RUSH: Now, let’s talk about Mrs. Clinton for just a second here because we have the big debate tonight out in Las Vegas, and from what I understand, the first hour is going to be Wolf Blitzer running the thing. The second hour is going to be questions posed by registered Independent voters with guidance provided by Suzanne Malveaux. I wonder how many of those are going to be planted. I did a little research on this. Back in 2000 for a Senate debate that Hillary was having that CNN ran, and Wolf Blitzer — they did it at some university; I forget which — and the students were going to be participating in asking questions. They submitted their questions a day in advance to CNN. Remember this? CNN went through the questions and decided which ones were going to get asked. Nobody knows if Mrs. Clinton was given a heads-up as to what questions were coming. I remember talking about it at the time, the same thing with this YouTube stuff that they tried earlier this season. You gotta screen these things. You can’t put rank amateurs up there. There’s a ratings component to this as well as everything else, so I’m not surprised that CNN would be screening. (interruption) Carole Simpson? What about Carole Simpson?
Carole Simpson was the moderator at the ponytail guy debate between George H. W. Bush, H. Ross Perot, and Bill Clinton. I know there have always been questions about how these particular Independent voters or members of the public get in there and what questions that they are asked. Speaking of which, this is from The Nation, which is one of these lunatic fringe left-wing publications. The editor there is Hurricane Katrina vanden Heuvel. ‘As Hillary Clinton aims to regain momentum in tonight’s presidential debate, new videos have surfaced on YouTube with young voters asking her questions that are similar to the fake question posed by a Grinnell college student last week.
There is no direct indication that the new footage, apparently taken from an October 16 event at a high school in Salem, New Hampshire, demonstrates any concerted effort by the Clinton Campaign to plant questions. But in an era where web videos can spread fast and shape the views of activists and voters, the clips may feed the narrative that Clinton’s tightly run campaign is shielding her from voters’ scrutiny. … One way for the Clinton Campaign to address questions about the new clips would be to release the original list of fake questions.’ (laughing) ‘Then voters could see for themselves what other topics were proposed for planting, and confirm that last week’s plants were an isolated incident.’ This is great. This is just not going away, ladies and gentlemen.
Now, Mrs. Clinton’s latest position on driver’s licenses and illegals is also an admission. All the BS that came out this past week, all the stuff from the war room and from Clinton, Inc., all the phony accusations are being piled on, the pathetic use of the gender card — you remember Mrs. Clinton said, ‘Tim, this is a gotcha moment.’ We know what ‘gotcha’ means and we know what it’s always meant. Gotcha means Hillary’s caught trying not to be a leader; trying not to take a stand. Now she’s been caught making phony accusations, phony because she was forced to admit that she was the problem, not Russert, not Dodd, not Edwards, not Obama, nor the press. Hillary got pushed into a corner that she wasn’t expecting to get pushed into. She wasn’t expecting the question — thank you, America; we forced it here — and she was forced into taking a position. So she flip-flopped during the debate. She went to that corner kicking, screaming, making false accusations about the debate moderator and other Democrats running for president. Then the Slickmeister came into the fray saying the boys were getting tough with her but that she could handle it.
But she can’t. That’s the bottom line. She didn’t, after getting pummeled in the press and in the polls, she capitulated. How did she capitulate? She capitulated by taking a position that was more popular than her original statement at the debate, and her original statement supporting Spitzer’s plan to the Nashua, New Hampshire, newspaper editorial board. It’s a good thing she won’t meet with our enemies. God only knows what she’d give away within the course of one meeting. This driver’s license thing is a big blunder on several levels. David Broder, the dean of Washington punditry, has written a piece that’s just scathing to the Democrats here and warning them on their untenable position on illegal immigration and a couple other things. All this coming up in great detail on the program, by the way. Anne Kornblut in the Washington Post, here’s the headline — it’s not in the paper, but it’s on a blog — ‘Spitzer Drops License Plan, But Damage to Democrats is Done.’ The damage being that it is illegal immigration. The issue they hope to stay away from, that they hope would divide the Republicans, is now tormenting them. Broder’s piece is headlined, ‘The Icebergs Ahead For the Democrats.’
So anyway, Hillary Clinton is like a child of the sixties. Her answers are blowing in the wind, and there might a parody song in there. Tim Russert has to be smiling now. I hope he is. He may be the first guy in the Drive-Bys that got smeared by a Clinton and emerged the clear victor in just a matter of days. In that, he joins me. Because I, too, have been smeared by Clinton, Inc., and Harry Reid, Inc., and have emerged victorious, and shining, and am now the Johnny Appleseed of American Politics, planting seeds of truth that are growing and sprouting throughout our glorious country.
Anyway, I gotta take a brief time-out. There’s devastating poll from the Democrats today, too, from Gallup, Americans widely disappointed with Democrats in Congress. Majority more displeased than content with the handling of seven issues.
RUSH: This just cannot be great news for the Democrats. It’s a major Drive-By Media organization, and its poll, the Gallup poll. Amidst a swirl of public dissatisfaction about the Iraq war, the economy, government corruption — and with President Bush more generally — Americans went to the polls in November, 2006, voted enough Republicans out of office to give the Democrats majority control of Congress a year later, Americans are as negative about the job Congress is doing as they were leading up to the 2006 midterm elections. And, according to the recent Gallup polling, Americans are distinctly negative about the Democrats’ handling of several front-burner policy issues. The latest Gallup panel survey was conducted October 25-28 asked Americans to say whether they are pleased, neutral, or disappointed or angry about the way Democrats in the Congress have been dealing with seven major issues confronting the nation. Here’s a question: “As you may know, the Democrat Party gained majority control of Congress in January. How do you feel about the job the Democrats in Congress are doing on each of the following issues: pleased, neutral, disappointed, or angry?”
On terrorism, 17% are pleased; 35%; 31% disappointed, 16% angry. You add the last two, you get 47 angry. On the economy, you add the last two, and you get 53% disappointed or angry at the Democrats. On government reform, you add the last two, disappointed and angry, and you get 45% who are — 55%, sorry, 55% angry on government reform. On health care, you add disappointed and angry, 43 and 17, and you get what? You get 60% angry at the Democrats on health care. On Iraq, you add 43 and 25, you get 68% either disappointed or angry with the Democrats on Iraq. On immigration, you add 39 and 26, and you get 65% angry at the Democrats. Ha! And they thought those numbers would be reserved for Republicans. On the federal budget deficit, you add the last two, disappointed and angry, and you get 50 — sorry — you get 60% angry. These are not numbers that Dingy Harry and Nancy Pelosi are going to appreciate. But do they not dove — folks, don’t doubt me. I have been assuring you that this was going to be the case with these people. They are not universally loved. The Drive-By Media is not succeeding in persuading a majority of Americans that the Democrats are doing so wonderful, if it just weren’t for Bush, they could be doing all kinds of great things. And I think part and parcel of these numbers is the fact that the Democrats just don’t present themselves as likable people, either, when they — when they go on TV — Dingy Harry, Nancy Pelosi, whoever they trot out there, they’re not likable, they — and the people that speak for them say these mean and just outrageous, enraged, lunatic, insane things. And it’s taking — it’s taking its toll.
Now, interesting take on this poll. This is from Mark Tapscott. Mark Tapscott is the editorial page editor of the Washington Examiner. And he’s gone through the same numbers here that I just shared with you, and he said, look, “before Republicans get too happy about seeing the Democrats’ abysmal failure, I suggest the root of these numbers isn’t simply a dissatisfaction with policy failures, but rather an indication of a deeper disappointment born of the widespread failure of Big Government. We have created a federal leviathan that promises to deliver something for everybody with its regulations and taxation directly — or directing virtually every corner of daily life. There is no way that government can do that, so failures are inevitable. But over a period of time, as the failures in particular arenas multiply, there comes a point when the many specific failures merge into one general mood of dissatisfaction. …. This widespread dissatisfaction with the inability of Big Government to deliver on its promises presents conservatives with an historic opportunity to refocus public debate to redefine what is expected of government, to slim it down to more manageable portions so that it can deliver on the most important things.”
Mr. Tapscott is dead on. Shortly after Hurricane Katrina and immigration reform, the amnesty bill that failed, one of the things that I tried and tried to point out continuously — well, I didn’t try; I did do it — this is Big Government at work and people are seeing this. They’re seeing — especially the immigration debate. And I said, this is going to cross party lines. They are seeing the ineffectiveness of it. Not only did I say they’re seeing the ineffectiveness, they’re seeing the sleaze. The amnesty bill was put together behind closed doors, it was fast tracked. There wasn’t going to be any debate, there weren’t going to be any committee hearings. The last thing that the architects of the amnesty bill wanted was for anybody to know what it was about. They didn’t want anybody to know the details. And the details broke. There were some senators in there, Jeff Sessions did tremendous work in — in making sure that the word got out. A lot of people did. And so the attempt failed, as you all know. What that episode illustrated, quite — quite obviously — is when government gets that big, it gets arrogant, it gets elitist.
Look at Governor Spitzer. You know what really is the guiding force with Governor Spitzer’s mistakes here? It’s not that they’re immune, it’s not that they don’t hear what the public says. It’s that they don’t care. They are a different class of people in their mind. You are rubes, you are hayseed hicks, you are not sufficiently educated, nor are you sufficiently sophisticated, to understand these complexities that the brilliant elitists among us have to do deal with. And it’s so complex, and it’s so difficult, and we are all so unsophisticated, that they’re not even going to take the time to try to tell us because it’s a waste of time in their minds. We don’t have the brain power to understand it. That also is what you get with an out-of-control federal government — people with that kind of attitude in it; that they’re better than everybody else and that they’re smarter than everybody. So Tapscott here is right on the money. Everything that’s been happening recently is a great illustration of the size of government, way too big and how it becomes just grossly inefficient and incompetent.
In light of this, given how we’ve seen all these other issues handled, from Hurricane Katrina to, what, the amnesty bill and the DREAM Act, all the efforts to get it ramrodded through without our knowing about it, any number of things. How about the State Department botching up people’s summer vacations because of the delay in issuing passports? Are these the people you want running health care? It has just constantly amazed me that there are people out there who will turn over something that’s the size of one-seventh of the US economy to the same people that botch everything else they have to do in life, from the DMV on up. But the way it happens I think is psychologically. People in government, candidates, promising this single-payer health care plan, have convinced people it’s going to be free, that it’s not going to cost them anything. So they’re willing to put up, they think, with whatever bureaucratic inefficiencies there are. But in a common sense way, why would anybody want to have this government run anything that’s percolating fine in the private sector?
“In short,” back to Mr. Tapscott here, “the coming decade could be the greatest opportunity this generation is likely to see to make the case for a rejuvenated federalism of limited government. We simply have to find new ways to speak the timeless message of Ronald Reagan’s first inaugural.” Listen to this, to what Reagan said: “It’s my intention to curb the size and influence of the federal establishment and to demand recognition of the distinction between the powers granted to the Federal Government and those reserved to the States or to the people. All of us need to be reminded that the Federal Government didn’t create the States; the States created the Federal Government. Now, so there will be no misunderstanding, it’s not my intention to do away with government. It is, rather, to make it work — work with us, not over us; to stand by our side, not ride on our back. Government can and must provide opportunity, not smother it; foster productivity, not stifle it.” That’s Reagan, first inaugural. “One more lesson of importance here for conservatives,” writes Tapscott, “and it is one that ought to give us heart. When your political power depends, as it does for our liberal friends, on promising more and more, but doing so assures that you’ll be able to actually deliver less and less, you sow the seeds of your own downfall.” Now, I do have an observation about that when we come back.
RUSH: Now, Mark Tapscott writes a great premise, Big Government faces paralysis by promise. The inability to deliver on what everybody expects. He concludes his analysis of the Gallup poll this way. ‘When your political power depends, as it does for our liberal friends, on promising more and more, but doing so assures that you’ll be able to actually deliver less and less, you sow the seeds of your own downfall.’ Now, theoretically, I think that’s valid, but in a practical application, can you think of a group of people that have been voting Democrat for decades, expecting and expecting and expecting, and being disappointed, and disappointed, and disappointed and not receiving what they think they’re going to expect? Yes, you can. The African-American community in this country, when it comes to voting for Democrat presidents, does so at 90 to 93% every four years.
They’ve been doing it since the sixties. They continue to have all this hope held out that the Democrats were going to get even with these people discriminating against you, ‘We’re going to get even with the racists and the bigots. We’re going to make sure that you’re not in jail. We’re going to make sure that all this economic good stuff happens,’ and they still complain. They still complain, and you take a guy like Bill Clinton, who did nothing for them in the nineties, and they proclaim him the first black president. So while the theory would seem to work in practical application, at least for one voting bloc, the idea that promising but failing to deliver will sow the seeds of your downfall, it has not sown the seeds of the Democrat Party’s downfall with black voters in presidential races.
To the phones. We’ll start in Fort Worth, Texas. Billy, I’m glad you called, sir. Nice to have you with us.
CALLER: Hey, how you doing, Mr. Limbaugh?
RUSH: I’m fine, sir. Thank you.
CALLER: Well, listen, I think ya’ll doing overkill on Mrs. Clinton, because, hey, whenever I turn on you and Sean Hannity and other talk shows, you all talk about, all I hear hate, hate, hate, Mrs. Clinton. You know, and, hey, I’m not for Mrs. Clinton. I am a Democrat. I’m a Christian. And what I hear from you guys is hate, and that lady they got on TV was talking with Mr. McCain, talking about how we can stop the lady with the B-word, I mean I couldn’t believe they would say that, she would say that. That’s hate, and I don’t think Christians abide hate, and, look, I think you guys are helping Mrs. Clinton win by what you guys are doing. I don’t think Christians are about hate. All I hear is hate, hate, hate, hate, hate, and I think that’s wrong. That’s overkill.
RUSH: Billy, I love Mrs. Clinton. I’ve met Mrs. Clinton. I don’t hate her. You know, I don’t hate anybody. I do like to point out when people in politics who are given these vast, grand images of greatness prove that they are false, but I disagree with Mrs. Clinton on policy matters almost across the board, and that’s what this is about. But, you know, you raise an interesting point, Billy, because as a Democrat, you say you were undecided about voting for Mrs. Clinton?
CALLER: No, I’ve never been for Mrs. Clinton, I like Edwards and Biden.
RUSH: All right. But now you find yourself sympathizing with Mrs. Clinton, right, because of all this so-called hate that you hear out there, so you’re thinking of supporting her the first chance you get, right?
CALLER: If she is the Democratic nominee, I will.
RUSH: Well of course you will, Bill, you’re a Democrat. You’re going to support whoever the Democrats nominate.
CALLER: How did you know that? You don’t know that.
RUSH: Well, I got the law of averages on my side.
CALLER: You do not know that.
RUSH: You’re a Democrat.
CALLER: I think you taking everything for granted. A lot of black people ain’t like that, brother.
RUSH: Billy, you are getting contentious with me for no reason. I have done nothing but show you calm, reasoned respect, and I have asked you questions, desiring your opinion. And here you are lashing out. You sound like you’re filled with hate today, calling me.
CALLER: No, no, I’m not. I’m just — look here, hey, I wouldn’t mind voting for Knute Rockne, you know, but —
RUSH: You’re not gonna —
CALLER: I’m looking at Bayh.
RUSH: You’re not going to vote for Mitt Romney.
CALLER: How do you know?
RUSH: Well —
CALLER: How do you know?
RUSH: I don’t know. But I’m just guessing —
CALLER: Okay, see —
RUSH: — that’s pretty good — calm —
CALLER: Mr. Jackson and that other guy, the black people —
RUSH: Billy, you gotta —
CALLER: — don’t know that.
RUSH: You gotta stop —
CALLER: — seven years old and you guys don’t know that.
RUSH: You gotta stop all this ‘you guys’ business. I am the one guy; I am the Big Guy; it’s the Era of Limbaugh.
CALLER: Okay, but if Mrs. Clinton gets elected, it will be because of people with you and Sean Hannity and the people on the right, all this hate, and you all need to stop the hate.
RUSH: Hey, hey, you know, in a way, you have a valid point about that, but not the way you’re thinking. Kathleen Parker wrote a great column today about how the treatment of Mrs. Clinton could create sympathy for her, and it’s not by attacking her on her issues. If people attack her appearance, attack the way she dresses, if they attack her looks, this sort of thing, that won’t fly, that will rally women to Mrs. Clinton more than anything possibly could.
CALLER: You know that B-word already —
RUSH: Well, you know, the B-word, you mean this guy that asked McCain a question and referred to Hillary as a b-i-itch?
CALLER: The lady, it was a lady.
RUSH: It was a lady?
CALLER: It was a lady.
RUSH: Oh, well, then what’s the problem? Women can say whatever they want about women?
CALLER: (laughter) They going to rally people to her support, I’m telling you. And I wish you win now because all this hate, and all you Christians out there, you need to stop that hate.
RUSH: Wait, I need to ask you a serious question here.
RUSH: Before you heard what you think is hate on the radio about Mrs. Clinton, you weren’t prepared to vote for her, you were looking at Edwards, or did you say Obama, or Biden?
CALLER: Edwards and Biden.
RUSH: Well, that’s really interesting. So what is it that you didn’t like about Mrs. Clinton before you started hearing all this hate?
CALLER: What business I didn’t like? Well, the way her attitude is. I really — you know, I look at a person and I don’t really think she can — she’s not a Bill Clinton, okay. I used to (unintelligible) Bill Clinton (unintelligible) in Arkansas, and she’s not a Bill Clinton, okay? And — and I — and I don’t know why people hate Bill Clinton, either.
RUSH: You ever stop to think that if Hillary gets elected, Bill’s back in there and they’re going to have, you know, a co-presidency?
CALLER: I don’t know about that.
RUSH: Oh, yeah.
CALLER: I know people are saying. I don’t know about that.
RUSH: I know the Clintons like every square inch of my glorious naked body, Billy, and I can tell you, it’s going to be a co-president. But I gotta go back. You don’t like Hillary’s attitude, so you would actually end up voting for somebody you don’t like just because you think a bunch of people are piling on her unfairly?
CALLER: I sure will, because of hate, and I’m a Christian.
RUSH: I don’t think you’re hearing me.
CALLER: That may be a shallow, may be shallow, I’m gonna vote for her if she’s the nominee, but I hope she don’t get to be the nominee.
RUSH: Look, you guys on the left, Billy, are going to have to reexamine the way you define hate. Because the hate in our culture is coming from the Democrat Party and it’s coming from the American left. I don’t hate anybody. Sean Hannity doesn’t hate anybody. We love the country. We want the best country we can be. We want people to be the best they can be. We want people to reach their dreams, their wildest dreams and aspirations. We have faith that they can do it if government gets out of their way. We don’t have hate for people. We love people; in fact, Billy, we love ’em to the point that we see the best in them. We know that there’s the best in everybody. But they’re not inspired by enough people. Their expectations are not high enough. The hate in this culture is coming from the people in your party and further left in the lunatic-fringe blogosphere. Whatever you are hearing me discuss about Mrs. Clinton, it is not rooted in hate. Maybe a little schadenfreude, but not hate.
RUSH: This is Nick in Daytona Beach, Florida. Hi, Nick, nice to have you on the program.
CALLER: Hey, Rush, how are you?
RUSH: I’m just fine, sir. Thank you.
CALLER: I’ve listened to so long, it’s unbelievable.
RUSH: No, it’s totally unbelievable, and appreciated.
CALLER: Sure. Listen, I can’t help but feel more and more optimistic every day. You know, if you think about it, the Democrats would have won a lot of seats in the Congress altogether anyway because that’s what normally happens in a presidency, second term, yada, yada, yada. We talked about that. But what I cannot believe is the capital that they wasted fighting a war which we have now won and are closing the deal on, fighting the president tooth and nail on every single thing, for what? To gain one or two seats, to control a Congress here and there. They even turned against Joe Lieberman. The amount of capital that they spent to win a war —
CALLER: — that they would have naturally won anyway —
RUSH: This is all true. So why do you think they blew it?
CALLER: I think they blew it because they got what they wanted. What they have blown is a chance to really compete for the presidency. If they had been there with you and me for the last eight years and the Sean Hannitys and everybody else, they could stand up and say, we’ve won, let’s hug each other and now let’s deal with the tough issues.
RUSH: They were never going to do that. These people were obsessed — if you’re a longtime listener, I don’t want to have to be redundant here — but they’re obsessed with rage and hatred at Bush for having stolen the election from them. They actually think the election was stolen. They think he’s a Supreme Court-elected president. They still haven’t gotten over it. Kerry thinks that he could have won in Ohio if they hadn’t messed around there with the voting machines. These people have become irrational. You’re demanding rational behavior and understanding from them, and they are totally irrational. What is rational about running against George W. Bush in the 2008 election? He’s not on the ballot; he will not be on the ballot. What is rational about their arrogance and their condescension? The answer to my question, ‘Why do you think they behave this way?’ — their arrogance. They believe power is their birthright. They believe whether people like them, love them, or not, that people are going to end up behaving and acting the way Democrats want them to.
They had 40 years of this kind of power. They had no opposition. They had no opposition in the media. They had no opposition from the Republican Party. I’m talking about in Congress, where spending bills originate and so forth. Republicans had the Senate now and then, but the Democrats ran the House for 40 years. They ran the town. That’s why they hated Reagan. There was an eight-year interruption in that. They hated Reagan, personally despised Reagan because he took their power away from them. You have that kind of arrogance and condescension to people where you think you can’t do wrong, that people, even if they don’t understand you will end up supporting you because you’re Democrats. Why, we’re Democrats, why, we own the country, power is our birthright, yada, yada, yada. So it’s their attitude that’s presenting them problems here. Brief time-out here. Thanks for the call out there, Nick. I appreciate it.