All Episodes
Previous Next
Nov. 18, 2008 - Rush Limbaugh Program
36:32
November 18, 2008, Tuesday, Hour #2
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
The views expressed by the host on this program make more sense than anything anybody else out there happens to be saying.
Because we pursue the truth relentlessly.
We find it.
We proclaim it.
And that's why you need confidence.
You'll be able to deal with the truth.
Otherwise, you go nuts.
Listening to this program, I am Rush Limbaugh, America's real anchorman, America's truth detector, and the Doctor of Democracy from the Limbaugh Institute for Advanced Conservative Studies.
Phone number, if you'd like to join us, is 800-282-2882.
The email address, LRushbaugh at EIBNet.com.
Ladies and gentlemen, I have been thinking.
I had a long weekend with my golf buddies in town, and I had a chance, even got some solitary time.
And I've been thinking, because I've detected, even among even myself, I was examining how we dealt with Obama during the campaign and how we dealt with Clinton during the campaign in 1992.
And both methods of dealing with both candidates didn't work.
Direct criticism of Bill Clinton did not work.
Bill Clinton got elected.
Direct criticism of Barack Obama did not work.
He got elected.
For whatever reasons, direct criticism did not work.
And so the question then is, we've got to find a way to be effective here in being critical of some of these dramatic changes that we know Obama wants to bring about.
Now, let me give you a brief overview of some of my ruminations here prior to giving you the, I think, what the effective way to do this would be.
As with Clinton, attacks on Obama, they didn't work.
I don't care what.
And by attacks, I don't mean anything vicious or mean, just attacking Obama personally.
This guy's going to do this.
This guy's going to do this.
His friends are these.
What he said in San Francisco in the Bitter Clingers, the coal industry is going to bankrupt.
It didn't work.
And I remember when it was a debate, Obama's reaction when Hillary went after him for his, he didn't really distance himself from Calypso Louie.
He did, but he didn't.
But he did not renounce Calypso Louie.
And Hillary in the debate, who was doing anything she could here to save her campaign and her candidacy, started savaging Obama's previous statements.
And what did he do?
He just sort of laughed.
And he just shrugged and made her attack look like it was infantile, like it was just some ineffective, screeching woman just attacking.
And he just smiled and he just shrugged.
And he said to Tim Russard, he said, you know, I have to say, I don't see a difference between denouncing and rejecting.
There's no formal offer of help from Minister Farrakhan that would involve me rejecting it.
But if the word reject, Senator Clinton feels is stronger than the word denounce, and I'm happy to concede the point.
I'll reject and denounce.
He smiled and said, okay, look, I've said X, but if you want me to say Y, I'll say Y.
And if you want me to use Z, I'll say Z too.
You know, she was boring in it.
He was accusing him of this and that, and he just kind of smiled and laughed and said, Okay, if you want to, whatever you want me to say, I'll say.
And that's how every broadside that was directed at Obama was pretty much dealt with by him in that way, because they were broadside.
What you had here with Hillary and Obama, you had two Olinskiites going at each other, and Hillary proved to be the lesser of the two able Olinskiites.
Also, have you noticed that the late-night comedians are saying that they're just having a tough time making fun of the guy?
And it's not just because of race, but it's not that he's, I mean, we found ways to parody the guy here, and we can laugh at him and make fun of him here, but a lot of people don't think that he's funny.
Other than his ears, what is there to caricature about the guy?
You can caricature the way he, you know, I mean, even this stuff about the Messiah didn't work.
Even when he's out there acting like the Messiah.
My point is that none of this stuff worked.
We have to be honest.
None of it worked, even when we attached to it specific details of Obama's plans and his proposals.
Just didn't work.
These comedians, finding it difficult to make fun of the guy, not just because of racial reasons, look at Ted Kennedy.
He's easy to make fun of and laugh at.
Bill Clinton was easy to laugh at and make fun of because both of them live their lives to great excess in many funny ways.
Obama is not just Mr. Cool, he's Mr. Cold.
He's just Mr. Cold.
There just isn't a whole lot there to make fun of.
Nothing about Obama inspires laughter.
Bill Clinton inspired it left and right.
Ted Kennedy inspired laughter left and right.
When you got your Ted Kennedy, you name your dog Splash.
And Obama promised a dog, but they're going to have to wait on the dog.
He promised, but how do you make fun of that?
Because he still promised to get the dog.
Also, because of how cold Obama is, you know, passionate criticism of him really doesn't work because when you have the passion as the critic and he's Mr. Cold and just never loses his cool and so forth, it makes the passionate critic look like a zombie.
It makes the passionate critic look like an out-of-control, deranged, unhinged individual.
And so that doesn't work.
So what does work?
Well, just my best thinking on this to this point, and I don't know if it's going to bear out even, but the only times that Obama was really in trouble in the campaign was when he did it to himself.
The bitter clinger comment in San Francisco.
The Joe the Plumber stuff.
But even that didn't end up hurting him.
But those were the two instances that the Obama campaign got in gear to try to limit the effectiveness of what he had done to himself.
Spread the wealth around, the bitter clinger comment coming out of San Francisco.
These self-inflicted wounds are about the only opportunities that you have.
And we don't want to sit around and wait for those because we don't know how often he's going to say things.
Another one was when he said that abortion, determining when a human being gets rights, at what point does life begin?
When he said this to Rick Warren at the Saddleback Church, that was a big problem.
That was a big self-inflicted wound.
Remember how among everybody who saw the debate at the Saddleback Church, it was clear that McCain had smoked Obama, that everybody knew it.
So what are we left with to do then?
Well, okay, you haven't talked about Bill Ayers being on Good Morning America Friday.
I know, on purpose.
Others are going to talk about Bill Ayers.
The election's over.
That's just, you can do it from a see I Told You So kind of point of view if you want.
What I think is going to be the most effective way to criticize Obama is to criticize his ideas without criticizing him, to criticize collectivism, to criticize giant growth of government.
You call it Obamaism or whatever.
But the way to go about this, I think, is, if you don't want to wait for these self-inflicted wounds, is to ignore Obama the man.
When you ignore Obama the man, we do not run the risk of inflicting our own self-inflicted wounds that would create sympathy for the guy.
Because right now, he's a beloved figure with 4 million people headed to Washington for the inauguration, they say.
He's got everybody in the country enough behind him for all of the mythological reasons, for all of the public relations and image reasons, the historical reasons.
And right now, people don't want to hear anything bad about Barack Obama.
They just don't want to hear it.
And if they do, they're not going to believe it and they're going to resent anybody who runs around talking about Obama.
He's going to have to do something first that illustrates that the criticism that we have mounted up to now is accurate.
And that, what is he?
We talk about Reaganism.
We talk about socialism, collectivism, all these very communism.
Obamaism is the way to go after this.
Obama equals collectivism.
And when you stop and think about this, it's really the opportunity of many of our lifetimes.
Because we haven't really dealt with full-bore collectivism as an ideological identified with a political party up till now.
Yeah, we've had liberalism.
But while we've had liberalism, we've always had some Democrats that were not totally on board that.
And certainly, we've never had such a radical collectivist as a president-elect or even a nominee of a particular party.
So who are we?
Well, we're the capitalists.
There is going to, once he gets into office and once he starts doing things, we're going to have a chance then to define Obama-ism without mentioning him per se.
And I think for however long is necessary until the bloom goes off the Obama rose, because at some point it's going to, I mean, this whole image thing will give way at some point to political reality.
And until that happens, personal criticism, or not even personal, but just the attacking Obama's ideas by attacking him is not going to fly.
It's not going to stick.
It is not going to persuade anybody.
So we just have to bide our time here, but attack what he stands for, attack what his belief system is, and name it Obama-ism, collectivism.
And it was epitomized by what he told Joe the Plumber.
You know, we all know who he is, and we all know what he wants to do, and we all know that he wants to do as much of it as possible as quickly as possible.
We don't know what constraints he's going to find once he actually takes office.
What were the economic circumstances and situation?
We can all guess.
We can all speculate that maybe he won't care.
The worse the economy is, the more power he will seek to take as quickly as he can.
But I would just, you know, and I'm still working my way through this, but all I know is that attacking Obama and attacking Bill Clinton did not work, even though every bit of the criticism was true.
Even though everything said about them was true.
It didn't work.
Why it didn't work, I can explain that when I have more time to do it, but it has to do with the cult of personality, and it has to do with a whole bunch of factors, the drive-by media and the collective education of the American people, the voting population here.
There's a whole bunch of factors about why it didn't work.
There's psychological reasons too, such as white guilt, the drive-by media covering up anything that was deleterious or harmful to Obama.
And especially, see, in that circumstance, where the drive-bys are covering everything up and pretending that there's nothing but angelic messianism about this guy, then you have the loyal opposition coming out with all these critiques, his associates, his alliances, his liberalism, his socialism, what have you.
It just doesn't fly because the Obama people were able to segregate the critics and categorize us as just a bunch of, you know, the vast right-wing conspiracy or the Republican hate mongers or the what have you.
And it's, you know, their job is to discredit criticism of Obama.
And so the less criticism there is of him personally instead of what he's doing and is going to do and what he believes, then I think the more powerfully effective the criticism will be.
I have a couple of other ideas I want to share with you on other matters before we get back to your phone calls and the audio soundbite roster.
So sit tight, my friends.
We'll be back right after this.
Okay, back to the phones to people be patiently waiting here.
I don't want them to have to wait all day because I know how exciting it is for people to appear on the EIB network.
So this is David in Long Beach, California.
Glad you called, sir.
Nice to have you here.
Yeah, hey, it's a pleasure to be speaking to the leader of the Republican Party.
No, no, the leader of the conservative movement.
That's right.
That's right.
That's what they're calling you nowadays.
The point I wanted to make was that I'm very eager to support Joe Lieberman because he was eager to support somebody that he knew was not going to help him politically.
It was only a danger to him to support John McCain.
And we need guys with backbone like that in the office.
And we just don't have any, especially the Democrats.
I'm not sure exactly what you're saying.
Are you reacting to?
Here's my confusion.
Are you reacting to what I said about Lieberman earlier?
Or are you making your own point?
Well, yeah, you were saying earlier that it was kind of pointless that Lieberman had stuck his neck out like that, that he'd rendered himself impudent in all ways.
No, no, Let me be, that's what I was hoping you were saying.
Let me be more accurate about what I was saying.
One of my bones of contention is not Lieberman.
Lieberman's who he is.
All Democrat liberals are who they are.
And yet we've got idiots and wizards of smart on our side who think that our future as Republicans depends on converting people like Joe Lieberman.
And we're not going to convert them.
And Lieberman's just proven it.
That was the point I was trying to make.
Good point.
I agree with you.
I just, all I was saying was that, you know, I was proud of him for doing something that could only damage him, but he knew was the right thing to do for his good friend John McCain.
That's all.
Well, was he doing the right thing for McCain or the right thing for the country?
Well, I think, you know, he was a little bit more.
Let me ask you a question.
If he really thought that Obama was not qualified, too much inexperience or too little experience, if he really thought McCain was far more qualified to be president, and I guess you're going to assign to Lieberman the fact he was being honest.
You trust that he meant all that when he was in the campaign, right?
Yeah, I assume.
Okay, so now that's all out the window now.
I mean, McCain lost.
Sure.
But of course, it's time to mend fences and go back with the winner and so forth.
This is just a problem I have with politicians.
We're always eager to credit these people that cross the aisle.
And I'm sorry, the times are too tough and they're too challenging.
And I'm not interested in praising people that cross the aisle and then go back.
Okay, if you want to cross the aisle, stay with us, stay with us.
If you're going to cross the aisle for whatever reason and then go back, stay there in the first place and don't come.
Now, there's a, and the same thing on our side.
Okay, you're going to cross the aisle?
Stay there.
This is, listen, folks, this is what I meant a moment ago in what I think was a brilliantly conceived and flawlessly presented example of how we need to go after Obama.
We've got, you know, you look for the positives, you look for the upsides, we've got a golden opportunity now to contrast capitalism with collectivism.
We have a golden opportunity.
It's been one thing.
For example, every time that we've had a story about health care from Great Britain, lines, no more surgeries, if you have certain kind of cancers, sorry, we're overbooked, we're overloaded, standing in Canada, same thing.
And we tell those stories, we report that news, and we say to people, if you want your health care like that, vote Democrat.
Well, frankly, nobody believes that health care in this country is going to turn into something as bad as it is in Great Britain or in other European socialist countries or even in Canada because they live in the United States of America.
Even though they may be dissatisfied with certain things at the end of the day, they still love their country and they think America is the best place on earth and there's rotten things that happen around the world are not going to happen here.
That's why people get so upset over the price of gas going up so high, get upset over recessions.
These kinds of ups and downs are not supposed to happen in America.
But we now have Obama-ism.
We have a collectivist who's going to be inaugurated and we are going to be able to see a collectivist run his party and try to run this country on the basis of his collectivist beliefs.
We're going to call it Obama-ism.
And we've got a ready-made contrast with it for our side, the conservatives and so on.
So the people will have a chance to see.
So it's an opportunity.
Back in a sec.
Palm Bay, Florida.
This is Eric.
Welcome, sir, to the EIB Network.
Nice to have you here.
Mega Steeler Ditto's Rush.
Thank you, sir.
When it comes to Barack Obama's application for employment, Hillary Clinton has to be the most qualified of all because she is the queen subversive.
She is the queen subversive.
I guess you're talking here about my theory that the Obama questionnaire might be used to disqualify Hillary on the basis that Bill presents too many conflicts of interests.
Well, you have William Harris and everyone else.
She is an Saul Olinski-like, but that is the mega snub, being that she knows she's the most qualified and not giving her the job.
Which job are we talking about here?
The job of Secretary of State.
Okay, I'm having trouble keeping up because I don't, I don't, I'm, I'm, again, I don't know if you're responding to what I said or if you're, if you're bringing up something new that hadn't been discussed.
It's not your fault.
I just need you to start over and tell me what your point is.
Well, Barack Obama has his list of qualifications in order to get a job for a 62-page questionnaire.
Correct.
Well, if William Ayers can get a job and he has to fill out the same questionnaire, then obviously we're looking at it from the wrong perspective.
Well, but we don't know that William Ayers is going to get a job.
I don't think William Ayers is going to be officially involved in anything.
If William Ayers is involved, he's going to be on the phone with Obama, maybe up in the Lincoln bedroom or whatever.
I have no idea what involvement Ayers is going to have.
But this, let me explain this again for those of you who are just joining the program, and this was just speculation.
I know nothing.
I just know the kind of guy Obama is.
Obama dispatches his opponents.
He gets rid of them.
So we got this 62-page questionnaire that you have to pass, fill out and pass if you're going to work for Obama.
It's been said that not even he could pass if he were asked to serve in some administration and have this questionnaire.
Where it is interesting is he's offered Secretary of State to Hillary, and the question becomes, can Bill, with his conflicts have taken all this money from Middle Eastern countries and the THICOMs for speeches and consulting advice, is that present a conflict when his wife is the Secretary of State?
I mean, here you've got the Clintons' wealth due in part to all these payments from the ChiComs and the Middle Eastern nations.
And so Hillary as Secretary of State is going to be running around dealing with these various countries.
And I just speculated that wouldn't it be funny, would it be interesting if after this is all over, the Obama campaign says, you know, we're not able, and we really regret this.
It's a terrible shame.
We're not able to offer Mrs. Clinton the job of Secretary of State.
There are just too many conflicts here with President Clinton's involvement over the oceans here plus the Clinton library, the donors list and so forth.
I doubt that they would announce it that way, but everybody would know.
I mean, she says she wants it.
He says he's ready to offer it on the proviso that they pass the test.
And there's also the possibility that they'll just lie and Obama says, okay, cool.
Because we know that liberals and Democrats lie.
I was just speculating that it would not be surprising to me to see Obama use this as a method of getting rid of Bill Clinton.
To have him, I mean, can you imagine the Democrat president putting together his cabinet and he can't get the person he supposedly wants for secretary of state because of the conflicts of interest presented by her husband?
You know, I don't care what you think about liberals and Democrats.
They play in rarefied air.
And when you get to that level of power in any political party, I mean, you take your enemies out.
You may leave them around and damage and so forth.
But believe me, Obama doesn't want a power share with the Clintons.
He's not interested in having the Clintons be visible every day, especially Bill Clinton as his administration is unfolding and doing its work.
He doesn't want Clinton on television being interviewed about things like this.
He may not be able to stop it, but he certainly doesn't want it.
And by putting Hillary in the Secretary of State, it makes it very difficult for her to run against him for re-election in 2012 because she'd have to start doing that in 2010, and then she would be a dropout from his own cabinet running against him for the nomination.
It can't be because he's done such a great job.
So there's a lot of potential here that could just be fun to watch unfold.
Paul and Pittsburgh.
Hello, sir.
Nice to have you on the Rush Lindbaugh program.
Hey, Rush.
I just wanted to comment on the fact, on the comment you made regarding bashing Obama and Clinton, how it didn't work.
You know, I just feel that the average American, they just didn't know enough about what McCain would do.
And even with all the bashing of Obama, that was just getting his policies out there and, you know, hearing about what his plans were.
And even if you're going to bash them, that just gives them, that opens them up for rebuttal.
I think the American people, you know, they got a good feel for the personality of both candidates, but they just didn't hear enough about McCain.
And what was he going to do?
What was he going to do with taxes and different policies?
Well, I don't think it would have helped.
McCain wasn't able to tell anybody what he was going to do.
McCain wasn't running on a set of ideas.
McCain was running on a resume.
McCain was running on heroic life stories, a love of country, honor, this sort of thing.
There was no identifiable set of core beliefs that you could peg on Senator McCain.
But as to the notion that the criticism of Obama didn't work, I mean, there are a couple of elements here that I didn't mention.
And it didn't work.
By the way, Clinton didn't start really getting into trouble until a couple days after he was inaugurated when he announced Don't Ask, Don't Tell.
That in 1993.
And then when the, I worked harder than I've ever worked in my life.
I just, I can't find a way.
They come up by a middle-class tax cut.
Trust me.
That's when it started falling apart for him, and that's when the media started getting doubts and started treating him in a different way.
We just have to wait for the same kind of thing to happen with Obama.
Self-inflicted wounds are it.
You add to it, McCain was not willing to criticize Obama.
McCain was not willing to criticize the things about Obama that make Obama dangerous, or at least make him risky.
McCain wasn't willing to go there for a host of reasons.
It doesn't matter now.
All I'm telling you is that those who did engage in it, it didn't work.
And it didn't work beating Bill Clinton.
It didn't work in beating Bill Clinton in 1996 either for a host of reasons.
I'm not bashing the critics, and I'm not saying don't be critical.
I'm just saying going after Obama, the way we went after, didn't work.
We all, I mean, the evidence is clear, it didn't.
There needs to be an alternative approach because whether it worked or not in the campaign, we're still going to have to do everything we can to stop this onslaught of collectivism.
And it's going to be serious.
I mean, this is a guy who wants to define the American dream as over.
And I don't know what the figure is today.
It's anywhere from $120,000 a year to $150,000 a year to $250,000 a year.
At that point, the American dream is over because your tax rates are going to go up so high that your ability to amass serious wealth beyond that is going to be difficult.
And if they do mess around with this 401k stuff and they take away the tax deductibility of your annual contribution, which they're thinking about doing in the Congress, there's any number of flashpoints coming up that give the opportunity to pull, okay, this is collectivism.
This is Obamaism.
I mean, look at Mark Cuban.
I go back to this.
We had it yesterday.
Mark Cuban just, I mean, you couldn't find a more rabid Obama supporter.
And I'm convinced that he has no idea who Obama is.
And if he ever heard anybody criticizing Obama, he would tune it out.
He didn't want to hear it.
For some reason, he assumed Obama was just like him.
He's an entrepreneur.
He made $6 billion or so, I think that's the number, selling an internet company called Broadcast.com.
I think he was one of the first guys that streamed video and audio on the internet and sold it.
Now he owns the Dallas Mavericks, and he thinks of himself as the epitome of an entrepreneur.
So he sees Obama's economic team at last Thursday's or Tuesday's big deal in Chicago where Obama announced what he's going to do to fix the economy, Hardy Harhar.
And he wrote a piece, The Huffington Post, Cuban, how troubled he was.
He didn't see any entrepreneurs.
He said, Obama's got to know that the fix to this economy is going to bubble up from these entrepreneurs taking risks.
And I'm reading this.
I'm incredulous.
Those are the enemies, Mark.
These entrepreneurs, the risk takers, those are the people Obama wants to punish because they've done too well.
When he talks about the economy's got to be fixed from the bottom up, he's talking about wealth transfers.
He's talking about spreading the wealth around.
He's not talking about inspiring entrepreneurial activity.
Obama, in his big acceptance speech in Grand Park, after he had kicked Michelle and the girls backstage, he said, we are not a nation of individuals.
We're not a collection of individuals.
Well, yes, we are.
The individual and his freedom and liberty is precisely what gives this nation an identity unlike any other.
And Obama wants to come along and he openly says we're not a nation of individuals.
We've got to come together and work for the common good, collectivism.
But until he starts doing it, all the criticism in the world isn't going to have much effect.
And why would it?
He's not doing any of it yet.
But the time will draw near.
And I just think there are going to be a lot of people like Mark Cuban who've seen it earlier than most.
They're going to be genuinely shocked that this guy's not who they thought he was.
Because remember, all of his supporters were able to make of him whatever they wanted him to be.
It was a blank slate.
He even said so.
It's creepy.
It was creepy to watch this.
It was creepy to go out and talk to Obama's supporters and find out how little they actually knew, but how much they thought they knew.
It was creepy.
Back to the phone, Twigo.
This is Barbara and Stark from Mississippi.
Nice to have you on the EIB network.
Hello.
Good to talk with you finally.
I have a question.
You mentioned before that the criticism didn't work against Obama.
And in hearing Bush talk this past week at the UN, he mentioned that his faith and prayer had helped him in getting through his presidency, which I'm sure meant his criticism and everything.
And I wondered, it brings two questions to mind.
Why did the criticism against Bush work so well?
And what will happen to Obama when the criticism finally comes?
Because I don't see him as being rooted in faith and prayer.
Now, this is an interesting question.
Let's take the second one first, because basically you're saying, how come criticism of Clinton, clearly criticism of Obama didn't work, but how come criticism of all Republicans does work?
Amen.
Right?
You're saying, well, in the first place, it doesn't always work.
We just think it does.
They tarred and feathered Ronald Reagan, but it didn't work.
Two landslides.
And again, how did Reagan deal with it?
He just laughed at it.
He did not have an alternative media.
He didn't have anybody defending him every day.
All he had was the power to connect with people, to go over the heads of the media and make them look like idiots.
We haven't had our own version of a charismatic leader in electoral politics in a long time.
But beyond that, you're right to ask.
Bush didn't defend himself.
And Karl Rovas said recently that they learned a lesson that maybe they were trying to be presidential, just be above it to protect the vitality and the legacy, the image of the office.
They did not politicize it so much.
But they now realize they should have been more forceful in defending some of the just outright lies and distortions that were told about Bush personally and politically.
We lost Sarah Palin.
I mean, you know, what they've done.
Yeah, why did it work on Palin?
Why did the criticism work on Palin?
Well, did it?
Now, see, we just assume, because McCain lost the election, that the criticism of Palin worked.
However, I saw nothing but teeming crowds.
I saw nothing but love and support, ambition, all kinds of passion for Sarah Palin.
I saw election poll results talking about Republicans loved her.
They tried to make it out that she was a drag on the ticket.
Now, it's no news that the left and Democrats are going to hate any effective conservative or Republican.
But they, you see, they have, you can't take the drive-by media factor out of this.
The drive-by media loves to show what they think is the hypocrisy of Republicans.
For example, let's take John Edwards, the Breck girl.
When they heard that he was having an affair, they ignored it.
They did everything they could to sweep it under the rug because even liberal, oh, they had so much hope in Edwards' wonderful family.
He was going to someday have this brilliant national political career.
They just couldn't bring themselves to be critical.
But let a Republican, a family values Republican, a conservative, social conservative Republican, encounter some sort of moral failure, and bamo, it is like a hurricane descending on that person, and it's seeking destroy because of hypocrisy and so forth.
And the reason for this is that the left knows they cannot defeat our ideas.
They have to destroy as many of our leaders professionally, personally, and credibility as possible.
They didn't just say no to Robert Bork.
They tried to destroy him and tried to ruin his life.
Same thing with Clarence Thomas.
You see, we don't do this.
Our criticism of Obama was not aimed at destroying him.
It was trying to alert people to his ideas.
But when we're the lone voices and the drive-bys are not joining in that chorus, if you will, and if Obama is thus able to ignore the criticism and not respond to it, then you've got the old question, well, if a tree falls in a forest and nobody's there, does it make a sound?
You know, if Obama's running around saying all kinds of weird, strange things and nobody's criticizing him for it, did he say the strange things?
True.
Look, it's an unlevel playing field.
You know, we can sit here and bemoan the fact that Sarah Palin was mistreated, and we can bemoan the fact that McCain might have been mistreated and all kinds of our side gets mistreated.
It's the way it is.
I'll bet you that if Sarah Palin were left alone, and I'll bet you if she were not coached and if she were not constrained by the McCain campaign, I'll bet she could have dealt with it on her own inside of a week and deflected it and gotten rid of it and made her critics look to be total buffoons.
But instead, you know, she's second on the ticket.
So they sent her out there to do things that were supportive of McCain.
And I cringed every time I heard her call him a Maverick.
You know, I wanted to shout, this isn't going to get him a single vote.
The Maverick days are over.
Nobody cares about him being a Maverick.
But, you know, they were stuck in a time warp.
So I think the right people...
Newt Gingrich didn't respond to the criticism much.
He just, because some people just think that it's not going to affect them.
Or you try to befriend the media in the first place to try to deflect it.
That doesn't work either.
It's a great question, Barbara.
I'm glad you called.
We'll be back.
We will continue right after this.
Don't go away.
From the Associated Press, Obama, more American Kids Went Hungry Last Year.
That's the headline, and that is flat out false.
That is flat out BS.
▲
Export Selection