn't think that way.
I hope they don't do or not do that.
Israel is not going to act indiscriminately or without provocation.
But they are not.
Look, Israel is, they've got to be, somebody over there in their government has to be looking at what's happening here this week with the NIE and saying, we're stranded again.
It's going to be up to us.
And believe me, they are not going to allow themselves to be bombed off the earth or marched into the Mediterranean Sea because of an NIE report.
If they've got evidence that Iran's building up nukes and is planning to use them, they're not going to wait.
They'll answer the questions later, but they're going to save themselves.
They're going to preserve their nation.
And they're going to send a message to anybody else who might try it at the same time.
All righty.
I feel better.
You should.
Thanks.
You bet.
Here's Stacey in Chicago.
You're next in the EIB network.
Hello.
Hello, Rush.
How are you doing today?
I'm fine.
Never better.
Oh, that's great.
Well, actually, I have been better, but it's marginal.
My question was about actually about Mike Huckabee.
And it's basically, I'm really interested in finding out if Mike Huckabee wins the primary.
Yes.
Do you think that he can beat Hillary on the subject of domestic and foreign issues?
If she wins the nomination.
I would hope so.
Because I remember you saying before that if Hillary wins, she's going to get beat by, you know, I mean, she, you know, bring her on.
She's got very high negatives.
Her negatives are up to 50%.
Since you brought this up, let me, there's a new Zogby poll out, came out this morning.
And basically, the numbers for people, the Republican and Democrat side, haven't changed.
Democrat numbers in Iowa are very stable.
They haven't changed much in a year.
It looks like in the Zogby poll, it looks like Hillary's got not much to worry about in Iowa, but there are other polls out there that Barack's pull ahead of her.
These polls are, they are what they are when it comes to the horse race aspect.
But there's something fascinating in the Zogby poll.
And it is this.
Voters on both sides, Republican and Democrat voters, are mad as hell.
They say they are with the political system.
And we're talking huge numbers here.
81% of Democrats, 75% of Republicans are mad as hell at the political system in the Zogbi poll, which means that it's wide open for the right person who can communicate real ideas in a way that can be understood and appreciated.
And what's fascinating about this to me is that this poll comes out, says that people are fed up.
By the way, most of the anger is directed at Congress in the Zogbi poll, but the anger is very thoroughly encompass the entire political system.
And people are tired of the negative ads.
They're fed up with the most interesting thing is the mindset of the voter.
They're angry and they're in no mood for politics as usual.
And that means negative ads, negative politics.
And the Zogby people think that any really nasty campaign attacks that go on are going to hurt the attacker more than the attacked.
Now, what's interesting is this poll comes out with this data the same week that Mrs. Clinton promises to ratchet up the attacks on Obama.
And her negatives have gone up in this.
She's like at 50%.
Maybe that's the Rasmussen poll.
One of these polls I've got here today, her negatives are now up to 50 from 44 in whatever the poll is.
There's so many of them today, I'm confused as to which one.
But it may explain why Obama is so low-key.
He's actually somewhat lifeless here, but he's certainly not exchanging in the mud toss that is going on.
It's going to be interesting to see if this data, these data are correct.
Back here in just a minute.
All right, we got audio soundbites of the NPR Radio Democrat debate yesterday coming up with other exciting polling data out there and analysis.
Fastest three hours in media already two-thirds completed.
Can't wait for the next one to start.
▲
Export Selection