Rush Limbaugh: We're NOT Losing

RUSH: I got an e-mail here. I was just trolling the accounts during the top-of-the-hour break. "Dear Rush..." This from a subscriber at RushLimbaugh.com. "How can you say we're winning? Tom DeLay is likely to be forced to resign while McDermott will go free. Bolton will not be confirmed. Bush will never get the ten judges because the weak-spined Republicans will never, ever invoke the constitutional option. The newspapers and media are still as liberal, as always, still exert more influence than you and all the conservatives combined. You guys have helped but the common belief is that you guys are the radical wackos not the liberal press. Sandy Berger gets a pass. Hillary and her fund-raising pals will get a pass just like Billy Boy did five years ago. You think we're winning because we control two branches of government? We have such inept Republicans they think they're in the minority. In fact not just a minority, but a minuscule minority. I'm glad you're optimistic. I need to get that through the day but winning? I don't think so. I keep hoping but I don't see it." This is from Ronald [name redacted]. This is the exact kind of thing I'm trying to keep you people from becoming. You have to look at this if you want to take a look at DeLay or Bolton or these things or the judges, look beyond them. It's one of the things I have always attempted to tell you: There is no question the Democrats are imploding. It is the mainstream media that makes it look like they're winning -- and it doesn't help that the Republicans have been recalcitrant so far to stand up for themselves, but regardless what the Republicans do, the Democrats are still imploding.

Let's take this Bolton business. The Democrats are in such a mess. If they actually succeed in disqualifying the guy because he "yelled at subordinates," they better be prepared for what's going to hit them with their next presidential candidate. If their next presidential candidate ever yelled at subordinates, then the picture of John Bolton is going to pop up, and the Democrats are going to be forced to say, "Well, presidents have to act differently than people at the State Department and the United Nations." They're going to hoisted in their own petard on so many of these things. It's not guaranteed that DeLay is going down. I would bet that he won't go down. I mean, you're probably reacting to the fact that it was discovered that this guy Abramoff's credit card paid for DeLay's trip. The Washington Post runs the story. The Washington Post never once said DeLay did anything wrong in this story! It's just smear. But the fact of the matter is let's see every other Democrat that's every gone on a trip and let's see the credit card receipts that paid for the Democrats trips. I'll bet we'll find that it's common. The credit card, by the way, DeLay didn't know it. DeLay thought the trip was being paid for -- and it probably was -- by this interest group. You know, and they have contributors, for crying out loud! DeLay filed all the appropriate paperwork. This is nothing but a smear tactic, and if you get down and depressed on all this and think it's going to work then you're allowing these people to win but look at their tactics. They don't have an agenda. They don't have one thing they stand for. They don't have anything that's going to help them win elections downtown road. All they're doing is corkscrewing themselves, and they're setting themselves up for the same stuff to come right back at them.

This business on the judges? They want to sit around and talk about how you can't criticize judges and yet they impale the Supreme Court every time they talk about Bush v. Gore in 2000! You know, the best way to think of this is, that the Democrats are losing everything they've ever controlled, and that's why they're in this veritable panic. It's only because the mainstream press is on their side that the illusion is they're still running things and that they are not losing power and they're not losing elections, but don't fall for that. Don't make these 16 years for naught, ladies and gentlemen! Please. You have to understand when things are trending in your direction. It's not perfect. You know, I've been one to criticize the recalcitrant Republicans in the Senate on this program, time and time again. But it appears to me, if you saw Jon Kyl on television yesterday, that some of these Republicans are not taking this anymore. They're fighting back. Tom DeLay is not taking it lying down. He's fighting back, and the same with Frist. Frist went on television yesterday, at this rally, broadcast between churches, and he was unafraid and fearless in doing so despite what the Democrats are saying about it and the Democrats today offer some sort of compromise. Broder offered a compromise and Biden tried to preempt him and offer his own version of the Broder's compromise early in the day on television. The fact that Sandy Berger got a pass? Don't think you're the only one angry about this. There are all kinds of voters out there that notice this, too. How many times have I told you we're not in a vacuum here?

You're not the only one who notices bias in the press. You're not the only one that notices the disparity of fairness when it comes to the way Democrats and Republicans in the House are treated. A lot of people notice. Why do you think Democrats are losing elections? There's nothing they stand for that's inspiring. There's nothing they're saying that's inspiring anybody. You think what they're doing is enabling them to recruit voters from outside their voting bloc or their base? It's not. All they're doing is shoring up their base, and they're doing it right now to get money. Even Hillary is not going to pull of this move to the center or move to the right. She's not going to be able to pull it off. She's not going to fool people on this. Now, as to the media and how powerful they are. They're only powerful because you assign them that, because you grant them that. You look at the media, supporting Democrats and say, "Oh, nothing is changing." You're defining success on the basis of how the media looks at things. I've warned you about this. I've warned you people several times about this. If you set your definition for success or failure upon how the media portrays news events, you're going to always think we're losing. The media is not going to change. They're liberals! It's a religion! That's why they're so afraid of the Catholic Church. That's why they're so afraid of Christianity. That's why they're so afraid of these judges. Janice Rogers Brown? You know, this thing I read to you from People for the American Way, the one thing they didn't say about her she's a devout Christian. That's the primary reason they oppose her but they don't dare say it, but they're taking heat on that.

What this rally on Sunday was all about is focusing attention on this, but if you're going to sit out there and think, "Well, press still has more power because they're still the Democrats." They don't. The press's candidates are not winning. Are the press's candidates winning? Look what they did to try to destroy Bush. In the old days Bush wouldn't have got 10% of the vote. Dan Rather would have gotten away with that. You can't say that the media is getting more powerful, or you can't say the media is not losing some of their power. They are. Their circulation is down. George Will had a column yesterday in the Post, Washington Post, syndicated around the country and let me read you some statistics from his piece. "If you awake before dawn you probably hear a daily sound that may become as anachronistic as the clatter of horses' hooves on urban cobblestones. The sound is the slap of the morning paper on the sidewalk. The circulation of daily U.S. newspapers is 55.2 million, down from 62.3 million in 1990." So in 14 or 15 years in this country the big news papers have lost 10 million readers. "The percentage of adults who say they read a paper 'yesterday' are ominous." Sixty percent of 65-and-older people admit to reading a newspaper yesterday, and as you get younger the numbers of people who say they read newspapers gets smaller. This is what I was talking about earlier in the program. The news media is concerned because they're not reaching the yutes. They're not reaching young people. They're not able to inculcate them to liberalism. If you're between 50 and 64, 52% admit to having read a newspaper yesterday. People between 30 and 49? Thirty-nine percent admit to reading a newspaper yesterday. That's incredibly low! Between 18 and 29, only 23% of Americans admit that they read a newspaper yesterday. Between 18 and 29! Now, "Americans ages 8 to 18 spend an average of 6 hours and 21 minutes a day with media of all sorts but just 43 minutes with print media." Not just newspapers but magazines as well. Get this: "The combined viewership of the network evening newscasts is 28.8 million..." You know what it was in 1980? It was 52.1 million. They are down an incredible amount, almost 24 million viewers they have lost since 1980. "The median age of viewers is 60. Hence the sponsorship of news programming by Metamucil and Fixodent....'

"Writing in the Wilson Quarterly, in a section on 'the collapse of big media,'" a writer said in rejecting "the opinion of a CBS official that 'time is on our side in that as you get older, you tend to get more interested in the world around you.'" The writer here is David T. Z. Mindich who used to work at CNN, and he says we're in a post-journalism age. "Mindich cites research showing that 'a particular age cohort's reading habits do not change much with time.'" In other words, I read newspapers when I was 18, 16, 17. I don't read 'em anymore. I do it on the internet. But his point is, if you're not reading a newspaper by the time you're 29 years old you probably aren't going to be reading one by the time you're 59 years old. It doesn't change. You don't start reading more, and people are going to be reading print less and less and less as technology changes. "Baby boomers who became adults in the 1970s consume less journalism than their parents did. And although in 1972 nearly half of those 18 to 22 read a newspaper every day, now less than," 25% do. In 1972 nearly half of those 18 to 22 read a newspaper every day. Now they don't. "The young are voracious consumers of media, but not of journalism. Sixty-eight percent of children 8 to 18 have televisions in their rooms; 33% have computers. And if they could have only one entertainment medium, a third would choose the computer" over a television. Twenty-five percent said they would choose TV. "They carry their media around with them: 79% of young people ages 8 to 18 year olds have portable CD, tape or MP3 players. Fifty-five percent have hand-held video game players. Sony's PlayStation Portable, which plays music, games and movies, sold more than 500,000 units in the first two days after its March debut." So the point is fewer and fewer people are reading newspapers. The demographics of those who do read newspapers is getting older. Fewer and fewer people are watching the New York News. So please, folks, get with it, will you? and don't sit out there and be perpetually depressed because of what you see on the mainstream media.

Because I'll tell you this: Even though this viewership may be down the people who are watching it see exactly what you do. They see bias. They see unfairness. You know, news is a product. The thing you have to understand. For the longest time we grew up in this country we were idealistic we thought the news was "what happened." The news is a product. Editors, packagers, producers decide every day what news you're going to see. They produce a product for you to see. Based on what? Many things. Their biases, what they think is important, how stupid you are, what you might not understand. All these things go into the mix. It's not "what happened" today. Walter Cronkite said, "That's the way it is." It's not the way it was. It was the way Walter Cronkite wanted you to think it was. It was the way Walter Cronkite saw it, but it's wasn't what happened. The news has never been what happened. It's always been packaged. It is a product like everything else that comes in a box that has a brand and a logo. The only difference is that all the people producing it are making the same product. Ergo, talk radio gets born; the blogosphere gets born, and Fox News is born -- and guess where those viewers are coming from? They're leaving the old guys in droves. Don't sit there and tell me that we are losing. I'm not saying that we're winning per se; the trend is obviously in the right direction because our opponents are in a meltdown. Now, it's up to us to take advantage of it and we here are and a number of other places are. We only hope it continues in the Senate but we'll see. But don't sit there and continually be cowed by what you see in the mainstream press which has declining viewership, declining readership and thus declining influence.

Show me where we are winning.

We have had no conservative judges confirmed.

We have the ambassador to the u.n. being villified and no Republicans come to his defense. Instead, he is stabbed in the back by a "Republican".

Tom Delay is being lynched. Again, instead of defending him, the "Republicans" pile on with the Democrats.

The judiciary has run amok. Instead of applying the law, they are making the law.

From wht I can see,the degenerates and perverts [another name for Democrat]are the ones that appear to be winning.

We need lions and we have hyenas.

"The Republicans never fight fire with fire. "

The problem is that Reps keep expecting the Dems will grow up act like responsible adults instead of behaving like the whiney little children that they are.

There is no question the Democrats are imploding

Yep, El Rushbo, tell me about it. The democs have lost seats in every election since 1994? But as a minority they still manage to block judicial appointments. They still manage to block Social Security reform. They still manage to stay out of jail when they commit crimes that you or I would go to jail for?

The democs may not be winning elections because of grass roots folks like me, but they are sure as hell winning in setting policy in this country.

What does the majority need, a 101 to -1 margin to be effective??????

Give me a break, I agree with the person who sent the email to you.....

The Dems have taken down very few Republicans, Lott, Gindrich and others were not taken down-ther were browbeaten into quitting. I do not see DeLay quitting and the Dems do not have anything but trumped up aligations against him. DeLay is here to stay.

Right idea, wrong country.

Rush may be right but I have a problem with it. I don't read the newspapers, listen to talk shows anymore including his, don't read any newspapers on line, and I have this perception the Reps are lilly livered spineless wimps. Where did I get it? Has to be right here on FR. Only place I do read news stories and hear opinions.

The writer here is David T. Z. Mindich who used to work at CNN, and he says we're in a post-journalism age.

We aren't in the post journalism age, we're in the post culture age, and we have the public schools to thank for it.

Attaboy, Rush. Tell it like it is.

By the way, the email that he was responding to sounds like 70% of the posters on FR. It can be depressing sometimes to hear the Chicken Littles bashing Frist and Hastert while ignoring the antics of Ted Kennedy and Dingy Harry Reid. Where's that fighting spirit? Can you be tough with anyone other than Republicans?

Note: I'm not saying that RINOs shouldn't be targeted. I'm merely saying that sometimes, we could use a bit more perspective than we show on here by branding the entire GOP as "limpwristed Republicans."

The person who wrote the email is correct.

Rush Limbaugh is wrong.

Rush is in the pocket of the Republicans. Hannity and Rush need their audience and they want their big contract more than they want to be honest.

The Republicans are wimps to an extreme. Hannity and Rush fail to criticize the Republicans. Hannity and Rush talk like RNC loyalists, not supporters and defenders of Constitutional principle.

The person who wrote this email is totally correct.

There are a number of them, in fact the majority of GOP senators are made of the right stuff. Unfortunately, it's the McCain's, Chafee's and Specter's that we keep hearing about through the liberal media.

If no Republicans have stood up to the Dems, please explain how we purportedly have at least 50 votes for the nuclear option, according to McConnell. Any takers? I thought that they were ALL a bunch of limp wristed wimps.

"The percentage of adults who say they read a paper 'yesterday' are ominous."

I get more, better, faster, more accurate news in ten minutes with FR and Drudge than any major paper can give in 48 hours. If some wacko, elitist, dinkwad, liberal media whore doesn't like it they can kiss a certain unshaven orifice or two. They can cry me a river. They can moan and groan about how "insensitive" I am. I could care less. They've earned nothing but contempt. Spineless, gutless bastards of an age gone wrong; pining hippies who see no good in life other than to please their own egos.

Give me another paragrpaph or two and I'll tell you how I really feel, but I'd rather not be banned.

Um, I don't buy for a second that we have 50 votes.

All of this is TALK. We want ACTION on the filibuster.

Problem is, all Frist and the spineless weanies (yes, I'm one of the ones who thinks our side is doing a VERY POOR JOB being the MAJORITY PARTY) will probably negotiate some wimpy "compromise" with Reid, that essentially leaves the problem in place.

I will believe it when I see it. Of course, hell may freeze over before then, I'm afraid.

2006 and 2008 are not going to look pretty for the R side if we don't move on this thing - and move NOW. I for one (along with many others) will sit out - more in protest and disgust against these idiots who won't do what WE sent them there to do in the first place. What good does it do to elect them if they just continue on the good ole' boy network status quo, and ignore the will of the voters? NOTTA.

'06 and '08 are gonna be a mess, IMHO. If the pubbies don't get the filibuster problem solved NOW, I fear we may see Democrat control of POTUS and both branches of Congress (they already control the judiciary).

THAT is how important this is!

Actually it is the Constitutional option.

Why haven't they already voted?

How many judicial nominees have been voted out of Committee that the Democrats oppose?

How about Bolton? Not only has he been slandered and lied on by Democrats, A "Republican stabbed him in the back as well.

I won't even mention Tom Delay lynching, aided again,by a "Republican" or how many judicial nominees that the Democrats oppose have been confirmed by the Senate.

I think DeLay and Bolton are both in serious trouble.

The Brits in the Battle of Britain were in serious trouble.

DeLay and Bolton are not in serious trouble unless the conservatives blink, surrender, and retreat.

It is time to stand our ground and fight. Never surrender.

Are you listening to yourself? "Why haven't they already voted?"

I can understand the impatience, but do you realize the enormity of what the GOP is about to do? We are about to break the back of the Democrats on the judiciary. Can't you see how this has to be a well-coordinated effort, to build public support as well as put pressure on those Senators who would just as soon not vote on it?

Take a deep breath, sport, and look at the big picture. I understand the frustration, but to bash the GOP now and lose focus is NOT the answer. We'll have plenty of time to settle scores with RINOs later, once the dust has cleared.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.