hope you will all read to the end. Jay Leno puts it into perspective and makes us think about the pathetic negativity. That's right, Jay Leno!!
Jay Leno wrote this; it's the Jay Leno we don't often see....
"The other day I was reading Newsweek magazine and came across some poll data I found rather hard to believe. It must be true, given the source, right?
The Newsweek poll alleges that 67 percent of Americans are unhappy with the direction the country is headed, and 69 percent of the country is unhappy with the performance of the President. In essence, 2/3's of the citizenry just ain't happy and want a change. So being the knuckle dragger I am, I started thinking, ''What are we so unhappy about?''Is it that we have electricity and running water 24 hours a day, 7 days a week?Is our unhappiness the result of having air conditioning in the summer and heating in the winter? Could it be that 95.4 percent of these unhappy folks have a job?Maybe it is the ability to walk into a grocery store at any time, and see more food in moments than Darfur has seen in the last year?Maybe it is the ability to drive from the Pacific Ocean to the Atlantic Ocean without having to present identification papers as we move through each state?Or possibly the hundreds of clean and safe motels we would find along the way that can provide temporary shelter? I guess having thousands of restaurants with varying cuisine from around the world is just not good enough.Or could it be that when we wreck our car, emergency workers show up and provides services to help all, and even send a helicopter to take you to the hospital. Perhaps you are one of the 70 percent of Americans who own a home. You may be upset with knowing that in the unfortunate case of a fire, a group of trained firefighters will appear in moments and use top notch equipment to extinguish the flames thus saving you, your family and your belongings. Or if, while at home watching one of your many flat screen TVs, a burglar or prowler intrudes, an officer equipped with a gun and a bullet-proof vest will come to defend you and your family against attack or loss. This all in the backdrop of a neighborhood free of bombs or militias raping and pillaging the residents. Neighborhoods where 90 percent of teenagers own cell phones and computers.How about the complete religious, social and political freedoms we enjoy that are the envy of everyone in the world? Maybe that is what has 67 percent of you folks unhappy.Fact is, we are the largest group of ungrateful, spoiled brats the world has ever seen. No wonder the world loves the U.S., yet has a great disdain for its citizens . They see us for what we are. The most blessed people in the world who do nothing but complain about what we don't have , and what we hate about the country instead of thanking the good Lord we live here. I know, I know. What about the President who took us into war and has no plan to get us out? The President who has a measly 31 percent approval rating? Is this the same President who guided the nation in the dark days after 9/11? The President that cut taxes to bring an economy out of recession? Could this be the same guy who has been called every name in the book for succeeding in keeping all the spoiled ungrateful brats safe from terrorist attacks? The Commander-In Chief of an all-volunteer army that is out there defending you and me? Did you hear how bad the President is on the news or talk show? Did this news affect you so much, make you so unhappy you couldn't take a look around for yourself and see all the good things and be glad? Think about it...are you upset at the President because he actually caused you personal pain OR is it because the "Media" told you he was failing to kiss your sorry ungrateful behind every day.Make no mistake about it. The troops in Iraq and Afghanistan have volunteered to serve, and in many cases may have died for your freedom. There is currently no draft in this country. They didn't have to go. They are able to refuse to go and end up with either a ''general'' discharge, an ''other than honorable'' discharge or, worst case scenario, a ''dishonorable'' discharge after a few days in the brig. So why then the flat-out discontentment in the minds of 69 percent of Americans? Say what you want, but I blame it on the media. If it bleeds, it leads; and they specialize in bad news. Everybody will watch a car crash with blood and guts. How many will watch kids selling lemonade at the corner? The media knows this and media outlets are for-profit corporations. They offer what sells, and when criticized, try to defend their actions by "justifying" them in one way or another. Just ask why they tried to allow a murderer like O.J. Simpson to write a book about "how he didn't kill his wife, but if he did he would have done it this way"...Insane!Stop buying the negativism you are fed everyday by the media. Shut off the TV, burn Newsweek, and use the New York Times for the bottom of your bird cage. Then start being grateful for all we have as a country. There is exponentially more good than bad. We are among the most blessed people on Earth, and should thank God several times a day, or at least be thankful and appreciative."With hurricanes, tornados, fires out of control, mud slides, flooding, severe thunderstorms tearing up the country from one end to another, and with the threat of bird flu and terrorist attacks, "Are we sure this is a good time to take God out of the Pledge of Allegiance?" Jay Leno 2007 Please keep this in circulation. There are so many people that need to read this and grasp the truth of it all.
Wednesday, February 27, 2008
Sunday, February 24, 2008
Ralph Nader Enters Presidential Race By: HOPE YEN,AP
WASHINGTON (Feb. 24) - Ralph Nader on Sunday announced a fresh bid for the White House, criticizing the top contenders as too close to big business and dismissing the possibility that his third-party candidacy could tip the election to Republicans. The longtime consumer advocate is still loathed by many Democrats who accuse him of costing Al Gore the 2000 election.Nader said most people are disenchanted with the Democratic and Republican parties due to a prolonged Iraq war and a shaky economy. He also blamed tax and other corporate-friendly policies under the Bush administration that he said have left many lower- and middle-class people in debt."You take that framework of people feeling locked out, shut out, marginalized, disrespected," he said. "You go from Iraq, to Palestine/Israel, from Enron to Wall Street, from Katrina to the bungling of the Bush administration, to the complicity of the Democrats in not stopping him on the war, stopping him on the tax cuts." Nader, who turns 74 later this week, announced his candidacy on NBC's "Meet the Press."In a later interview with The Associated Press, he rejected the notion of himself as a spoiler candidate, saying the electorate will not vote for a "pro-war John McCain." He also predicted his campaign would do better than in 2004, when he won just 0.3 percent of the vote as an independent."This time we're ready for them," said Nader of the Democratic Party lawsuits that kept him off the ballot in some states.Democratic candidates Barack Obama and Hillary Rodham Clinton quickly sought to portray Nader's announcement as having little impact."Obviously, it's not helpful to whomever our Democratic nominee is. But it's a free country," said Clinton, who called Nader's announcement a "passing fancy."Obama dismissed Nader as a perennial presidential campaigner. "He thought that there was no difference between Al Gore and George Bush and eight years later I think people realize that Ralph did not know what he was talking about," Obama added.Republican Mike Huckabee welcomed Nader into the race."I think it always would probably pull votes away from the Democrats, not the Republicans," the former Arkansas governor said on CNN.Nader said Obama's and Clinton's lukewarm response was not surprising given that both political parties typically treat third-party candidates as "second-class citizens." Nader said he will decide in the coming days whether to run as an independent, Green Party candidate or in some other third party.Pointing a finger at Republicans, he described McCain as a candidate for "perpetual war" and said he welcomed the support of Republican conservatives "who don't like the war in Iraq, who don't like taxpayer dollars wasted, and who don't like the Patriot Act and who treasure their rights of privacy.""If the Democrats can't landslide the Republicans this year, they ought to just wrap up," Nader added.
Fit to Print? New York Times in Crosshairs for Report on McCain and Female Lobbyist by: Foxnews.com
The New York Times is in the crosshairs after publishing a lengthy and critical profile of John McCain Thursday that suggests — but does not outright say — that McCain had a romantic relationship with a female lobbyist and did favors for her clients from his position as chairman of the Senate Commerce Committee.
The New Republic published a long article Thursday afternoon on its Web site detailing the story behind the story and claiming, “What’s most remarkable about the article is that it appeared in the paper at all.”
The New Republic lambasted The New York Times for giving the green light, claiming the piece was “filled with awkward journalistic moves” and that it stepped around the suggested trysts with lobbyist Vicki Iseman by focusing on the debate in the McCain campaign itself about the relationship.
The presumptive GOP presidential nominee vehemently refuted the article with his wife, Cindy, by his side.
“I’m very disappointed in The New York Times piece. It’s not true,” McCain said at a press conference he called in Toledo, Ohio.
The Arizona senator, along with Hillary Clinton, was endorsed by the newspaper before their parties’ respective presidential primaries in New York on Feb. 5.
With only anecdotal descriptions and no evidence of an improper relationship, focus has shifted from suggestions of McCain’s supposed improprieties to questions over whether the Times should have ran the story.
“I don’t think that there is enough acknowledged sourcing for this story,” U.S. News & World Report Publisher Mort Zuckerman told FOX News, saying it is not news that follows the newspaper’s motto of being fit to print. “I really don’t think it rises to that level.”
A blog on The National Review Online said simply, “The Times doesn’t have the goods — at least from what’s in the story — and shouldn’t have run it.”
“The New York Times is giving the National Enquirer a bad name,” said Brent Bozell of the conservative watchdog Media Research Center. “The New York Times story today is all that about a story that is 10 years old. I have never seen anything like it in my life.”
The Times article described how McCain’s campaign aides kept him and Iseman apart during the 2000 election for fear they were giving the impression they were having an affair. It noted how McCain wrote to government regulators on behalf of a client of the lobbyist while he was Commerce Committee chairman.
The article had been rumored for months after a report on it surfaced on the Drudge Report in December.
The New Republic story reported that the idea for the McCain piece was hatched in November, when four reporters were thrown on the assignment. Over the ensuing months, the magazine reported that the story “pitted the reporters investigating the story, who believed they had nailed it, against executive editor Bill Keller, who believed they hadn’t.”
The Drudge piece sent the McCain article “into hiding,” but in the end, on Feb. 19, top Times editors and the paper’s attorneys gave the final draft a read-through and decided to publish, The New Republic reported.
“The Times ended up publishing a piece in which the institutional tensions about just what the story should be are palpable,” reads The New Republic article.
Keller released a statement Thursday saying, “On the substance, we think the story speaks for itself.
“On the timing, our policy is, we publish stories when they are ready. ‘Ready’ means the facts have been nailed down to our satisfaction, the subjects have all been given a full and fair chance to respond, and the reporting has been written up with all the proper context and caveats. This story was no exception. It was a long time in the works. It reached my desk late Tuesday afternoon. After a final edit and a routine check by our lawyers, we published it,” he said.
McCain’s aides have defended the Arizona senator in droves from the story. They argue that the newspaper published a deliberate smear under pressure from The New Republic, which two weeks ago called the campaign for comment on the Times story published Thursday.
“The New York Times — the newspaper that gave MoveOn.org a sweetheart deal to run advertisements attacking General Petraeus — has shown once again that it cannot exercise good journalistic judgment when it comes to dealing with a conservative Republican,” campaign manager Rick Davis said in an e-mail to supporters, urging them to contribute to the campaign “to counteract the liberal establishment and fight back against the New York Times. “
“All I can conclude is that this is the largest liberal newspaper in America trying to unfairly attack the integrity of the new conservative Republican nominee for president,” said McCain adviser Charlie Black. “There is no other good explanation for it.”
McCain senior adviser Steve Schmidt called the report “a smear … it reads like a tabloid gossip sheet.”
“I think this is going to play badly for The New York Times and John McCain is going to be fine,” Schmidt said.
The Republican National Committee even used the story as a fundraising pitch of its own Thursday in an e-mail to donors.
McCain himself lamented that “this whole story is based on anonymous sources,” saying that could encompass any of the more than 100 aides he’s had contact with through the Commerce Committee.
The newspaper quoted anonymous aides as saying they had urged McCain and Iseman to stay away from each other prior to his failed presidential campaign in 2000.
A senior McCain adviser said after the magazine article was released that McCain isn’t planning on talking about the Times story any time soon.
“We answered every question they had this morning. That’s enough,” the adviser said.
The New Republic published a long article Thursday afternoon on its Web site detailing the story behind the story and claiming, “What’s most remarkable about the article is that it appeared in the paper at all.”
The New Republic lambasted The New York Times for giving the green light, claiming the piece was “filled with awkward journalistic moves” and that it stepped around the suggested trysts with lobbyist Vicki Iseman by focusing on the debate in the McCain campaign itself about the relationship.
The presumptive GOP presidential nominee vehemently refuted the article with his wife, Cindy, by his side.
“I’m very disappointed in The New York Times piece. It’s not true,” McCain said at a press conference he called in Toledo, Ohio.
The Arizona senator, along with Hillary Clinton, was endorsed by the newspaper before their parties’ respective presidential primaries in New York on Feb. 5.
With only anecdotal descriptions and no evidence of an improper relationship, focus has shifted from suggestions of McCain’s supposed improprieties to questions over whether the Times should have ran the story.
“I don’t think that there is enough acknowledged sourcing for this story,” U.S. News & World Report Publisher Mort Zuckerman told FOX News, saying it is not news that follows the newspaper’s motto of being fit to print. “I really don’t think it rises to that level.”
A blog on The National Review Online said simply, “The Times doesn’t have the goods — at least from what’s in the story — and shouldn’t have run it.”
“The New York Times is giving the National Enquirer a bad name,” said Brent Bozell of the conservative watchdog Media Research Center. “The New York Times story today is all that about a story that is 10 years old. I have never seen anything like it in my life.”
The Times article described how McCain’s campaign aides kept him and Iseman apart during the 2000 election for fear they were giving the impression they were having an affair. It noted how McCain wrote to government regulators on behalf of a client of the lobbyist while he was Commerce Committee chairman.
The article had been rumored for months after a report on it surfaced on the Drudge Report in December.
The New Republic story reported that the idea for the McCain piece was hatched in November, when four reporters were thrown on the assignment. Over the ensuing months, the magazine reported that the story “pitted the reporters investigating the story, who believed they had nailed it, against executive editor Bill Keller, who believed they hadn’t.”
The Drudge piece sent the McCain article “into hiding,” but in the end, on Feb. 19, top Times editors and the paper’s attorneys gave the final draft a read-through and decided to publish, The New Republic reported.
“The Times ended up publishing a piece in which the institutional tensions about just what the story should be are palpable,” reads The New Republic article.
Keller released a statement Thursday saying, “On the substance, we think the story speaks for itself.
“On the timing, our policy is, we publish stories when they are ready. ‘Ready’ means the facts have been nailed down to our satisfaction, the subjects have all been given a full and fair chance to respond, and the reporting has been written up with all the proper context and caveats. This story was no exception. It was a long time in the works. It reached my desk late Tuesday afternoon. After a final edit and a routine check by our lawyers, we published it,” he said.
McCain’s aides have defended the Arizona senator in droves from the story. They argue that the newspaper published a deliberate smear under pressure from The New Republic, which two weeks ago called the campaign for comment on the Times story published Thursday.
“The New York Times — the newspaper that gave MoveOn.org a sweetheart deal to run advertisements attacking General Petraeus — has shown once again that it cannot exercise good journalistic judgment when it comes to dealing with a conservative Republican,” campaign manager Rick Davis said in an e-mail to supporters, urging them to contribute to the campaign “to counteract the liberal establishment and fight back against the New York Times. “
“All I can conclude is that this is the largest liberal newspaper in America trying to unfairly attack the integrity of the new conservative Republican nominee for president,” said McCain adviser Charlie Black. “There is no other good explanation for it.”
McCain senior adviser Steve Schmidt called the report “a smear … it reads like a tabloid gossip sheet.”
“I think this is going to play badly for The New York Times and John McCain is going to be fine,” Schmidt said.
The Republican National Committee even used the story as a fundraising pitch of its own Thursday in an e-mail to donors.
McCain himself lamented that “this whole story is based on anonymous sources,” saying that could encompass any of the more than 100 aides he’s had contact with through the Commerce Committee.
The newspaper quoted anonymous aides as saying they had urged McCain and Iseman to stay away from each other prior to his failed presidential campaign in 2000.
A senior McCain adviser said after the magazine article was released that McCain isn’t planning on talking about the Times story any time soon.
“We answered every question they had this morning. That’s enough,” the adviser said.
Hillary, Obama Offer Nothing New; Conservatism Brings Real Change By: Rush Limbaugh
RUSH: You know, there's been a lot of talk about plagiarism in this campaign. The charges have been going back and forth from Mrs. Clinton to Obama, Deval Patrick, and they continue. Mrs. Clinton had a couple things to say last night that also boggle the mind. By the way, welcome back to Open Line Friday, I am El Rushbo, he of the dulcet tones and the vocal vibrations, the rhetoric and resonance reflected coast to coast here via the Golden EIB Microphone. By the way, Hillary is plagiarizing her husband, they're both plagiarizing John Edwards. The point is none of this is new. It's not plagiarism, folks, that matters here. It is two things. There is nothing new in liberalism. It's all old. It's just repackaged and recycled with different people on the box, but it's the same old has-been stuff. The second thing is authenticity. We're being told that Obama is this revolutionary new kind of political figure, that there's never been a figure in politics like him. I mean all these Democrats out there say these political rallies, why, this is changing the world kind of stuff, Elijah Cummings is saying. This is all old hat, none of it's authentic. It's not authentic to Mrs. Clinton; it's not authentic to Barack Obama, not even authentic to the Breck Girl, John Edwards. Let's listen to two sound bites here as Mrs. Clinton finds her voice again. Campbell Brown, the moderator at the debate last night says, "Senator Clinton, describe what was the moment that tested you the most, that moment of crisis."HILLARY: Everybody here knows I've lived through some crises and some challenging moments in my life, and I am grateful for the support and the prayers of countless Americans. But people often ask me, how do you do it, you know, how do you keep going? And I just have to shake my head in wonderment, because, with all of the challenges that I've had, they are nothing compared to what I see happening in the lives of Americans every single day. You know, the hits I've taken in life are nothing compared to what goes on every single day in the lives of people across our country.RUSH: Okay. How many of your hearts melted, those of you watching this last night? Oh, what a brave woman, why, what a courageous babe, sitting there and understanding all these hits that she's taking are nothing compared to life in this country, this foul, besmirched, recession-driven country, that people in this country are really taking the hits because they're poor, and they have no future and we're destroying the planet with global warming, all of these things? Well, no less than the New Republic has a little blog entry today, "'Clinton's Best Moments Not Really Hers?' -- The Obama campaign wasted no time in sending out an email that claims Clinton's best moment of the night was plagiarized from John Edwards." In fact, we gotta play the second sound bite to wrap all this up together. Keep this in mind. Her point here in the first bite was, all these hits I'm taking, they're nothing, Campbell, they're nothing compared to what goes on every single day in the lives of people across our country. Here's bite two.HILLARY: No matter what happens in this contest, and I am honored, I am honored to be here with Barack Obama. I am absolutely honored. (applause) Whatever happens, we're going to be fine. You know, we have strong support from our families and our friends. I just hope that we'll be able to say the same thing about the American people. And that's what this election should be about.RUSH: What is it, throwing in the towel? Does it sound like she's throwing in the towel there and giving up? But not just that, "We'll be fine, whatever happens, don't worry about me. Don't cry for me, America. I am Evita Clinton. Don't cry for me. I'll be fine. I'm rich. My husband's rich. And he can start dating again. It will be fine. We'll be fine. Obama will be fine. You will continue to get the excrement sandwich. But we will be fine. We need to make sure the American people have something to eat besides the excrement sandwich, but we will be fine." Okay. So Clinton's hits, nothing compared to what the American people take and don't worry about us, we'll be fine. Hillary Clinton, you just heard say, you know, whatever happens, you're going to be fine, you know we have strong support from our families and our friends. I just hope we'll be able to say the same for the American people, blah, blah. John Edwards: "What's not at stake are any of us. All of us are going to be just fine no matter what happens in this election. But what's at stake is whether America is going to be fine." And, "I want to say this to everyone: with Elizabeth, with my family, with my friends, with all of you and all of your support, this son of a millworker's gonna be just fine. Our job now is to make certain that America will be fine." That was the Breck Girl earlier this year in a debate. Mrs. Clinton stealing from the Breck Girl. No authenticity whatsoever. Then Josh Marshall, who is a liberal blogger, writes this. "I mentioned at the end of my debate blog that the pivot of Hillary's powerful concluding remarks came from Clinton's '92 campaign. Clinton had various permutations of it back then. 'Clinton in '92, the hits that I took in this election are nothing compared to the hits the people of this state and this country have been taking for a long time.' Hillary Clinton last night: 'You know, the hits I've taken in life are nothing compared to what goes on every single day in the lives of people across this country.'" Now, Josh Marshall says, "Well, let's be a hundred percent clear, nothing in the least wrong with this, it's a great line, but I think it shows the silliness of the plagiarism charges based on a few borrowed lines." Yeah, it does, Josh, it shows the total stupidity of the charge of plagiarism. What it illustrates here is that there are no new or fresh ideas anywhere, including with Obama.
Uh, I'm sorry. Mr. Snerdley, I need to bring you back here as the Official Obama Criticizer. Bo Snerdley back. Please remind the people -- did you hear what I just said? There are no fresh ideas with you-know-who. You ready? Okay, three, two, one.SNERDLEY: Mr. Obama, you need to prove to us that you have fresh ideas. I demand that you have fresh ideas. We want to hope in your fresh ideas, and so far, you've demonstrated none.RUSH: Thank you. The Official Obama Criticizer, Bo Snerdley. The stuff coming out of all these candidates' mouths is the same old same old; it's the same old recycled stuff. There's nothing new, and there's nothing authentic. The lines may be good, but there's nothing authentic. And, of course, one of these candidates, this new rock star type figure, at least with conservatism, there are new approaches as compared to all we have, medical savings plans, changes in Social Security, new ways to deal with the illegals, how to handle the economy. Conservatism is the ideology of change. Conservatism is the agent of change, not those other guys.BREAK TRANSCRIPTRUSH: A couple more thoughts on this. You know, PMSNBC on their website has this thing called the First Read. I guess everybody is trying to do their version of ABC's The Note, a website that was basically a day planner for what was going on in politics and what was in the newspapers and so forth, these wonks get up at three o'clock in the morning, four o'clock, start writing this stuff up. Now MSNBC has one of their own, The Politico has one, Mike Allen does. I don't know who the author of this little segment is on this one because I just had this one little part of it. "Hillary's Closing Line," it is called, and remember now, you just heard the closing line. In fact, let's go back. You may just be joining us. Play number 14 again, Mike.HILLARY: No matter what happens in this contest, and I am honored, I am honored to be here with Barack Obama. I am absolutely honored. (applause) Whatever happens, we're going to be fine. You know, we have strong support from our families and our friends. I just hope that we'll be able to say the same thing about the American people. And that's what this election should be about.RUSH: Right, right, right, right, right. Okay. So there it is. That's what we're talking about here. This is from MSNBC, whatever their early morning mishmash. "Clinton ended the debate on a VERY conciliatory note and for the first time sounded like a candidate who realized she might not win. It must be an odd position for her, but the confidence she exuded for just about the entire debate disappeared there at the end. Was she showing some vulnerability -- a la New Hampshire -- that might actually help her with some undecided voters? The Clinton campaign loved her closing remarks and sent a YouTube of it. But combine this last statement with her lack of negative attacks on Obama throughout the debate. As The Atlantic's Marc Ambinder notes." Now listen to this, if you want to talk about somebody that did not understand and doesn't get what's happening, Marc Ambinder at the Atlantic Blog, "This was the night where we all learned that Hillary Clinton understands the moment in history we are in, and that she is smart enough and gracious enough to realize that her party is more important than personal vanity, that there are things she just cannot say about Obama because it would hurt him in the fall, and that more likely than not, she will not win the nomination." Mr. Ambinder, I respect all of you Drive-Bys, but I have to tell you, your narrowness of focus continues to boggle my mind. There was nothing original in this. This is a sympathy play. She might have been throwing in the towel. When you see her say this in addition to hear it, I have been pointing out for weeks, this woman, Hillary Clinton, has been driven by one thing for 35 years: the presidency. It is the thing that has animated her. It is her family, it is her daughter, it is her life, it is her career, it is her vacation time, it's her car, all these things that you consider important in your life, your family, all of those things are this run for the White House. To sit here and think that she's going to be okay if she gets her backside handed to her by an inexperienced rookie? Black guy to boot? This is hilarious. To think that she's discovered she cares more about the party -- Mr. Ambinder, they haven't given up anything yet. She's still ahead in Ohio, tied in Texas, and don't forget, they could still blow up this convention. It depends. If this is the conciliatory, the other day I asked, they could be bought. Give them something big, like build 'em a toll bridge across the Potomac with the revenue going to Clinton's Library and Massage Parlor, or, how about this, I mean just speculating, but if we're going to say that she's conciliatory, getting out of this, she knows that it's up, and it's over, given there's going to be a Democrat-controlled Senate, given there's probably going to be a Democrat-controlled House, given there's probably going to be a Democrat in the White House, would a Supreme Court nomination not sail rightly through like a hot knife through butter? What better place -- if you can't get the presidency, how about a lifetime appointment to the US Supreme Court? You can mess America up from there almost as easily as you can from the White House. In some cases, a little easier, because at the Supreme Court you can write your own law if you can find four other idiot judges to go along with you, and she'll have them. If you have to go to Mozambique to find your precedent, go there. Look, I'm just speculating. Because everybody is on this bandwagon now that she's conciliatory and she might have realized that her time is up. She cares more about her party than herself, that's the thing, but none of this, the bottom line, folks, none of this is authentic, none of it's new, none of it's revolutionary. It's all been said before by Clinton, by the Breck Girl, and others. It's been written for these people to say by the powers that be behind the scenes. Conservatism is the new ideology of change. Conservatism looks at problems and tries to solve them: Social Security reform, entitlement reform. People want real change, it is our side that discusses it and would bring it. These people are just a bunch of hacks. They're regurgitating things from the Democrat Party playbook for 30, 40 years ago, just with a different speaker. All right. To the phones. Open Line Friday, Jim in Granger, Indiana, you're up first today. Nice to have you, sir.CALLER: Mega dittos, Rush. I've been listening to you since Bush 41.RUSH: Yeah.CALLER: And my comment is, I think Barack is just Bill Clinton-lite. I was listening to his speech the other day, thinking, "Where have I heard this rhetoric with saying absolutely nothing before," and it was Bill Clinton first time he ran.RUSH: Yeah. Exactly right. I'm sorry you had to call and basically say what I've been saying for the first 40 minutes. But, if you picked that up on your own and didn't need me, then my feelings are hurt, but I'll get over it -- (laughing) -- just kidding. I'm just throwing that out there for the Drive-Bys.CALLER: Yes, I'm part of the mind-numbed robots.RUSH: That's exactly right, waiting for your marching orders.CALLER: Yeah, there you go, there you go.RUSH: But, look, keep in mind as you realize this, what is the great thing that we're hearing that Obama brings to this? That is his authenticity, and it's something we've never foreseen in politics. Just the exact opposite. There's nothing authentic about this. It's just rehashed drivel, bilge, from previous campaigns, uttered by equally phony people. Mr. Snerdley, I need you back here as the Official Obama Criticizer.
BREAK TRANSCRIPTRUSH: Now for another criticism of Senator Barack Obama, we turn to the Official EIB Obama Criticizer, Bo Snerdley.SNERDLEY: There is absolutely nothing authentic about Barack Obama or his wife, for that matter. We've seen it all before. There is absolutely nothing here that we haven't seen before. They are phonies. For those of you brothers and sisters in the EIB hood, they're frontin,' man. That's it. And for our Hispanic brothers and sisters, no es verdad, muy malo.RUSH: Thank you, Mr. Snerdley, the Official Criticizer of Barack Obama here at the EIB Network. But I must respectfully disagree with our Obama criticizer on one point. I think that there is a new idea. I've actually thought about this. It doesn't take away from Mr. Snerdley's criticism of Obama as a phony or inauthentic, but there is a new idea, and it's been running around, it's actually not new, but it's become almost an official stamp of the Democrat Party and the American left. And that is the concept that America is bad and failed, that Americans just can't cut it, that we need help from government, and we need help from illegal immigrants. Look at the Obamas. They are hugely successful. They are black. They are spreading the idea, though, that black people can't make it in America. Not only that, they're spreading the idea that nobody can make it in America, and that is the new idea. If you Democrats want to claim that you have a new idea, then you can steal this from me because it's yours already. The new idea is that no one can make it in America. Now, this has always been one of their underpinnings, one of the foundational building blocks of their ideology but now they're out in the open with it, now they're saying it out loud, now their presidential candidate, a black man and his wife who have made it and are hugely successful, are telling everybody else they can't. Where did they learn this attitude? They learned this attitude at their Ivy League skrools, they learned it in their hate-America church. They think -- and they might be right -- that they are the first generation with this attitude. Do you think Mr. and Mrs. Obama want a better life for their kids than they had for themselves? They're like all normal parents, wouldn't you think? But do you think they're telling their own kids, you can't make it in this country? "What do you mean, Daddy, we see you running for president, what do you mean?" "No, son, you can't make it, you can't make it. Tell 'em, Michelle, they can't make it, can't make it. That's right, boys, you can't make it, not in America. Girls, girls, you can't, especially you girls and you're black, especially you can't make it in America." "But Mommy, but Mommy --" "No, listen to me! This country is failed, it's over, you can't make it unless, of course, Daddy gets to be president." Last night, Barack Obama, as his silver-tongued beliefs were flowing out of his magical mouth, saying he believed in hard work and American values. You know, the old-fashioned ones. But when you really listen, you can see that his projected policies prove that he's lying, as he did not believe that. He believes in massive protective government in all aspects of our lives like every other liberal does because you're incompetent, you can't overcome the obstacles in life, you can't get past those people at Wal-Mart that are going to cheat you. You certainly can't get past those people at Exxon that are going to cheat you. You cannot get past all of those people at the five and dime and at the Kwik Shop, they're going to cheat you. And of course, you can't get past those rich people. The only people that are going to treat you right, the only people gonna care about you will be people in government, massive protective government in all aspects of our lives, because Barack Obama does not believe in us or this country or American exceptionalism, and that, ladies and gentlemen, is the new idea that Barack Obama and the whole Democrat Party are peddling.
Uh, I'm sorry. Mr. Snerdley, I need to bring you back here as the Official Obama Criticizer. Bo Snerdley back. Please remind the people -- did you hear what I just said? There are no fresh ideas with you-know-who. You ready? Okay, three, two, one.SNERDLEY: Mr. Obama, you need to prove to us that you have fresh ideas. I demand that you have fresh ideas. We want to hope in your fresh ideas, and so far, you've demonstrated none.RUSH: Thank you. The Official Obama Criticizer, Bo Snerdley. The stuff coming out of all these candidates' mouths is the same old same old; it's the same old recycled stuff. There's nothing new, and there's nothing authentic. The lines may be good, but there's nothing authentic. And, of course, one of these candidates, this new rock star type figure, at least with conservatism, there are new approaches as compared to all we have, medical savings plans, changes in Social Security, new ways to deal with the illegals, how to handle the economy. Conservatism is the ideology of change. Conservatism is the agent of change, not those other guys.BREAK TRANSCRIPTRUSH: A couple more thoughts on this. You know, PMSNBC on their website has this thing called the First Read. I guess everybody is trying to do their version of ABC's The Note, a website that was basically a day planner for what was going on in politics and what was in the newspapers and so forth, these wonks get up at three o'clock in the morning, four o'clock, start writing this stuff up. Now MSNBC has one of their own, The Politico has one, Mike Allen does. I don't know who the author of this little segment is on this one because I just had this one little part of it. "Hillary's Closing Line," it is called, and remember now, you just heard the closing line. In fact, let's go back. You may just be joining us. Play number 14 again, Mike.HILLARY: No matter what happens in this contest, and I am honored, I am honored to be here with Barack Obama. I am absolutely honored. (applause) Whatever happens, we're going to be fine. You know, we have strong support from our families and our friends. I just hope that we'll be able to say the same thing about the American people. And that's what this election should be about.RUSH: Right, right, right, right, right. Okay. So there it is. That's what we're talking about here. This is from MSNBC, whatever their early morning mishmash. "Clinton ended the debate on a VERY conciliatory note and for the first time sounded like a candidate who realized she might not win. It must be an odd position for her, but the confidence she exuded for just about the entire debate disappeared there at the end. Was she showing some vulnerability -- a la New Hampshire -- that might actually help her with some undecided voters? The Clinton campaign loved her closing remarks and sent a YouTube of it. But combine this last statement with her lack of negative attacks on Obama throughout the debate. As The Atlantic's Marc Ambinder notes." Now listen to this, if you want to talk about somebody that did not understand and doesn't get what's happening, Marc Ambinder at the Atlantic Blog, "This was the night where we all learned that Hillary Clinton understands the moment in history we are in, and that she is smart enough and gracious enough to realize that her party is more important than personal vanity, that there are things she just cannot say about Obama because it would hurt him in the fall, and that more likely than not, she will not win the nomination." Mr. Ambinder, I respect all of you Drive-Bys, but I have to tell you, your narrowness of focus continues to boggle my mind. There was nothing original in this. This is a sympathy play. She might have been throwing in the towel. When you see her say this in addition to hear it, I have been pointing out for weeks, this woman, Hillary Clinton, has been driven by one thing for 35 years: the presidency. It is the thing that has animated her. It is her family, it is her daughter, it is her life, it is her career, it is her vacation time, it's her car, all these things that you consider important in your life, your family, all of those things are this run for the White House. To sit here and think that she's going to be okay if she gets her backside handed to her by an inexperienced rookie? Black guy to boot? This is hilarious. To think that she's discovered she cares more about the party -- Mr. Ambinder, they haven't given up anything yet. She's still ahead in Ohio, tied in Texas, and don't forget, they could still blow up this convention. It depends. If this is the conciliatory, the other day I asked, they could be bought. Give them something big, like build 'em a toll bridge across the Potomac with the revenue going to Clinton's Library and Massage Parlor, or, how about this, I mean just speculating, but if we're going to say that she's conciliatory, getting out of this, she knows that it's up, and it's over, given there's going to be a Democrat-controlled Senate, given there's probably going to be a Democrat-controlled House, given there's probably going to be a Democrat in the White House, would a Supreme Court nomination not sail rightly through like a hot knife through butter? What better place -- if you can't get the presidency, how about a lifetime appointment to the US Supreme Court? You can mess America up from there almost as easily as you can from the White House. In some cases, a little easier, because at the Supreme Court you can write your own law if you can find four other idiot judges to go along with you, and she'll have them. If you have to go to Mozambique to find your precedent, go there. Look, I'm just speculating. Because everybody is on this bandwagon now that she's conciliatory and she might have realized that her time is up. She cares more about her party than herself, that's the thing, but none of this, the bottom line, folks, none of this is authentic, none of it's new, none of it's revolutionary. It's all been said before by Clinton, by the Breck Girl, and others. It's been written for these people to say by the powers that be behind the scenes. Conservatism is the new ideology of change. Conservatism looks at problems and tries to solve them: Social Security reform, entitlement reform. People want real change, it is our side that discusses it and would bring it. These people are just a bunch of hacks. They're regurgitating things from the Democrat Party playbook for 30, 40 years ago, just with a different speaker. All right. To the phones. Open Line Friday, Jim in Granger, Indiana, you're up first today. Nice to have you, sir.CALLER: Mega dittos, Rush. I've been listening to you since Bush 41.RUSH: Yeah.CALLER: And my comment is, I think Barack is just Bill Clinton-lite. I was listening to his speech the other day, thinking, "Where have I heard this rhetoric with saying absolutely nothing before," and it was Bill Clinton first time he ran.RUSH: Yeah. Exactly right. I'm sorry you had to call and basically say what I've been saying for the first 40 minutes. But, if you picked that up on your own and didn't need me, then my feelings are hurt, but I'll get over it -- (laughing) -- just kidding. I'm just throwing that out there for the Drive-Bys.CALLER: Yes, I'm part of the mind-numbed robots.RUSH: That's exactly right, waiting for your marching orders.CALLER: Yeah, there you go, there you go.RUSH: But, look, keep in mind as you realize this, what is the great thing that we're hearing that Obama brings to this? That is his authenticity, and it's something we've never foreseen in politics. Just the exact opposite. There's nothing authentic about this. It's just rehashed drivel, bilge, from previous campaigns, uttered by equally phony people. Mr. Snerdley, I need you back here as the Official Obama Criticizer.
BREAK TRANSCRIPTRUSH: Now for another criticism of Senator Barack Obama, we turn to the Official EIB Obama Criticizer, Bo Snerdley.SNERDLEY: There is absolutely nothing authentic about Barack Obama or his wife, for that matter. We've seen it all before. There is absolutely nothing here that we haven't seen before. They are phonies. For those of you brothers and sisters in the EIB hood, they're frontin,' man. That's it. And for our Hispanic brothers and sisters, no es verdad, muy malo.RUSH: Thank you, Mr. Snerdley, the Official Criticizer of Barack Obama here at the EIB Network. But I must respectfully disagree with our Obama criticizer on one point. I think that there is a new idea. I've actually thought about this. It doesn't take away from Mr. Snerdley's criticism of Obama as a phony or inauthentic, but there is a new idea, and it's been running around, it's actually not new, but it's become almost an official stamp of the Democrat Party and the American left. And that is the concept that America is bad and failed, that Americans just can't cut it, that we need help from government, and we need help from illegal immigrants. Look at the Obamas. They are hugely successful. They are black. They are spreading the idea, though, that black people can't make it in America. Not only that, they're spreading the idea that nobody can make it in America, and that is the new idea. If you Democrats want to claim that you have a new idea, then you can steal this from me because it's yours already. The new idea is that no one can make it in America. Now, this has always been one of their underpinnings, one of the foundational building blocks of their ideology but now they're out in the open with it, now they're saying it out loud, now their presidential candidate, a black man and his wife who have made it and are hugely successful, are telling everybody else they can't. Where did they learn this attitude? They learned this attitude at their Ivy League skrools, they learned it in their hate-America church. They think -- and they might be right -- that they are the first generation with this attitude. Do you think Mr. and Mrs. Obama want a better life for their kids than they had for themselves? They're like all normal parents, wouldn't you think? But do you think they're telling their own kids, you can't make it in this country? "What do you mean, Daddy, we see you running for president, what do you mean?" "No, son, you can't make it, you can't make it. Tell 'em, Michelle, they can't make it, can't make it. That's right, boys, you can't make it, not in America. Girls, girls, you can't, especially you girls and you're black, especially you can't make it in America." "But Mommy, but Mommy --" "No, listen to me! This country is failed, it's over, you can't make it unless, of course, Daddy gets to be president." Last night, Barack Obama, as his silver-tongued beliefs were flowing out of his magical mouth, saying he believed in hard work and American values. You know, the old-fashioned ones. But when you really listen, you can see that his projected policies prove that he's lying, as he did not believe that. He believes in massive protective government in all aspects of our lives like every other liberal does because you're incompetent, you can't overcome the obstacles in life, you can't get past those people at Wal-Mart that are going to cheat you. You certainly can't get past those people at Exxon that are going to cheat you. You cannot get past all of those people at the five and dime and at the Kwik Shop, they're going to cheat you. And of course, you can't get past those rich people. The only people that are going to treat you right, the only people gonna care about you will be people in government, massive protective government in all aspects of our lives, because Barack Obama does not believe in us or this country or American exceptionalism, and that, ladies and gentlemen, is the new idea that Barack Obama and the whole Democrat Party are peddling.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)