What Happens If the Democrats Lose?
The Original Link is Here...
BEGIN TRANSCRIPT
RUSH: All right, folks, I want you to listen up here, because it's time to turn the tables. It's time to do a 180 and go totally on offense. We've got another deluge of polling data today. We've got the USA Today. We've got New York Times/CBS. We've got Washington Post/ABC -- and it's done! It's over. The Republicans lose the House. The Republicans lose the Senate. It's over. The Democrats are going to take it back. Even respected Republican conservative pundits looking at these polls, are now down in the dumps. They're so down, when they look up they see the gutter. They are so depressed! "The polls don't lie. The polls tell the tale. We're cooked. It's over." Even on the Fox News website there's a piece by Martin Frost (D-TX). I can paraphrase it.
Martin Frost, who's now a liberal on Fox -- imagine that -- a commentator, if you will, a pundit, a contributor, whatever they are called, a former member of Congress from Texas, has written a piece saying it's over. It's over. The Foley scandal is the equivalent of making this the equivalent to the 1994 elections when the Republicans took over the House. So the template -- and we've discussed this countless times. The template and the die have been cast, and every bit of news is looked at through the prism of a referendum on Republicans. It is assumed in every one of these polls that no Democrat is going to lose an election, in the House particularly. No Democrat is going to lose.
Howard Fineman says he went to Florida, talked to a bunch of evangelicals and said they were shocked, stunned, surprised, and angry to find out there's so many gay people in the Republican Party -- even though the polls that these guys trust don't indicate that that's going to be a problem for Republican candidates. They're still trying to make it the problem. The die is cast. But nobody is talking about what happens if the Democrats lose, because everybody's just of this foregone conclusion that the Democrats win. It's over! It's done! Republicans are cooked. But, you know what? I think we need to turn it around and look at it from the perspective of what happens if the Democrats lose, especially in light of the notion now that they can't. You know, the Washington Post has a poll today, and get this.
They admit that the Democrats winning control of the House is not yet a foregone conclusion. I don't know if they are going to write a piece before the votes are actually cast suggesting that it is a foregone conclusion, but get this. In the Washington Post/ABC poll, they give a spread of between seven and 30 seats the Republicans could lose. I have noticed they never talk about seats the Democrats are going to win. Now, this is crucial in terms of syntax, context, and language. Every bit of reporting is cast as negative for Republicans. Republicans are going to lose the House; Republicans are going to lose the Senate. We never read, in a consistent way: "Democrats poised to win back control!"
"Democrats will win!" I mean, you see it someplace, but most of the context is: Republicans are going to lose, and the Washington Post piece has them losing between, what is it? Seven and 30 seats. That's a lot of analysis. I mean, how long did it take them to figure that out? This is not even news. Polls are being cast as news when they are not. It's not even reporting. I wonder if these pollsters are paying attention to the momentum that Rick Santorum has. I wonder if they're paying any attention to California. Look at California. California is tough, but there are some seats in question out there that Republicans supposedly could lose. But Schwarzenegger is creaming Angelides. He's creaming him in the debates; he's creaming him in the polls, and of course the top of the ticket will influence votes at the bottom of the ticket.
So if Schwarzenegger draws a big turnout for Republicans, that will redound well for Republicans in California. I don't know if these people are factoring all of that in. But I think it's time, as I say, to look at this from the standpoint of "If Democrats lose..." since nobody is. Nobody on our side is even looking at it through the context of Democrats losing. For example, Nancy Pelosi's minority leader right now, and if the Democrats win, she becomes the speaker of the House. But what if they don't? What if the Democrats lose? There's no panic out there on the Democrat side! They ought to be thinking about this. They're counting their chickens way too soon. What if the Democrats lose? Do you think she will remain minority leader?
Do you think the House Democrat leadership will maintain itself? I know Murtha wants second in command, but he's thinking it being majority leader. You know, I always like to go on offense, and there's really no better offense than reality. We are in the sixth year of a presidential cycle. These are historically said to be the best of times for a party out of power. Are they really? We've had relentless Bush bashing. We're only talking about 15 seats here! Take a look at the last six years, five years of anti-Bush, anti-Republican reporting. The drumbeat never stopped. You would think the Democrats would be poised to win 50, not "maybe seven." We have had relentless attacks on President Bush from the left for, I don't know, five years; no truth detector in the Drive-By Media; the best of times for a party out of power.
And with all of that, they needed a sex scandal timed to the election to have a shot at regaining the majority, and that sex scandal is something they didn't want to play as soon as they played it. The Prowler in the American Spectator today points out that they had to play the Foley Card -- and make no mistake: I don't care how much "What, us?" talk is going on out there among Democrats and media, there are people who knew about the Foley situation on the Democrat side, operatives, members of Congress. They were waiting to play it at the advantageous time. The Prowler, American Spectator says it was to be the big October Surprise.
But they had to go early with it because gas prices were plummeting. Bush's approval numbers are coming back up. The economy was doing well. The stock market was about to break its record, and they had no choice. They had to play the Foley card when they did. Now they're feverishly working on coming up with something else. But nevertheless, after all of the assistance that they have had for five consecutive years, with the drumbeat in the context: "Democrats deserve to win back power. Democrats, it's their birthright. What do Democrats have to do?" We've gone from George Lakoff (rhymes with) to any number of advisors suggesting that the Democrats just need to change the "way they say things."
Nobody ever talks about, "Why don't you just be honest and say what you really believe?" other than me. But after all of this, with all of this assistance they've had from the Drive-By Media, they needed a sex scandal timed to the election to have a shot at regaining the majority. The hard truth is the Democrats have no plan for our nation. They have no plan for our issues. All they have is daily attacks on anything Republican. It is actually childish to listen to them go on and on and on about blaming Bush for not being a cowboy when it comes to North Korea. The Clinton deal was working just great!
Everything in the Clinton administration was going along just fine, and Bush came along and totally blew up the North Korea situation. You know what blew up the North Korea situation and you know what the real lesson of this North Korea situation is? It's once again: "Diplomacy doesn't work when you're dealing with tyrants, dictators, thugs, and commie pinkos," pot-bellied or not. It doesn't work! More on North Korea as the program unfolds. Anyway, this Foley scandal was superbly timed. But the reality is, if the Democrats win, Nancy Pelosi will be promoted to speaker. If they lose...? What happens to the Democrats and the Drive-By Media if they don't take back the House?
They are the ones who raised the bar. The bar is not that they're going to get six or seven seats. The bar is not that they're going to "make significant gains." The bar is: they win it all. They win back the House, maybe even win back the Senate. As I say, even some wobbly kneed types on our side are already falling prey to this media bubble. But what if they don't? Nobody's talking about this. The Drive-By Media is not examining what potential problems might creep into the inner workings of the party if the Democrats -- and there are people saying this. Carville has said it. (Carville impression) "My God, if we can't win in a climate like this, we don't even deserve to be a political party," and he's right. If they can't win with everything they've had helping them along -- all of the assistance in the Drive-By Media, all of the phony baloney, plastic banana reporting from Iraq, all of the negative drumbeats of apocalyptic doom and gloom for five years -- if they don't win in this environment, there is going to have to be some serious soul-searching. The Clintons know it; the Clintons' future as Democrat power brokers is on the line in these next two elections: this one in November and 2008. The irony of all this is that Nancy Pelosi is too inept for her present job! The dirty little secret is she's incompetent, and yet if they win, she's going to be promoted to a really important job? What was Hillary's book, It Takes a Village to Raise a Child? There ought to be a new book, "It Takes a Sex Scandal to Raise a Democrat Party."
BREAK TRANSCRIPT
RUSH: You need to turn this around, folks. You need to get out of the media bubble for the next four weeks. Stay out of it. I mean, go out and watch it but don't get sucked in. (sucking sound) Don't let that "giant sucking sound" affect your overall attitude about this. For example, and as I brilliantly mentioned yesterday, just to believe all of the claims the Democrats are making about their electoral successes coming up in November, you'd have to believe that nobody in this country has any animus toward the Democrats. Have you ever seen any reporting about animus toward the Democrats? You ever hear any stories about how people don't like Nancy Pelosi or people don't like Harry Reid or people don't like Howard Dean, when you know there are people who don't like any of them in a political sense?
Do you ever see stories like that? No! All you see are stories about how the Republicans are this or that. They're horrible; they're rotten! It's just a never-ending drumbeat, and the conclusion that one can draw from that if one doesn't pay attention closely, is the Democrats are loved by the people of this country, just universally loved. It will be interesting to see. The Democrats love to tell us that their side is really stoked. Oh, yes! I mean, they can't wait to go vote. In fact they had to build electronic fences around people's homes to keep 'em in there. Let's take a look at the early voting. Let's just see if this really comes to pass as it is being portrayed, because here is the bottom line, as I just mentioned.
If the Democrats don't take over both houses of Congress in this election, that is a devastating defeat, because they have set the bar. With all the hype -- all the phony scandals, an off-year election, sixth year of a president's term, the history is on their side and all the rest -- if they can't take both houses, then heads need to roll in the Democratic Party: Pelosi, Reid, Dean, and, yes, the Clintons. This Washington Post/ABC poll today is being miscast. Despite the hype, the Post is more cautious now about a Democratic takeover. The money quote: "Democratic takeover of the House not a foregone conclusion, however." They also uncovered "news," again, according to their poll, that the fallout from the Foley affair is confined to six races, and that is reportedly Democrat internal polling.
So it's not having the nationwide impact that Democrats hoped and attempted to create. Now, the Drive-By Media have characterized this election for months around the argument that the Republicans will lose Congress. Nancy Pelosi is strutting around with her feathers on full display, laying out her so-called agenda for the first 100 hours when the Democrats win the House. Harry Reid and Chuck Schumer believe they will take the Senate. Republicans, too many of them, are running around like beaten puppies -- especially those who comment on politics and elections, who buy into the media bubble because they live and work in Washington or New York, and they treat polling as almost biblical. (Well, can't say "biblical;" people think it's just made up.) Polling is Marxian. It just never lies!
Which really frustrates me, but that's their business if they want to do this. I think we're all in for a surprise. I think everybody who thinks this is over and everybody who thinks that the Republicans are cooked, I think everybody in that frame of mind is in for a surprise, and I think that includes the Democrats. But the point is, they have set the bar, and the bar is that the Democrats will win back both houses of Congress. Now, I want to be clear about this since there are going to be others who will repeat this after I say it, which normally happens: "show prep for the rest of the media." It will be said. It will be repeated. All it takes is one person to go against a tide that makes it easier for others to get on board the surfboard going against the tide, and I'm going against the tide here today.
If the Democrats don't take both houses of Congress, it is a devastating defeat for them, for their anti-war policies and for their leadership. They have had five years, count it six if you want. They have had an unchecked, all-out personal and political assault on President Bush and Republicans in general. They have had a media that has not questioned them at all, other than, "How can you guys be so stupid as to not take advantage of this?" They have had a fawning, supportive advocacy media doing everything they can to promote this template -- and if they do not take both houses of Congress, it is a devastating defeat for them because it's a foregone conclusion already and they are the ones who are making at a foregone conclusion.
If the Democratic Party does not win both houses of Congress, the left has failed miserably, despite the best efforts of the media -- and if that happens, it's the Democrat Party that is imploding, that is spinning out of control, that needs new leaders and needs to reevaluate itself. Now, I know that the intelligentsia such as it is won't say this, and they probably will not draw this conclusion because they are the ones who seek to convince you that every election is a referendum on Republicans and not Democrats. Every election is a referendum on Republicans. As I say, nowhere do we find news on how rotten the Democrats are doing or how politically inept they are, or where are their issues, or what have you. When we do get these stories it's just "Come on! Can you come up with an agenda of something? You gotta talk about that?" The media is doing everything it can to help them.
The referendum here is on Republicans. "Republicans stink! Rumsfeld should go! Rice should go! Tony Snow should go in time! Bush ought to be impeached!" It's nothing but a referendum on Republicans, and people who pay attention to media and watch it feel this instinctively when it's pointed out to them as I am doing today, lights will go on in their heads and they'll say, "Oh, yeah," and they'll realize what an inaccurate and unfair picture is being painted for them each and every day. We've been told for months that the Democrats will win, that historically the Republicans cannot hold on and that the Republican base is going to turn on Republicans, that the evangelicals aren't even going to vote, and so on. If this turns out to be false, not only are the Democrats miserable failures, so, too, will be the Drive-By Media, which has fed us this stuff day in and day out -- and they are losing circulation. They are losing ad revenue, and they are laying off people at a number of Drive-By Media institutions. They are going to be in for a day of reckoning, too, if they lose in November.
If the Democrats do not win the House and Senate -- and they have set the bar: that's what is going to happen -- anything less than that is a failure and is an embarrassing defeat. If this turns out to be false that the Democrats have it sewn up, that they win the House and the Senate, not only are the Democrats miserable failures, so, too, are the Drive-By Media, because it will show you once and for all that the Drive-By Media aren't about reporting news, they are all about pushing a far-left agenda, and we all need to stop allowing them influence how we live and how we think and how we look at the world.
Now, I have long believed that the Democrat Party is about one thing, and one thing only, and that is gaining power and maintaining power because government's no good to you if you don't have the power to run it. They believe in big government. They do not believe in the individual. They do not believe in entrepreneurism, and they have real problems with free market capitalism. That's why Democrat leaders believe in big government, big entitlements, redistributing wealth, "open borders." It's all aimed at building reliance on the state, which they hope to control more times than not. They want as many people dependent on government, and thus them when they are in power, as possible.
Liberty and freedom empowers individuals, which is why they are opposed to it in favor of government. But the people embrace liberty and all that comes with it. Way too many people have become wards of the state. Way too many people's lives have been destroyed because they have failed to be shown how they can reach their full potential. Remember the call we had from Julie in Oklahoma City? Julie was pronounced in that call when she called in. She had been told all of her life she couldn't do what she wanted to do. She wanted be in law enforcement, a cop, FBI agent. She got pregnant, had a baby at 17, and said, "You gotta give up what you want to do. Now the baby is a priority. You've just got to get a job, hope to pay the bills and get along and be happy."
After listening to this program for ten years (which is not the point of the story) she's following her dreams, is in college, in law enforcement, has two kids now, and is going to realize her dreams. But the point is that even up till the time she was 17, nobody in her family told her that she had what it takes to be what she wanted to be or to do what she wanted to do. My guess is that the reason for that is that her parents didn't have a whole lot of ambition, either -- and a lot of liberals have created that in way too many Americans. The liberal view, the liberal Democrat view of the American citizen is one of contempt and condescension.
They look out at people and see incompetence, incapability, can't make the right decisions. Of course, this is what liberals are for! Liberals are necessary to help people get through the trials and tribulations of life because liberals are the good people. Liberals are smarter people than everybody else, and they have more compassion than everybody else, and more tolerance (ha-ha) and they can come up with government programs to get people through this arduous BS known as life.! Way too many people in this country have no clue how good they can be. They have no clue how to fulfill their ambition, how to go about it. They don't know how to let their passion and desire drive them, because way too many people surrounding them telling them they can't do it anyway.
That's liberals. Liberals are the doom and gloomers, the ones that always say, "You can't." Some conservatives are this way, too. I mean, attitudes are attitudes, but when I say that people love liberty and the opportunity to explore it and to use it to become the best they can be, I'm talking about the traits that have made this the greatest country in the history of human civilization. Liberalism has not done it and can't say that they will ever will have done it; government cannot be the reason for it. It is our institutional freedom and the recognition in our founding documents that our freedom is part of our creation, by God.
No government can give us freedom. We're born with it. We're born with the natural yearning to be free. Liberalism suppresses it; liberalism attempts to depress people about the possibilities of freedom. "What? You'll fail! You can't do that! People will laugh at you. Oh, you'll be embarrassed. Are you kidding? You really want to try that? What, are you nuts?" People hear this their whole lives, and after they hear that, "Look, just go get some kind of job and apply for a student loan and get some assistance and then do this and that, and don't set your sights too high. All you're going to do is be disappointed because you're never going to reach your goals."
Way too many people hear this. Liberals thrive on those who do.
They love illegal immigration, because it's people who come here who have a grandiose idea of doing better than they are doing in their native countries, but liberals look at them as an opportunity to create a bunch of new victims. But I have long believed that the people of this country embrace liberty. If it weren't the case, we wouldn't be the great country that we are. If the majority of our citizens were a bunch of worthless, lazy dim wits waiting for the next government check to come in, we wouldn't be the great country we are. So I am well aware who it is that makes this country work.
You people in this audience are part of that great equation that make this country great. You embrace liberty. You embrace freedom. You explore your ambitions to the best of your ability or desire. Your problem is that you look at government and regulations as obstacles. Liberals want you to think that government and regulations are your salvation. We embrace liberty and all the things that come with it. So if elections are about ideas, then they are not going to be about Mark Foley. They're not going to be about Iran-Contra. They're not going to be about Watergate or whatever. When elections are about ideas, liberals lose because liberals cannot, will not ever be honest about their real ideas. That is it message of the last 40 years.
If elections are about ideas and not Foley or Iran-Contra or Watergate or pick your scandal, then Republicans win. Conservatives win; liberals lose. People think the '94 elections were about scandal in the House for a number of years prior? It wasn't at all. It was about issues. Democrats can never get it through their head that Ronald Reagan won two landslides on issues. They chalked it up to slick marketing and packaging, and people fell for spin. It was issues. You don't win 49-state landslides on marketing and packaging. Ronald Reagan crushed Carter [Watch the doom-and-gloom "Malaise" speech] and then Walter Mondull because those elections were about conservatism versus liberalism. Clinton saw this. He decided to run as a supposed moderate, in which he tried to blur the distinctions by talking about "investing" rather than "taxing and spending."
He would "triangulate" -- again for the purpose of confusing opponents and the public. Now, this current crowd of Democrats can't decide how to present themselves. They are hard-core, far leftists. But they dare be the run on that agenda. Anyone who's even the slightest bit moderate, such as Lieberman on the war, will not be tolerated by their kook base. So if they can't run on that, if they can't run on their far leftism, if they can't run as who they are -- they run on Foley and on the claim that the war has been run incompetently. Well, what's new? They're running on a sex scandal; they're running on anti-war platform. What's new? It's an old page from an old playbook.
I mean, when you stop to think about it, it's the Democratic Party today that is a mess. The Republican Party has lost its bearings because it doesn't have the guts to be conservative en masse. If the Republican Party would simply be conservative, there wouldn't be a question in this election. Conservatism beats liberalism every time it's tried in this United States of America today. But nobody takes a look at the mess that the Democratic Party is in, and it's a mess because it is part of the extreme left but it can't admit it. It has no answers to terrorism. The Democratic Party has zero answers to terrorism, other than Ned Lamont who wants to quote "talk to our enemies," which is what we've been doing in North Korea for 14 years.
So it has to pretend that everybody is Bush's fault. The Democratic Party doesn't tolerate dissent, so its future in terms of reaching out to new voters is bleak. This election is a seminal election for the Democrats. If they can't win in this environment, they simply can't win, and so that's what we should be looking at for a little while here over these 30 days. If the Democrats can't win both houses of Congress in this election, as they've been claiming they can and will, then they are failures, and their future is bleak.
Folks, we need to change the entire manner in which this election is being discussed and go on offense!
They don't get to set your expectations every day.
They are not in charge of your mood. They are not in charge of your attitude. They do not have the right to get you to thinking every day that life in America is about, "Will the Republicans lose?" and yet they make every effort to do so. I call it the daily media bubble. They don't get to determine our reality with their fantasies -- and that's exactly what they are engaging in now is fewer fantasy, because no one knows how these elections are going to come out, except they have set the bar. The Democrat Party today is in miserable shape. It is led by miserable, unhappy, scurrilous people. It is supported by a miserable media, and if they don't take Congress, they are miserable failures who have nothing to build on.
They will have absolutely nothing to build on. Let me give you an example of how the media bubble is created -- and this is just one, and there are countless thousands of them. The latest Newsweek poll has Democrats leading Republicans on the economy by 22%. That's not reality. That's not even perception. It's just plain goofy. There is no possibility that Democrats lead Republicans on the economy by 22% in this climate. Now, the media are invested in the Democrats winning Congress. Their circulation and viewership are nose diving. If the Democrats fail to take both houses of Congress, that is a failure for the Drive-By Media, too.
If in this environment, after five years of shooting for this goal -- if they can't pull it off in this environment -- I don't want to hear anybody else bellyaching and whining to me about the power of the Drive-By Media. Because if they lose this election, the Democrats lose it, the media loses it, too, and we will call them on it. They are nothing more than mouthpieces for the Democrats. They have taken sides in this election, as they have in past elections. Their reports are timing so-called scandal stories to help the Democrats. There are Democrats turned reporters. You've got Stephanopoulos, you've got Chris Cuomo, Chris Matthews among others are in complete anti-Republican mode, and they have Democrat Party roots, powerful roots in the Democratic Party. So, if the Democrats fail to do what everyone is insisting today that they will do, take over Congress, then the media implosion is not too far off down the road either.
BREAK TRANSCRIPT
RUSH: Steve in Birmingham, Alabama. I'm glad you called, sir. Nice to have you with us.
CALLER: Hi, Rush. Mega dittos, and thanks for all that you do.
RUSH: You bet, sir. Somebody has to do it and I'm willing to do it for the big bucks.
CALLER: Well, we appreciate it. I heard the reporting this morning, too, and I went and looked at this ABC News/Washington Post poll, and if you look at it, it's not as bad as it's been reported. I mean, you mentioned the Foley thing and how that will only impact a handful of nations. Well, that poll showed that only 18% felt that Foley was a very important issue, whereas 75% thought the Dems would not have handled it any better -- and 62% thought the Dems were pursuing for their own political advantage. That's just Foley. There are other issues in that poll that are helpful. For instance, 60% of the people polled approve of the way their own representatives are handling their jobs.
RUSH: Right, 60% like their guy. That's really been the little dirty secret in elections, and in economic news. You run out and take a poll of people on the economy. "Yeah, the economy is doing well for me. I couldn't be doing better. I'm worried about other people, though, my neighbors and so forth." People are afraid to say they're doing well. They think it's bragging or whatever: 60% like their guy. Now, since the Republicans have more incumbents than Democrats do (chuckles) that's a factor, and there's this one, too. There is no significant support. Now, you have to go in the printed version of this story to the third page of it. There is no significant support for withdrawing US forces immediately from Iraq.
Well, hell, that's the primary Democrat issue (when they get to one) getting out of Iraq, "redeploying" or what have you. "Half of those surveyed -- about the same percentage it's been throughout the years -- said they would like to see troop levels decrease, but only a fifth said [that's 20%] they supported immediate withdrawal from the Iraqi theater." As bad as these findings are, they're not as bad as they were in the months before Democrats lost control in 1994. Congressional approval hit 18% in October of that year.
Let me ask you: Did any poll predict the Democrats were going to lose the House in 1994? Was there any poll that predicted they were going to lose it? I don't think there was. (Steve, thanks for the call. He did a good job studying the internals.) The only guy I remember -- and he was not a pollster -- who predicted it besides me was Novak. Novak predicted the Republicans would win the House. All the polling data suggested otherwise. (interruption) Oh, they couldn't believe it! Peter Jennings on the radio the next day talking about Americans had a "temper tantrum." Donna in Baltimore, you're next. Welcome to the program.
CALLER: Hi, Rush. It's an honor to talk to you. Thank you so much for taking my phone call.
RUSH: Thank you.
CALLER: I was just calling about the state of Maryland, of course, is a blue state -- blue, blue, blue -- and we have two competitive statewide Republicans running, one for governor. It's a toss up, and as a lifelong Marylander, I am just amazed. I just do not see what the polls keep talking about on the national level because here in my true blue state of Maryland I have two potential Republicans in Michael Steele and Bob Ehrlich that are statewide races. Michael Steele is four points behind his Democratic challenger, and they are within the margin of error. It is just unreal what's happening here in the state of Maryland, and this is a blue state. So I don't understand where the polls are coming from on the national level, but we are so excited in the state of Maryland.
RUSH: Good! Stay that way! Stay that way. Don't be down. It's the same thing as I said in California. Schwarzenegger is cleaning up against Angelides. (interruption) That's why I'm telling you. Santorum's momentum -- and that's what's important in polls when you get close to elections, the momentum, and Santorum is moving up. Those into California, Maryland, and so forth, Santorum in Pennsylvania, could indicate turnout will be different on the Republican side than what these polls are saying.
END TRANSCRIPT
Read the Background Material...
(NYTimes: Poll Shows Foley Case Is Hurting Congress’s Image)
(WP: Poll Shows Strong Shift Of Support to Democrats)
(NewsMax: Poll: GOP in 'Foleygate' Meltdown)
(USAToday: GOP doubts lead voters to Dems Poll: Lead widens)
(TIME poll: The Foley Scandal Has Hurt the G.O.P.)
(Newsweek: For the Faithful, a Trying Time - Howard Fineman)
(NB: Newsmags Push Democratic Wave in 2006, But Fought Rising GOP Tide in 1994)
(Fox: With Foley Scandal, GOP Faces Fate of 1994 Democrats -Martin Frost)
(American Prowler: Saved by Foley. Why Democrat hit squads dropped the big one early)
(NRO: A Blast at the Lamont Doctrine - Rich Lowry)
(American Thinker: Prowler reports CREW/Dem collaboration)
*Note: Links to content outside RushLimbaugh.com usually become inactive over time.
BEGIN TRANSCRIPT
RUSH: All right, folks, I want you to listen up here, because it's time to turn the tables. It's time to do a 180 and go totally on offense. We've got another deluge of polling data today. We've got the USA Today. We've got New York Times/CBS. We've got Washington Post/ABC -- and it's done! It's over. The Republicans lose the House. The Republicans lose the Senate. It's over. The Democrats are going to take it back. Even respected Republican conservative pundits looking at these polls, are now down in the dumps. They're so down, when they look up they see the gutter. They are so depressed! "The polls don't lie. The polls tell the tale. We're cooked. It's over." Even on the Fox News website there's a piece by Martin Frost (D-TX). I can paraphrase it.
Martin Frost, who's now a liberal on Fox -- imagine that -- a commentator, if you will, a pundit, a contributor, whatever they are called, a former member of Congress from Texas, has written a piece saying it's over. It's over. The Foley scandal is the equivalent of making this the equivalent to the 1994 elections when the Republicans took over the House. So the template -- and we've discussed this countless times. The template and the die have been cast, and every bit of news is looked at through the prism of a referendum on Republicans. It is assumed in every one of these polls that no Democrat is going to lose an election, in the House particularly. No Democrat is going to lose.
Howard Fineman says he went to Florida, talked to a bunch of evangelicals and said they were shocked, stunned, surprised, and angry to find out there's so many gay people in the Republican Party -- even though the polls that these guys trust don't indicate that that's going to be a problem for Republican candidates. They're still trying to make it the problem. The die is cast. But nobody is talking about what happens if the Democrats lose, because everybody's just of this foregone conclusion that the Democrats win. It's over! It's done! Republicans are cooked. But, you know what? I think we need to turn it around and look at it from the perspective of what happens if the Democrats lose, especially in light of the notion now that they can't. You know, the Washington Post has a poll today, and get this.
They admit that the Democrats winning control of the House is not yet a foregone conclusion. I don't know if they are going to write a piece before the votes are actually cast suggesting that it is a foregone conclusion, but get this. In the Washington Post/ABC poll, they give a spread of between seven and 30 seats the Republicans could lose. I have noticed they never talk about seats the Democrats are going to win. Now, this is crucial in terms of syntax, context, and language. Every bit of reporting is cast as negative for Republicans. Republicans are going to lose the House; Republicans are going to lose the Senate. We never read, in a consistent way: "Democrats poised to win back control!"
"Democrats will win!" I mean, you see it someplace, but most of the context is: Republicans are going to lose, and the Washington Post piece has them losing between, what is it? Seven and 30 seats. That's a lot of analysis. I mean, how long did it take them to figure that out? This is not even news. Polls are being cast as news when they are not. It's not even reporting. I wonder if these pollsters are paying attention to the momentum that Rick Santorum has. I wonder if they're paying any attention to California. Look at California. California is tough, but there are some seats in question out there that Republicans supposedly could lose. But Schwarzenegger is creaming Angelides. He's creaming him in the debates; he's creaming him in the polls, and of course the top of the ticket will influence votes at the bottom of the ticket.
So if Schwarzenegger draws a big turnout for Republicans, that will redound well for Republicans in California. I don't know if these people are factoring all of that in. But I think it's time, as I say, to look at this from the standpoint of "If Democrats lose..." since nobody is. Nobody on our side is even looking at it through the context of Democrats losing. For example, Nancy Pelosi's minority leader right now, and if the Democrats win, she becomes the speaker of the House. But what if they don't? What if the Democrats lose? There's no panic out there on the Democrat side! They ought to be thinking about this. They're counting their chickens way too soon. What if the Democrats lose? Do you think she will remain minority leader?
Do you think the House Democrat leadership will maintain itself? I know Murtha wants second in command, but he's thinking it being majority leader. You know, I always like to go on offense, and there's really no better offense than reality. We are in the sixth year of a presidential cycle. These are historically said to be the best of times for a party out of power. Are they really? We've had relentless Bush bashing. We're only talking about 15 seats here! Take a look at the last six years, five years of anti-Bush, anti-Republican reporting. The drumbeat never stopped. You would think the Democrats would be poised to win 50, not "maybe seven." We have had relentless attacks on President Bush from the left for, I don't know, five years; no truth detector in the Drive-By Media; the best of times for a party out of power.
And with all of that, they needed a sex scandal timed to the election to have a shot at regaining the majority, and that sex scandal is something they didn't want to play as soon as they played it. The Prowler in the American Spectator today points out that they had to play the Foley Card -- and make no mistake: I don't care how much "What, us?" talk is going on out there among Democrats and media, there are people who knew about the Foley situation on the Democrat side, operatives, members of Congress. They were waiting to play it at the advantageous time. The Prowler, American Spectator says it was to be the big October Surprise.
But they had to go early with it because gas prices were plummeting. Bush's approval numbers are coming back up. The economy was doing well. The stock market was about to break its record, and they had no choice. They had to play the Foley card when they did. Now they're feverishly working on coming up with something else. But nevertheless, after all of the assistance that they have had for five consecutive years, with the drumbeat in the context: "Democrats deserve to win back power. Democrats, it's their birthright. What do Democrats have to do?" We've gone from George Lakoff (rhymes with) to any number of advisors suggesting that the Democrats just need to change the "way they say things."
Nobody ever talks about, "Why don't you just be honest and say what you really believe?" other than me. But after all of this, with all of this assistance they've had from the Drive-By Media, they needed a sex scandal timed to the election to have a shot at regaining the majority. The hard truth is the Democrats have no plan for our nation. They have no plan for our issues. All they have is daily attacks on anything Republican. It is actually childish to listen to them go on and on and on about blaming Bush for not being a cowboy when it comes to North Korea. The Clinton deal was working just great!
Everything in the Clinton administration was going along just fine, and Bush came along and totally blew up the North Korea situation. You know what blew up the North Korea situation and you know what the real lesson of this North Korea situation is? It's once again: "Diplomacy doesn't work when you're dealing with tyrants, dictators, thugs, and commie pinkos," pot-bellied or not. It doesn't work! More on North Korea as the program unfolds. Anyway, this Foley scandal was superbly timed. But the reality is, if the Democrats win, Nancy Pelosi will be promoted to speaker. If they lose...? What happens to the Democrats and the Drive-By Media if they don't take back the House?
They are the ones who raised the bar. The bar is not that they're going to get six or seven seats. The bar is not that they're going to "make significant gains." The bar is: they win it all. They win back the House, maybe even win back the Senate. As I say, even some wobbly kneed types on our side are already falling prey to this media bubble. But what if they don't? Nobody's talking about this. The Drive-By Media is not examining what potential problems might creep into the inner workings of the party if the Democrats -- and there are people saying this. Carville has said it. (Carville impression) "My God, if we can't win in a climate like this, we don't even deserve to be a political party," and he's right. If they can't win with everything they've had helping them along -- all of the assistance in the Drive-By Media, all of the phony baloney, plastic banana reporting from Iraq, all of the negative drumbeats of apocalyptic doom and gloom for five years -- if they don't win in this environment, there is going to have to be some serious soul-searching. The Clintons know it; the Clintons' future as Democrat power brokers is on the line in these next two elections: this one in November and 2008. The irony of all this is that Nancy Pelosi is too inept for her present job! The dirty little secret is she's incompetent, and yet if they win, she's going to be promoted to a really important job? What was Hillary's book, It Takes a Village to Raise a Child? There ought to be a new book, "It Takes a Sex Scandal to Raise a Democrat Party."
BREAK TRANSCRIPT
RUSH: You need to turn this around, folks. You need to get out of the media bubble for the next four weeks. Stay out of it. I mean, go out and watch it but don't get sucked in. (sucking sound) Don't let that "giant sucking sound" affect your overall attitude about this. For example, and as I brilliantly mentioned yesterday, just to believe all of the claims the Democrats are making about their electoral successes coming up in November, you'd have to believe that nobody in this country has any animus toward the Democrats. Have you ever seen any reporting about animus toward the Democrats? You ever hear any stories about how people don't like Nancy Pelosi or people don't like Harry Reid or people don't like Howard Dean, when you know there are people who don't like any of them in a political sense?
Do you ever see stories like that? No! All you see are stories about how the Republicans are this or that. They're horrible; they're rotten! It's just a never-ending drumbeat, and the conclusion that one can draw from that if one doesn't pay attention closely, is the Democrats are loved by the people of this country, just universally loved. It will be interesting to see. The Democrats love to tell us that their side is really stoked. Oh, yes! I mean, they can't wait to go vote. In fact they had to build electronic fences around people's homes to keep 'em in there. Let's take a look at the early voting. Let's just see if this really comes to pass as it is being portrayed, because here is the bottom line, as I just mentioned.
If the Democrats don't take over both houses of Congress in this election, that is a devastating defeat, because they have set the bar. With all the hype -- all the phony scandals, an off-year election, sixth year of a president's term, the history is on their side and all the rest -- if they can't take both houses, then heads need to roll in the Democratic Party: Pelosi, Reid, Dean, and, yes, the Clintons. This Washington Post/ABC poll today is being miscast. Despite the hype, the Post is more cautious now about a Democratic takeover. The money quote: "Democratic takeover of the House not a foregone conclusion, however." They also uncovered "news," again, according to their poll, that the fallout from the Foley affair is confined to six races, and that is reportedly Democrat internal polling.
So it's not having the nationwide impact that Democrats hoped and attempted to create. Now, the Drive-By Media have characterized this election for months around the argument that the Republicans will lose Congress. Nancy Pelosi is strutting around with her feathers on full display, laying out her so-called agenda for the first 100 hours when the Democrats win the House. Harry Reid and Chuck Schumer believe they will take the Senate. Republicans, too many of them, are running around like beaten puppies -- especially those who comment on politics and elections, who buy into the media bubble because they live and work in Washington or New York, and they treat polling as almost biblical. (Well, can't say "biblical;" people think it's just made up.) Polling is Marxian. It just never lies!
Which really frustrates me, but that's their business if they want to do this. I think we're all in for a surprise. I think everybody who thinks this is over and everybody who thinks that the Republicans are cooked, I think everybody in that frame of mind is in for a surprise, and I think that includes the Democrats. But the point is, they have set the bar, and the bar is that the Democrats will win back both houses of Congress. Now, I want to be clear about this since there are going to be others who will repeat this after I say it, which normally happens: "show prep for the rest of the media." It will be said. It will be repeated. All it takes is one person to go against a tide that makes it easier for others to get on board the surfboard going against the tide, and I'm going against the tide here today.
If the Democrats don't take both houses of Congress, it is a devastating defeat for them, for their anti-war policies and for their leadership. They have had five years, count it six if you want. They have had an unchecked, all-out personal and political assault on President Bush and Republicans in general. They have had a media that has not questioned them at all, other than, "How can you guys be so stupid as to not take advantage of this?" They have had a fawning, supportive advocacy media doing everything they can to promote this template -- and if they do not take both houses of Congress, it is a devastating defeat for them because it's a foregone conclusion already and they are the ones who are making at a foregone conclusion.
If the Democratic Party does not win both houses of Congress, the left has failed miserably, despite the best efforts of the media -- and if that happens, it's the Democrat Party that is imploding, that is spinning out of control, that needs new leaders and needs to reevaluate itself. Now, I know that the intelligentsia such as it is won't say this, and they probably will not draw this conclusion because they are the ones who seek to convince you that every election is a referendum on Republicans and not Democrats. Every election is a referendum on Republicans. As I say, nowhere do we find news on how rotten the Democrats are doing or how politically inept they are, or where are their issues, or what have you. When we do get these stories it's just "Come on! Can you come up with an agenda of something? You gotta talk about that?" The media is doing everything it can to help them.
The referendum here is on Republicans. "Republicans stink! Rumsfeld should go! Rice should go! Tony Snow should go in time! Bush ought to be impeached!" It's nothing but a referendum on Republicans, and people who pay attention to media and watch it feel this instinctively when it's pointed out to them as I am doing today, lights will go on in their heads and they'll say, "Oh, yeah," and they'll realize what an inaccurate and unfair picture is being painted for them each and every day. We've been told for months that the Democrats will win, that historically the Republicans cannot hold on and that the Republican base is going to turn on Republicans, that the evangelicals aren't even going to vote, and so on. If this turns out to be false, not only are the Democrats miserable failures, so, too, will be the Drive-By Media, which has fed us this stuff day in and day out -- and they are losing circulation. They are losing ad revenue, and they are laying off people at a number of Drive-By Media institutions. They are going to be in for a day of reckoning, too, if they lose in November.
If the Democrats do not win the House and Senate -- and they have set the bar: that's what is going to happen -- anything less than that is a failure and is an embarrassing defeat. If this turns out to be false that the Democrats have it sewn up, that they win the House and the Senate, not only are the Democrats miserable failures, so, too, are the Drive-By Media, because it will show you once and for all that the Drive-By Media aren't about reporting news, they are all about pushing a far-left agenda, and we all need to stop allowing them influence how we live and how we think and how we look at the world.
Now, I have long believed that the Democrat Party is about one thing, and one thing only, and that is gaining power and maintaining power because government's no good to you if you don't have the power to run it. They believe in big government. They do not believe in the individual. They do not believe in entrepreneurism, and they have real problems with free market capitalism. That's why Democrat leaders believe in big government, big entitlements, redistributing wealth, "open borders." It's all aimed at building reliance on the state, which they hope to control more times than not. They want as many people dependent on government, and thus them when they are in power, as possible.
Liberty and freedom empowers individuals, which is why they are opposed to it in favor of government. But the people embrace liberty and all that comes with it. Way too many people have become wards of the state. Way too many people's lives have been destroyed because they have failed to be shown how they can reach their full potential. Remember the call we had from Julie in Oklahoma City? Julie was pronounced in that call when she called in. She had been told all of her life she couldn't do what she wanted to do. She wanted be in law enforcement, a cop, FBI agent. She got pregnant, had a baby at 17, and said, "You gotta give up what you want to do. Now the baby is a priority. You've just got to get a job, hope to pay the bills and get along and be happy."
After listening to this program for ten years (which is not the point of the story) she's following her dreams, is in college, in law enforcement, has two kids now, and is going to realize her dreams. But the point is that even up till the time she was 17, nobody in her family told her that she had what it takes to be what she wanted to be or to do what she wanted to do. My guess is that the reason for that is that her parents didn't have a whole lot of ambition, either -- and a lot of liberals have created that in way too many Americans. The liberal view, the liberal Democrat view of the American citizen is one of contempt and condescension.
They look out at people and see incompetence, incapability, can't make the right decisions. Of course, this is what liberals are for! Liberals are necessary to help people get through the trials and tribulations of life because liberals are the good people. Liberals are smarter people than everybody else, and they have more compassion than everybody else, and more tolerance (ha-ha) and they can come up with government programs to get people through this arduous BS known as life.! Way too many people in this country have no clue how good they can be. They have no clue how to fulfill their ambition, how to go about it. They don't know how to let their passion and desire drive them, because way too many people surrounding them telling them they can't do it anyway.
That's liberals. Liberals are the doom and gloomers, the ones that always say, "You can't." Some conservatives are this way, too. I mean, attitudes are attitudes, but when I say that people love liberty and the opportunity to explore it and to use it to become the best they can be, I'm talking about the traits that have made this the greatest country in the history of human civilization. Liberalism has not done it and can't say that they will ever will have done it; government cannot be the reason for it. It is our institutional freedom and the recognition in our founding documents that our freedom is part of our creation, by God.
No government can give us freedom. We're born with it. We're born with the natural yearning to be free. Liberalism suppresses it; liberalism attempts to depress people about the possibilities of freedom. "What? You'll fail! You can't do that! People will laugh at you. Oh, you'll be embarrassed. Are you kidding? You really want to try that? What, are you nuts?" People hear this their whole lives, and after they hear that, "Look, just go get some kind of job and apply for a student loan and get some assistance and then do this and that, and don't set your sights too high. All you're going to do is be disappointed because you're never going to reach your goals."
Way too many people hear this. Liberals thrive on those who do.
They love illegal immigration, because it's people who come here who have a grandiose idea of doing better than they are doing in their native countries, but liberals look at them as an opportunity to create a bunch of new victims. But I have long believed that the people of this country embrace liberty. If it weren't the case, we wouldn't be the great country that we are. If the majority of our citizens were a bunch of worthless, lazy dim wits waiting for the next government check to come in, we wouldn't be the great country we are. So I am well aware who it is that makes this country work.
You people in this audience are part of that great equation that make this country great. You embrace liberty. You embrace freedom. You explore your ambitions to the best of your ability or desire. Your problem is that you look at government and regulations as obstacles. Liberals want you to think that government and regulations are your salvation. We embrace liberty and all the things that come with it. So if elections are about ideas, then they are not going to be about Mark Foley. They're not going to be about Iran-Contra. They're not going to be about Watergate or whatever. When elections are about ideas, liberals lose because liberals cannot, will not ever be honest about their real ideas. That is it message of the last 40 years.
If elections are about ideas and not Foley or Iran-Contra or Watergate or pick your scandal, then Republicans win. Conservatives win; liberals lose. People think the '94 elections were about scandal in the House for a number of years prior? It wasn't at all. It was about issues. Democrats can never get it through their head that Ronald Reagan won two landslides on issues. They chalked it up to slick marketing and packaging, and people fell for spin. It was issues. You don't win 49-state landslides on marketing and packaging. Ronald Reagan crushed Carter [Watch the doom-and-gloom "Malaise" speech] and then Walter Mondull because those elections were about conservatism versus liberalism. Clinton saw this. He decided to run as a supposed moderate, in which he tried to blur the distinctions by talking about "investing" rather than "taxing and spending."
He would "triangulate" -- again for the purpose of confusing opponents and the public. Now, this current crowd of Democrats can't decide how to present themselves. They are hard-core, far leftists. But they dare be the run on that agenda. Anyone who's even the slightest bit moderate, such as Lieberman on the war, will not be tolerated by their kook base. So if they can't run on that, if they can't run on their far leftism, if they can't run as who they are -- they run on Foley and on the claim that the war has been run incompetently. Well, what's new? They're running on a sex scandal; they're running on anti-war platform. What's new? It's an old page from an old playbook.
I mean, when you stop to think about it, it's the Democratic Party today that is a mess. The Republican Party has lost its bearings because it doesn't have the guts to be conservative en masse. If the Republican Party would simply be conservative, there wouldn't be a question in this election. Conservatism beats liberalism every time it's tried in this United States of America today. But nobody takes a look at the mess that the Democratic Party is in, and it's a mess because it is part of the extreme left but it can't admit it. It has no answers to terrorism. The Democratic Party has zero answers to terrorism, other than Ned Lamont who wants to quote "talk to our enemies," which is what we've been doing in North Korea for 14 years.
So it has to pretend that everybody is Bush's fault. The Democratic Party doesn't tolerate dissent, so its future in terms of reaching out to new voters is bleak. This election is a seminal election for the Democrats. If they can't win in this environment, they simply can't win, and so that's what we should be looking at for a little while here over these 30 days. If the Democrats can't win both houses of Congress in this election, as they've been claiming they can and will, then they are failures, and their future is bleak.
Folks, we need to change the entire manner in which this election is being discussed and go on offense!
They don't get to set your expectations every day.
They are not in charge of your mood. They are not in charge of your attitude. They do not have the right to get you to thinking every day that life in America is about, "Will the Republicans lose?" and yet they make every effort to do so. I call it the daily media bubble. They don't get to determine our reality with their fantasies -- and that's exactly what they are engaging in now is fewer fantasy, because no one knows how these elections are going to come out, except they have set the bar. The Democrat Party today is in miserable shape. It is led by miserable, unhappy, scurrilous people. It is supported by a miserable media, and if they don't take Congress, they are miserable failures who have nothing to build on.
They will have absolutely nothing to build on. Let me give you an example of how the media bubble is created -- and this is just one, and there are countless thousands of them. The latest Newsweek poll has Democrats leading Republicans on the economy by 22%. That's not reality. That's not even perception. It's just plain goofy. There is no possibility that Democrats lead Republicans on the economy by 22% in this climate. Now, the media are invested in the Democrats winning Congress. Their circulation and viewership are nose diving. If the Democrats fail to take both houses of Congress, that is a failure for the Drive-By Media, too.
If in this environment, after five years of shooting for this goal -- if they can't pull it off in this environment -- I don't want to hear anybody else bellyaching and whining to me about the power of the Drive-By Media. Because if they lose this election, the Democrats lose it, the media loses it, too, and we will call them on it. They are nothing more than mouthpieces for the Democrats. They have taken sides in this election, as they have in past elections. Their reports are timing so-called scandal stories to help the Democrats. There are Democrats turned reporters. You've got Stephanopoulos, you've got Chris Cuomo, Chris Matthews among others are in complete anti-Republican mode, and they have Democrat Party roots, powerful roots in the Democratic Party. So, if the Democrats fail to do what everyone is insisting today that they will do, take over Congress, then the media implosion is not too far off down the road either.
BREAK TRANSCRIPT
RUSH: Steve in Birmingham, Alabama. I'm glad you called, sir. Nice to have you with us.
CALLER: Hi, Rush. Mega dittos, and thanks for all that you do.
RUSH: You bet, sir. Somebody has to do it and I'm willing to do it for the big bucks.
CALLER: Well, we appreciate it. I heard the reporting this morning, too, and I went and looked at this ABC News/Washington Post poll, and if you look at it, it's not as bad as it's been reported. I mean, you mentioned the Foley thing and how that will only impact a handful of nations. Well, that poll showed that only 18% felt that Foley was a very important issue, whereas 75% thought the Dems would not have handled it any better -- and 62% thought the Dems were pursuing for their own political advantage. That's just Foley. There are other issues in that poll that are helpful. For instance, 60% of the people polled approve of the way their own representatives are handling their jobs.
RUSH: Right, 60% like their guy. That's really been the little dirty secret in elections, and in economic news. You run out and take a poll of people on the economy. "Yeah, the economy is doing well for me. I couldn't be doing better. I'm worried about other people, though, my neighbors and so forth." People are afraid to say they're doing well. They think it's bragging or whatever: 60% like their guy. Now, since the Republicans have more incumbents than Democrats do (chuckles) that's a factor, and there's this one, too. There is no significant support. Now, you have to go in the printed version of this story to the third page of it. There is no significant support for withdrawing US forces immediately from Iraq.
Well, hell, that's the primary Democrat issue (when they get to one) getting out of Iraq, "redeploying" or what have you. "Half of those surveyed -- about the same percentage it's been throughout the years -- said they would like to see troop levels decrease, but only a fifth said [that's 20%] they supported immediate withdrawal from the Iraqi theater." As bad as these findings are, they're not as bad as they were in the months before Democrats lost control in 1994. Congressional approval hit 18% in October of that year.
Let me ask you: Did any poll predict the Democrats were going to lose the House in 1994? Was there any poll that predicted they were going to lose it? I don't think there was. (Steve, thanks for the call. He did a good job studying the internals.) The only guy I remember -- and he was not a pollster -- who predicted it besides me was Novak. Novak predicted the Republicans would win the House. All the polling data suggested otherwise. (interruption) Oh, they couldn't believe it! Peter Jennings on the radio the next day talking about Americans had a "temper tantrum." Donna in Baltimore, you're next. Welcome to the program.
CALLER: Hi, Rush. It's an honor to talk to you. Thank you so much for taking my phone call.
RUSH: Thank you.
CALLER: I was just calling about the state of Maryland, of course, is a blue state -- blue, blue, blue -- and we have two competitive statewide Republicans running, one for governor. It's a toss up, and as a lifelong Marylander, I am just amazed. I just do not see what the polls keep talking about on the national level because here in my true blue state of Maryland I have two potential Republicans in Michael Steele and Bob Ehrlich that are statewide races. Michael Steele is four points behind his Democratic challenger, and they are within the margin of error. It is just unreal what's happening here in the state of Maryland, and this is a blue state. So I don't understand where the polls are coming from on the national level, but we are so excited in the state of Maryland.
RUSH: Good! Stay that way! Stay that way. Don't be down. It's the same thing as I said in California. Schwarzenegger is cleaning up against Angelides. (interruption) That's why I'm telling you. Santorum's momentum -- and that's what's important in polls when you get close to elections, the momentum, and Santorum is moving up. Those into California, Maryland, and so forth, Santorum in Pennsylvania, could indicate turnout will be different on the Republican side than what these polls are saying.
END TRANSCRIPT
Read the Background Material...
(NYTimes: Poll Shows Foley Case Is Hurting Congress’s Image)
(WP: Poll Shows Strong Shift Of Support to Democrats)
(NewsMax: Poll: GOP in 'Foleygate' Meltdown)
(USAToday: GOP doubts lead voters to Dems Poll: Lead widens)
(TIME poll: The Foley Scandal Has Hurt the G.O.P.)
(Newsweek: For the Faithful, a Trying Time - Howard Fineman)
(NB: Newsmags Push Democratic Wave in 2006, But Fought Rising GOP Tide in 1994)
(Fox: With Foley Scandal, GOP Faces Fate of 1994 Democrats -Martin Frost)
(American Prowler: Saved by Foley. Why Democrat hit squads dropped the big one early)
(NRO: A Blast at the Lamont Doctrine - Rich Lowry)
(American Thinker: Prowler reports CREW/Dem collaboration)
*Note: Links to content outside RushLimbaugh.com usually become inactive over time.
