RUSH: Now, ladies and gentlemen, I, of course, have a trained eye. I can see the stitches on a fastball. I can read between the lines. One of the things that I have noticed and pointed out to you quite frequently is how similar talking points from, say, Saddam’s defense team and talking points from the Democratic Party against Bush sound so similar and familiar that it’s dangerous. It’s actually appalling. Today, there is a story in the New York Times by Adam
Robert Novak wrote about it. Emanuel runs the Democrat Congressional Campaign Committee and is getting praised to the hilt. He used to be one of Clinton’s henchmen, and he’s been praised to the hilt for this great job he’s doing out there running the DCCC. Well, his chosen candidate, the Democrat Party’s chosen candidate in some Democrat primary some district somewhere, lost, and it was a resounding defeat, and it was the first
I’ll get to that here in just a second, and I dare say that there is nobody else in the media who would read a New York Times story about the elections on Tuesday and find similarities to the statement of Al-Qaeda and others in Iraq friendly to Zarqawi today, but me. I doubt it. I’m the only one astute enough, and with the instincts enough, to be able to do this. “Narrow Victory by GOP Signals Fall Problems.” Where have we heard this? This is a New York Times story published today. That was the spin
“The victory that Republicans squeezed out in a high-profile race to fill a congressional vacancy in San Diego eased party anxieties Wednesday, but signaled future difficulties as they confront tougher Democratic challenges in increasingly contested districts this fall. Mr. Bilbray’s failure to break 50% was striking.” No, it wasn’t, Adam Nagourney, because there were two other conservatives on the ballot. If you add their vote totals, you get over 55%. It was not “striking” at all.
“But if the outcome was worrisome to Republicans as they battle to hold control of the House, it was also a clear disappointment for Democrats.” You see, a
Mr. Emanuel, you can think your “message of change” carried any weight out there, but if you want to know what was the determining factor in California 50, it was
“The Republicans had to spend $5 million, the dominant message of immigration to break our message of change. It tells you how potent that message is. Not every district is going to be on the border of Mexico.” We’re not going away this didn’t amount to anything this doesn’t count.” Why, we would have beaten them
Now I know this is not intentional, because Emanuel said this long before Zarqawi assumed room temperature. I just find it
*Note: Links to content outside RushLimbaugh.com usually become inactive over time.