All Episodes
Previous Next
June 5, 2008 - Rush Limbaugh Program
36:40
June 5, 2008, Thursday, Hour #1
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Welcome to today's edition of the Rush 24-7 podcast.
Let's see.
This is not the Jeremiah Wright that I knew.
This is not the Tony Rezco I knew.
No, I'm just saying that Rezco's back.
Rezco guilty yesterday to get enabled Obama to buy his house in a cheap.
He's known, just like Jerry Wright.
Obama's known Rezco for 20 years, but this is not the Rezco he knew.
And now he says we need reform.
Now we need reform, which is exactly what Bill Clinton said, if you'll recall, when it was discovered he was taking all kinds of money from the Chikoms.
We need reform.
Greetings, my friends.
Welcome.
Rush Limbaugh here, raring and ready to go, revved up behind the golden EIB microphone at the Limbaugh Institute for Advanced Conservative Studies.
Television numbers 800-282-2882, the email address lrushbo at eibnet.com.
Retailers report that May's spending results were above expectations.
Yet again, consumers stepped up their shopping in May after tax rebate checks began hitting their mailboxes, giving many of the nation's retailers stronger than expected sales for the month of May.
Still, there were signs that many people are still focusing on necessities such as food and gas, which is the first time, by the way, in American history that people have focused on necessities like food and gas.
And we thank the Associated Press for pointing this out.
But still, there were signs that many people are still focusing on necessities such as food and gas.
Discount and lower-priced stores like Costco and Walmart were among the strongest performers benefiting from a blip up in sales as consumers spent some of their rebate money.
How do they know it was rebate money?
I've read a story that most of these people are banking their rebate money.
How do they know it's the rebate money that people are spending?
At any rate, the news is positive.
It doesn't jibe with all the talk about recession and so forth.
Get this.
This is a story in the Denver Post today.
They're out of money at the Democrat National Committee in their convention.
They have a host committee out there in Denver.
And the host committee was responsible for raising $40.6 million in private cash donations by June 16th.
And they spend the money for things like transforming the Pepsi Center into a convention hall, media facilities in and outside the hall, and hosting all of the parties.
However, the Denver Host Committee had banked only $25 million by the end of May.
So they're, what, $15 million short.
So guess who's coming to the rescue?
A charity is coming.
They're going to wipe out all of the parties that normally take place.
They're going to do one huge greeting party at the Denver Convention Center, the Colorado Convention Center, where all the delegates arrive.
They have 56 state delegations.
So they're going to have one giant bash at the Colorado Convention Center.
And you know who's paying for this?
A charity called Friends of New Orleans.
Do you know what the Friends of New Orleans charity does?
It is a charity formed to help New Orleans recover from the devastation of Hurricane Katrina.
They are paying for the big party and for a concert with New Orleans-style food at the Fillmore Auditorium afterward for the 6,000 delegates and their guests on August 24th.
This is the Sunday before the convention opens.
Now, traditionally, a convention city stages several parties to welcome the state delegations.
Through the protacted Democrat primary season, the Denver Host Committee has been struggling to meet its fundraising obligations.
And so they're not going to be able to do all of the parties that they had planned to do.
Now, would somebody, maybe there's something I'm missing here.
You know, I don't want to jump to conclusions.
But you have a city, New Orleans, which was devastated by Hurricane Katrina, and you have this charity set up called Friends of New Orleans to help New Orleans recover.
And that charity is going to take money that it has raised and take that money to Denver and throw a huge party for all of the arriving Democrat delegates from the 56 states and territories.
Now, there has to be something I'm missing.
Maybe what I'm missing is that New Orleans is totally repaired.
It must be fixed.
It must be totally rebuilt.
And all the suffering there must be over because the Friends of New Orleans is going to go out there and take money from New Orleans and spend on the Democrats because the host committee in Denver failed to meet their obligations.
Maybe the Friends of New Orleans is actually not using their own money.
Maybe the Friends of New Orleans is going to use money that has been siphoned off from the fraud and extortion of Congressman William Jefferson, Democrat Louisiana.
And now we learn members of his family are also involved in his crimes or related crimes.
Details are coming up.
Now, does this not sound a little odd to you?
I'm sure there's a perfectly rational Democrat Party explanation for this.
I expect that once the word hits this, and it's all over the Denver Post, I suspect that once word hits that we'll have to have reform in how Democrat National Committee parties can be thrown and who can pay for them.
Let's move on to the Republican Party for just a moment here.
Yesterday morning on WLS in Chicago, the Don Wade and Roma show, our 50,000-watt blowtorch affiliate in Chicagoland, they talked to the chairman of the Republican National Committee, Mike Duncan.
And Don Wade said, so here we have the Rush Limbaugh problem.
How are you going to get Rush Limbaugh on the Republican team?
Well, obviously, we hope that everyone joins the team.
And what I'm seeing right now is that 9 out of 10 Republican voters are rallying around John McCain.
On the other side, we're seeing, depending on the state, but in some states, as many as a third of the Democrats say they won't vote for Barack Obama this fall.
Overall, it's about 19% nationally.
So we're doing a good job of bringing Independents and Democrats over to the Republican side.
And they're not doing a very good job of bringing the Republicans to Barack Obama because they're such a stark contrast.
Do we want to go back to the 1960s failed ideas of higher taxes and bigger government and judges who legislate from the bench and not having a strong defense?
And I think the answer is no.
Mike.
Mike, would you calm down, Snerdley?
Snerdley is blowing a gasket in there.
He says here that nine out of ten Republicans are rallying around John McCain.
That means, ladies and gentlemen, that I, because I was in the question, that means that I am one out of ten Republicans not joining John McCain so far.
And that's okay.
Don't need me.
And don't need those of you who also comprise the one out of 10 who may not be enamored of Senator McCain.
And then goes on to talk about how proud they are they're getting Democrats, how excited the Republican National Committee is to be getting Democrat and independent votes.
And Senator McCain's out there actively cultivating them.
The Republican National Committee is telling us all here, thanks to Don Wade's question on WLS in Chicago, that they're happy to have these Republicans.
And then he says at the end, do we want to go back to the 1960s failed ideas of higher taxes and bigger government and judges who legislate?
Mike, you're bringing in people that vote that way.
You're seeking the votes of Democrats who indeed want to go back to the 60s failed ideas of higher taxes.
These people that are joining McCain are not enamored of McCain.
They are angry women fed up with the Democrat Party.
They're not looking at McCain as their ideal candidate in terms of issues and ideas.
They're joining McCain as a slap at the Democrat Party.
This is what I feared.
This is what I feared way, way back many, many moons ago.
A little Indian lingo there.
I told you that the problem the Republican Party face, if they're going to go out and recruit Democrats, they better recruit them as converted to Republican conservatives, as Reagan did.
No, we're happy.
We're ecstatic.
We're going out there recruiting Democrats because the American people do not want higher taxes, bigger government, judges who legislate from the bench.
Well, that's exactly whose votes the Republican National Committee seems to be honored to have.
Back after this, much more straight ahead.
Don't go away.
You know, I wish somebody would explain to the Republican National Committee and to Senator McCain that you don't win an election with the most independence.
This is not how elections are won.
Both parties try to secure their bases, which is fascinating about this election because it appears that both party bases are upset with who the parties have nominated.
You've got a lot of Democrat women who are fed up.
They've got a lot of Republicans, more than nine out of 10, more than one out of 10, I should say.
In fact, far more than one out of 10 Republicans who are dissatisfied with their party's nominee, John McCain.
But in the old math, what you would do, you'd go out and solidify your base first.
The typical math, I mean, it changes every election, but theoretically, you've got 40% of the country's Republican, 40% is going to vote Democrat, leaving 20% in the middle.
And what you do, you firm up your base first.
You shore up your base, and then you go out for your share of the independents.
What's happening here is that they're going out for all of the independents first and saying to hell with the base.
This is, I don't know, it's convoluted.
I've never seen it done this way before.
We'll just have to.
Okay, Snerdley, what is it?
What is it?
Got you so agitated.
Mm-hmm.
All right.
All right.
You've got to stop taking this stuff personally.
He said to me, Do you understand how angry we all were when they were trying to marginalize Bush?
Snerdley says, You don't understand how angry we are in here and how angry your audience is.
The Republican National Committee just tried to marginalize you, and you don't seem that's what he's saying to me here in the IFB.
They're marginalizing you.
They say, You don't matter.
You're just one out of 10.
I don't take this stuff personally, Snerdley.
You've got to stop taking this stuff personally.
It's the name of the game in politics.
Here, oh, by the way, this charity that's going to pay for the big loan, big bash for the Democrat National Convention, Friends of New Orleans.
I went to their website.
I looked at their website and their mission statement, and they say they're a nonpartisan organization.
So what does that matter?
Okay, so the Republicans can ask friends in New Orleans to pay for their parties too and say, that's not the point.
What is a charity devoted to rebuilding and helping the people of New Orleans doing paying for parties at anybody's convention?
I don't care whether they're nonpartisan, partisan, or not.
The kinds of things that just don't make sense.
Hell, if Hillary had been a nominee rather than Obama, none of this would have happened because all the parties could have been paid for by the CHICOMs.
I mean, there's a big debt to pay there.
Red Chinese military could have been tapped to help foot the bill.
The Lippo Group, the Republican National Committee, is running an ad targeting Democrats.
They released this ad.
It's an internet video of Democrats questioning Obama's readiness.
So the RNC is out there targeting Democrats who theoretically respect the people in this ad.
Here's the first half of the ad.
In this election, we need a nominee who can pass the Commander-in-Chief test.
Someone ready on day one to defend our country and keep our families safe.
And we need a president who passes that test.
Rhetoric's not enough.
I polluting language is not enough.
There is no time for speeches and on-the-job training.
Senator McCain will bring a lifetime of experience to the campaign.
I will bring a lifetime of experience.
And Senator Obama will bring a speech that he gave in 2002.
Okay, so what that, the first half of the ad is Hillary and John Edwards talking about Obama and his lack of qualifications.
So far, so good.
Republican National Committee ad.
Here is part two of the ad.
Senator Biden, Senator Clinton, George Stephanopoulos, and former President Bill Clinton talking about Obama.
You were asked, is he ready?
You said, I think he can be ready, but right now I don't believe he is.
The presidency is not something that lends itself to on-the-job training.
I think I stand by the statement.
When's the last time we elected a president based on one year of service in the Senate before he started running?
And he will have been a senator longer by the time he's inaugurated, but essentially, once you start running for president full-time, you don't have time to do much else.
I think it's imperative that each of us be able to demonstrate we can cross the commander-in-chief threshold.
And I believe that I've done that.
Certainly, Senator McCain has done that, and you'll have to ask Senator Obama with respect to his candidacy.
All right, so here's an ad, it's a web ad, runs about 70 seconds, run by the Republican National Committee, featuring all these Democrats talking about Obama's unfitness, lack of experience, reaching out to Democrats.
Now, I haven't seen the videos.
I don't know what kind of graphics are there.
But just in the audio here, I find it fascinating that here is an ad ostensibly to convince people to vote for Senator McCain.
It does not ask him to do that.
Here is an ad that simply takes these Democrats and talks about how Obama is unqualified.
And somehow this is a come-on to Democrats.
Hey, join us.
Join us on the Republican side.
What is apparent to me is that the RNC understands that there is some, how should I say, lack of enthusiasm among some Republicans for Senator McCain.
And so they're going to have to go out and get these Democrats if they have a chance.
And of course, since the idea of parties is to win elections, in that sense, you really can't blame them.
Now, we've talked a lot in the past couple days about what to do here.
You have called.
You have asked me for leadership.
Have asked me for guidance.
You have called me a wimp.
You've called me your hero.
You've said I need to have answers.
I don't have all the answers for a situation like this.
Thomas Sowell has written a piece.
We got two of the most inadequate candidates running for president in his lifetime.
Two of the most inadequate.
And here's what Soule said, by the way, in his piece.
He said, what it comes down to for him is Iran.
We're working with a nation here that is on the verge of getting a nuclear weapon, and nothing's going to stop them from getting a nuclear weapon, especially Obama, because Obama, all he wants to do is talk to them.
Obama, in fact, John Bolton makes this point in an op-ed today in the LA Times.
Obama, in fact, essentially, if you parse his speech at APAC yesterday, he obviously does.
He blames the United States for the threat posed by Iran.
And he did so by pointing out that we've outsourced diplomacy to the Europeans, that we need to show leadership, that we need to take the bull by the horns.
This is the same guy who voted against all the diplomacy and the efforts that Bush administration made at the United Nations dealing with Iraq.
So here's a guy who wants us to hell with you, Europe.
We're going to go in there and we're going to talk.
And because we haven't talked to Iran, the Mullahs are mad.
Ahmedineizad's mad, and they're going to show us.
And Seoul points out that is really frightening, and so does John Bolton.
That is so naive as to blame the United States for the Iranians' nuclear quest.
He said, the mullahs have to be laughing about this.
They have been pursuing this on their own, regardless, whether we've treated them nicely, whether we've sat down and talked to them or not.
So for Seoul, he says, it comes down to the only way I can make a choice here is that the one candidate here that's going to stand up to the Iranians and foreign policy is not going to put up with all this new age psycho babble is McCain.
He said, besides that, we've got two of the most inadequate candidates running for president in a long time.
And that's why there are no answers.
When you call and ask, what should we do?
What can we do?
Third party's third party.
I'm going to guarantee you, third party, even now, Bob Barr, love the guy, but he's only going to take votes away from McCain, which if that's what you want to do, then of course go ahead and vote libertarian, but that's just going to guarantee Obama.
And some of you may want that.
I mean, we've talked about that too.
But one of the things I have suggested is focusing a lot on the future.
These are cycles.
We can rebuild.
The conservative movement can triumph once again.
It's going to have to start locally, supporting state and local conservatives in their quest, getting to know who they are, supporting them, voting for them, giving them confidence to keep going.
The Club for Growth, Conservative Group, Big Night Tuesday.
Two candidates it endorsed and funded prevailed in hotly contested Republican primaries in New Mexico and California.
This is how it's done.
We'll be back.
Stay with us.
More information here on the Friends of New Orleans.
It's interesting, the Denver Post did not include this information about the Friends of New Orleans.
Again, this is the group that is paying for the lone party.
They supposed, I'll believe this when I see it, by the way, that they're not going to have all these parties.
Somebody's going to throw parties out there.
I mean, you're not, we're not talking about a bunch of destitute people.
We're talking about filthy, rich, limousine liberal Democrats showing up.
Somebody's going to throw parties.
We're talking about the parties that were supposed to be thrown by the host committee, but they're $15 million short, so they're going to get money from something called the Friends of New Orleans, a nonpartisan group.
Guess who runs the Friends of New Orleans?
Donna Brazil, James Carville, Walter Isaacson.
And they're total partisans, but to cover themselves, they have Tommy Thompson on their board, the former governor of Wisconsin.
I don't care.
I don't care if it's partisan or not.
Or as Carville would say, partisan.
It doesn't matter to me.
I just don't understand how you take money away from New Orleans.
You're going to whine and complain and moan about the federal government.
You're going to point fingers at Bush.
You're going to point fingers at FEMA.
And you're going to run your candidate for president on a basis that that kind of thing will never happen again with a Democrat running the show.
And here's this charity run by Democrats, raising money from people to rebuild New Orleans and help the people.
And they're sending the money to the Democrat National Committee for a party.
This is too good.
Here are the details on the Club for Growth story.
They're a conservative anti-tax group.
Steve Moore used to hit them up.
Pat Toomey now does.
Big night Tuesday as the two candidates it endorsed and funded prevailed in hotly contested Republican primaries in New Mexico and California.
In New Mexico, Representative Steve Pierce narrowly won the Republican primary for retiring Republican Senator Pete Domenici's seat, defeating his more moderate opponent, Representative Heather Wilson, 51 to 49%.
Heather Wilson Tost, moderate Republican in Arizona.
Pierce benefited from running as an unapologetic conservative in a low-turnout Republican primary and received key assistance from the Club for Growth.
In California, another Club for Growth-backed candidate, Conservative State Senator Tom McClintock, easily prevailed over former Representative Doug Oase in the Republican primary to succeed retiring Congressman John Doolittle.
McClintock, a well-known conservative icon throughout the state, while in the legislature, he's been a vocal opponent of tax increases and wasteful government spending.
So this is, you know, this is the future.
These are new roots being planted.
And these are the kind of things that are going to have to happen all across the country, along with other things, in order to bring about this rebirth of conservatism.
And it isn't going to be that hard, and it isn't going to take that long.
Now, a couple of couple thoughts here.
I meant to get into this yesterday, ladies and gentlemen, and events just superseded my intent.
But I had a bunch of stories, and I talked about it on the margins yesterday.
All these drive-by media stories with there was one Washington Post story mentioning Obama is black four or five times.
There were three or four other drive-by media publications focusing on Obama's race and how what a great step this is for the United States of America.
Oh, this is this.
We've passed a major milestone.
It's so wonderful and so forth.
Interestingly, there's a story today from, what is this, the Associated Press?
Associated Press says, no, it's Reuters.
Oh, take it back.
Take it back.
Where is it?
I think it's the Associated Press.
No, it is Reuters.
Black Americans savored Obama's unprecedented victory, but they said on Wednesday the higher stakes raised the prospect of deep disappointment in November if he loses.
So Reuters has a story here on, wow, this is so wonderful.
Why?
Tonight we're on the inside.
We have overcome the one obstacle in our face, racism, slavery, discrimination.
And now, uh-oh, oh, no.
What if we lose?
Oh, no, we're going to be so disappointed if we lose.
And they actually do a story on this.
Let me give you the details of this a little bit later as the program unfolds.
But as I read all these stories, there's no question this is a major achievement.
I'm not bemoaning it at all.
But there's nothing really new here.
We have to, well, I mean, you got to win the election, yeah, but we still, what we have here is a pure, unadulterated, undiluted liberal.
That's what matters to me, not anybody's race.
I'm not, you know, after you have to go through the emotional realization that, yeah, for the first time ever, we've got a pure, unadulterated, radical liberal that's been nominated with the Democrat Party.
And after a while, you know, you can see all the liberal white guilt throughout the drive-by media because they won't let the subject of Obama's race go.
I mean, they're making a huge fuss about this, being black, being African-American, biracial, or whatever you, but I have news for those of you in the drive-bys.
If Obama wins the election, he would not be the first black president.
And I'm not talking about Bill Clinton and the phony baloney first black president bit.
13 years ago in 1995, Time Warner Incorporated inaugurated a black president, Dick Parsons.
11 years ago, 1997, American Express inaugurated a black president, Ken Chenault.
Seven years ago, Merrill Lynch inaugurated a black president, Stanley O'Neill.
Now, three of our greatest corporations, what the left calls greedy corporations, formally ended racism by elevating an African American to the presidency.
Now, you may know this and you may not know it.
But these were incredible events, too.
They didn't get that much news coverage.
It didn't fit the media template or the action line and the talking points of the left because the drive-by media is so hell-bent on trashing America, on dwelling in the past, on inflaming racial confrontations, on elevating racial entrepreneurs that they underreported the real state of race in America.
My point here, and I realize it might have offended you to say, hey, he's not the first black president.
I did that to get your attention.
The point is that the real state of race in this country continues to be underreported.
We continue to hear that we are no different now than we were in 1965 and in prior years.
There's just as much discrimination.
There's just as much racism.
And incidentally, there's just as much sexism.
And we're not making any progress whatsoever.
And that's why Obama's nomination is being hailed as some great point that has never been reached.
And in fact, it has.
Now, I understand the difference in a board of directors and a committee hiring somebody to be the CEO of a corporation and the votes of American citizens of a political party electing or nominating.
I fully understand the differences.
My only point here is, is that the, it's not my only, but my primary point is that we have made so much progress in race relations in this country.
The people who are responsible for under-reporting it or not reporting it, and the people who are responsible for continuing to try to keep this country roiled with racial strife, are the very people who are now celebrating this wondrous event in the nomination of Obama as though its only meaning is that he's black.
And it's not its only meaning.
He stands for things that are pretty bad.
He's got some associations with people that are pretty questionable.
But all that's swept aside.
All of that is ignored because of the momentous racial achievement.
I don't think we have, at least that is as it has been defined in the past.
I don't think we have racism in this country.
We have underclassism.
We have broken familyism.
We have single momism.
We have you're a victim ism.
We have the failure of the great society ism.
We have a bunch of isms that are genuine and real.
But racism, said to be the root of all these, is not.
If we were as racist as the left wants to portray us, there wouldn't be the phenomenon known as Oprah Winfrey.
There wouldn't have been Bill Cosby.
I mean, I could go on down the list.
There wouldn't be Obama.
There wouldn't have been Ken Chennault at American Express.
There wouldn't have been Dick Parsons at Time Warner.
There wouldn't have been Stanley O'Neill at Merrill Lynch.
And there are countless other examples of this in smaller corporations.
Herman Kane is one.
And all of the truly achievement-oriented black leaders who don't fit the liberal mold are ignored or they are impugned.
And you've heard the names.
Don't need to mention them.
Clarence Thomas is one.
Dr. Sowell himself, Walter Williams.
And so while the media is trying to catch up with old news, first black president, and signals they're ready to acknowledge America's fairness, ask yourself, why do the drive-by say that they're in the news business when they're actually in the old news business?
That's what they thrive on, is the past.
Narratives, action lines, and templates from the past.
Congratulations are due to Obama.
There's no question.
Not for being black.
What an insult.
What an, hey, congratulations, Obama.
Welcome to politics of first black presidential nominee.
What an insult.
The reason you congratulate Barack Obama, he's a guy who took on and beat the pantsuit off the Clinton machine, even if he did crawl across the finish line.
And by the way, speaking of Clintons, everybody's misreporting this.
I still, I have read her statement.
I don't think she's going to concede Saturday.
I don't think she's going to concede.
If you read, I look at, I know the Clintons.
I know how to parse what they say.
I know how to understand what they're saying.
And the left and the drive-by, they are so eager for her to quit this and make it official that anything she puts out, they say, okay, that's it.
Hillary getting out.
It's over.
It's official.
It's going to be done on Saturday.
Not if you read what she said, which I'll give you the examples of when we come back.
Don't go away.
The EIB network rolls on.
Your guiding life in times of trouble, confusion, tumult, chaos, torture, humiliation, exaltations, and even the good times.
Rush Limbaugh, little Wilson Pickett here, the EIB Network.
We go to the phones, Washington.
Irving, hello, sir.
Nice to have you here.
Hello, Mr. Limbaugh.
It's a pleasure to speak with you.
I've been trying to call you for about four years since I first heard your voice on the radio at Fort Bennon, Georgia.
Well, terrific.
I'm glad you made it through.
Well, I was calling to say that I personally believe that Mr. Obama's candidacy does represent a very historic event.
And the reason is because I'm a 26-year-old African-American young man myself, soldier in the United States Army.
And I personally believe that growing up in the America that I grew up in, anything is possible.
But Mr. Obama is actually proving that anything is possible.
I have a son that's six years old.
And when I tell him he can be anything when he grows up, he can actually be anything when he grows up, and he can see an example of it.
Even if Senator Obama doesn't win the election, I think he will.
But even if he doesn't, you know, it's still proof that anything is actually possible in this great nation.
Well, that is a good point.
And I'm all for role models and all for people who inspire others.
But do you really think it took the nomination of Obama to be able to say to people, you can be whoever you want to be in this country?
I think that in a lot of instances, it takes someone, people have to see someone succeed at something before they believe that it's actually possible.
You said before you started talking about your son, you said that you thought that anything was possible in America.
How did you come to believe that before Obama?
I believe that I believed that anything was possible and still believed that anything is possible, you know, but that was just optimism.
You know what I mean?
Now I know it to be a reality.
Because ultimately, I feel like as long as I work hard and do what I need to do, as long as I put my mind to something, I'll probably be able to accomplish it.
Now, for I don't know how long there had been a debate, you know, whether America was ready for a female president or a minority president.
You know what I mean?
Oh, that's a good point.
That's a good point.
By virtue of Mrs. Clinton's defeat, do you think if you had a daughter that your daughter would say, Dad, I can't be president.
The country just rejected Mrs. Clinton?
No, I think my daughter would say that it's still possible because why would you voted for Senator Clinton?
But why wouldn't your son be able to say the same thing if she had beaten Obama?
He would still be able to, by virtue of him being a viable candidate, you know what I'm saying?
My son would be able to say the same thing.
It's just not.
You know, I beg to disagree.
I really think if Obama had lost, the same phenomenon that's happening to Hillary would be happening with black voters who support Obama.
I think the race industry would gin up, and I think you'd have the Sharptons and Jackson, especially if the Democrat superdelegates had taken the nomination away from him, or in another circumstance, if he had lost narrowly, legitimately narrowly, without having the superdelegates get involved.
You see, this is a problem.
I appreciate the historic nature of this, but I think in the areas I was discussing that inspired your phone call, nothing's going to change.
The racial industry in this country is going to take any instance it can to keep this country royaled.
For example, this story, Irving from the Reuters news agencies out of Atlanta.
Black Americans savored Obama's unprecedented victory in the Democrat race for president, but said on Wednesday, the higher stakes raised the prospect of deep disappointment in November.
Black Americans are trading on thin ice, moving very delicately.
Obama's opportunity is frail and fragile, and many say, let's make sure that nothing happens to ruin it, says Jelani Cobb, history professor at Spelman College.
So already, there are people savoring this historic victory who are now beginning to think, uh-oh, we're just going to be really disappointed if he loses.
This may not be worth it.
And see, this is just the racial industry getting up and rearing its head and sending out the feelers.
Hey, don't think nothing's historic yet, dudes.
He hadn't won the big house.
Until he wins a big house, nothing's happened.
And you better be prepared to be.
I think this is horrible.
This is not inspiring.
These are people afraid of success.
You know, I don't think we want to win because to win, we might have to risk losing.
And if we do lose, everybody's going to be sad and disappointed.
And I don't know if we can take that.
That's why I'm trying.
I wish race were.
I know it's historic racially, but there's far more at stake here than just the fact that we've elected or nominated a black guy.
You know, Martin Luther King said something, Irving, and I, I know you'll remember this.
Martin Luther King said, I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin, but by the content of their character.
We are ignoring Obama's character and Jeremiah Wright's and Tony Rezko's.
And we're only talking about his color.
So I don't know what kind of progress has actually happened here.
There's another huge error in this Reuters story on blacks.
It said the Obama presidency would eliminate on the scene Jesse Jackson, Al Sharpton.
Wrong.
It would elevate them.
▲
Export Selection