Conservative Review |
||
Issue #21 |
Kukis Digests and Opines on this Week’s News and Views |
April 20, 2008 |
McCain’s Economic Speech
April 15, 2008
ARLINGTON, VA -- U.S. Senator John McCain will deliver the following remarks as prepared for delivery at Carnegie Mellon University in Pittsburgh, PA, today at 9:45 a.m. EDT:
Thank you. I appreciate the hospitality of the Allegheny Business Conference... the Pittsburgh Tech Council... and the students and faculty of Carnegie Mellon University. We have a strong showing this morning from the Carnegie Mellon Naval ROTC unit as well. And I'm happy to be with all of you.
This university has a fine reputation for its programs in business, finance, and other disciplines in the field of economics. And it's always worth recalling that economics is not a subject that can be wrenched apart from all the rest of life, or from the values that give life direction. When we debate economic policy, we are talking, after all, about the deepest hopes that carry us each along in the work we do... about all the things we wish for ourselves and for each other. And these cannot be measured by simply running the numbers.
In our free society, it is left to each one of us to make our own way in the world -- and our jobs, businesses, savings, pensions, farms, and homes are the work of years. Take these away and you are diminishing a lot more than the GDP, or the final tally on the Big Board on Wall Street. Take these away, and a million dreams are undone. The gains of hard work and sacrifice are lost. And something can be lost that is very crucial in our economy, and very slow to return -- confidence.
Every so often in our nation's capital, we relearn this lesson when the excesses of traders and speculators, and the poor planning of politicians, catches up with them, and the troubles spread far beyond Wall Street and Washington. This has happened in recent months, at great cost to workers, small businesses, families, and homeowners across our nation. And calling these serious problems a "correction" in the market, or a "cycle" of the economy, doesn't make their situation any better, their jobs and homes any safer, their lives any easier.
Economic policy is not just some academic exercise, and we in Washington are not just passive spectators. We have a responsibility to act -- and if I am elected president I intend to act quickly and decisively. We need reforms that promote growth and opportunity. We need rules that assure fairness and punish wrongdoing in the market. We need tax policies that respect the wage-earners and job creators who make this economy run, and help them to succeed in a global economy. In all of this, it will not be enough to simply dust off the economic policies of four, eight, or twenty-eight years ago. We have our own work to do. We have our own challenges to meet.
Millions of working men and women in Pennsylvania, Ohio, Michigan and beyond can tell you how urgent is the work before us. One man put it this way to a reporter not long ago, in reply to a question about the job he had just lost. He said, "I told my wife that I'll always keep a roof over her head. Now, I worry about keeping that promise." In the monthly reports of our Labor Department, nearly 250,000 Americans like this man were let go recently and suddenly from jobs they thought were safe.
A woman in the town of Trainer, in Delaware County, also captured the feeling of many when she described what it's like to work and save for years, and, at the age of 47, still struggle for the basics of life. The family has had medical problems, and as she puts it: "Trust me, no one wants to be in our shoes. And lots of people are just a sick husband away from where we are." For citizens like these -- doing their best to keep promises and meet obligations, there is no comfort knowing their problems are common and their worries are shared.
Meanwhile, the people we expect to be most sober and level-headed in their economic decisions -- bankers and other home lenders -- forgot some of the basic standards of their own profession. Hard-working homeowners are learning for the first time about the endlessly complicated borrowing, bundling, and betting that has been going on in our capital markets. Americans worry about a system that allows 4 million bad loans to affect 51 million good ones. They wonder how assets can so quickly become liabilities, and why the high-risk schemes of a few were permitted to inflict such grievous harm on our entire financial system.
Americans are also right to be offended when the extravagant salaries and severance deals of CEO's -- in some cases, the very same CEO's who helped to bring on these market troubles -- bear no relation to the success of the company or the wishes of shareholders. Something is seriously wrong when the American people are left to bear the consequences of reckless corporate conduct, while Mr. Cayne of Bear Stearns, Mr. Mozilo of Countrywide, and others are packed off with another forty- or fifty million for the road. [I must admit that, even though I might be a little jealous of high CEO salaries and severance packages, I certainly do not want the federal government to step in and make them fair or to take away more than they get in taxes; as a conservative, I like John McCain; but that does not mean that I believe in every position that he articulates].
I leave it for others to speculate on the technical definition of a recession. It's all a little beside the point, if it's your plant that's closing and your job that's gone... when you are facing foreclosure, or back in debt after years of hard effort, or hardly able to buy food, gas, or heating for your home. In the end, the truest measure of prosperity in America is the success and financial security of those who earn wages and meet payrolls in this country. Many are waiting for their first homes... their first big break... their first shot at financial security. And helping them will be my first priority in setting the economic policies of this nation.
In so many ways, even now, the workers and entrepreneurs of America are taken for granted by their government, while the lobbyists and special pleaders are seldom turned away. By the tens of billions of dollars, our tax money is routinely squandered by the Congress on less than useless pork-barrel projects -- projects having nothing to do with the purposes of government, and everything to do with the preservation of power.
In the same way, many in Congress think Americans are under-taxed. They speak as if letting you keep your own earnings were an act of charity, and now they have decided you've had enough. By allowing many of the current low tax rates to expire, they would impose -- overnight -- the single largest tax increase since the Second World War. Among supporters of a tax increase are Senators Obama and Clinton. Both promise big "change." And a trillion dollars in new taxes over the next decade would certainly fit that description. [I must admit to laughing at this point]
Of course, they would like you to think that only the very wealthy will pay more in taxes, but the reality is quite different. Under my opponents' various tax plans, Americans of every background would see their taxes rise -- seniors, parents, small business owners, and just about everyone who has even a modest investment in the market. All these tax increases are the fine print under the slogan of "hope": They're going to raise your taxes by thousands of dollars per year -- and they have the audacity to hope you don't mind.
They and others argue that the tax increase is necessary in part to finance Social Security and Medicare. Unfortunately, this claim only serves to remind us of Congress' consistent failure to repair both of these programs even under the best of circumstances. For years, Congress has been buying time, and leaving the great challenge of entitlement reform for others to deal with. And now the two contenders in the other party have even proposed enormous new federal commitments before the old commitments have been kept -- trusting that others, somewhere down the road, will handle the financing and make all the numbers come out right.
But there will come a day when the road dead-ends, and the old excuses seem even more hollow. And it won't be the politicians who bear the consequences. It will be American workers and their children who are left with worthless promises and trillion-dollar debts. We cannot let that happen. And you have my pledge: as president I will work with every member of Congress -- Republican, Democrat, and Independent -- who shares my commitment to reforming and protecting Medicare and Social Security.
In so many ways, we need to make a clean break from the worst excesses of both political parties. For Republicans, it starts with reclaiming our good name as the party of spending restraint. Somewhere along the way, too many Republicans in Congress became indistinguishable from the big-spending Democrats they used to oppose. The only power of government that could stop them was the power of veto, and it was rarely used.
If that authority is entrusted to me, I will use the veto as needed, and as the Founders intended. I will veto every bill with earmarks, until the Congress stops sending bills with earmarks. I will seek a constitutionally valid line-item veto to end the practice once and for all. I will lead across-the-board reforms in the federal tax code, removing myriad corporate tax loopholes that are costly, unfair, and inconsistent with a free-market economy.
As president, I will also order a prompt and thorough review of the budgets of every federal program, department, and agency. While that top to bottom review is underway, we will institute a one-year pause in discretionary spending increases with the necessary exemption of military spending and veterans benefits. "Discretionary spending" is a term people throw around a lot in Washington, while actual discretion is seldom exercised. Instead, every program comes with a built-in assumption that it should go on forever, and its budget increase forever. My administration will change that way of thinking.
I'll hold the agencies of the federal government accountable for the money they spend. I'll make sure the public helps me, and I'll provide federal agencies with the best executive leadership that can be found in America. We're going to make every aspect of government purchases and performance transparent. Information on every step of contracts and grants will be posted on the Internet in plain and simple English. We're going to post an agency's performance evaluation as well. We're going to demand accountability. We will make sure that federal spending serves the common interests... that failed programs are not rewarded... and that discretionary spending is going where it belongs -- to essential priorities like job training, the security of our citizens, and the care of our veterans.
In my administration there will be no more subsidies for special pleaders -- no more corporate welfare -- no more throwing around billions of dollars of the people's money on pet projects, while the people themselves are struggling to afford their homes, groceries, and gas. We are going to get our priorities straight in Washington -- a clean break from years of squandered wealth and wasted chances.
I have a clear record of not asking for earmarks for my state. For their part, Senators Obama and Clinton have championed a long list of pork-barrel projects for their states -- like that all-important Woodstock museum that Senator Clinton expected Americans to pay for at the cost of a million dollars. That kind of careless spending of tax dollars is not change, my friends: It is business as usual in Washington, and it's all a part of the same wasteful and corrupting system that we need to end.
The goal of reform, however, is not merely to check waste and keep a tidy budget process -- although these are important enough in themselves. The great goal is to get the American economy running at full strength again, creating the opportunities Americans expect and the jobs Americans need. And one very direct way to achieve that is by taking the savings from earmark, program review, and other budget reforms -- on the order of 100 billion dollars annually -- and use those savings to lower the business income tax for every employer that pays it.
So I will send to Congress a proposal to cut the taxes these employers pay, from a rate of 35 to 25 percent. As it is, we have the second-highest tax on business in the industrialized world. High tax rates are driving many businesses and jobs overseas -- and, of course, our foreign competitors wouldn't mind if we kept it that way. But if I am elected president, we're going to get rid of that drag on growth and job creation, and help American workers compete with any company in the world.
I will also send to the Congress a middle-class tax cut -- a complete phase-out of the Alternative Minimum Tax to save more than 25 million middle-class families more than 2,000 dollars every year.
Our tax laws and those who enforce them should treat all citizens with respect, whether they are married or single. But mothers and fathers bear special responsibilities, and the tax code must recognize this. Inflation has eroded the value of the exemption for dependents. I will send to Congress a reform to increase the exemption -- with the goal of doubling it from 3,500 dollars to 7,000 dollars for every dependent, in every family in America.
The tax laws of America should also promote and reward innovation, because innovation creates jobs. Tax laws should not smother the ingenuity of our people with needless regulations and disincentives. So I will propose and sign into law a reform agenda to permit the first-year expensing of new equipment and technology... to ban Internet taxes, permanently... to ban new cell phone taxes... and to make the tax credit for R&D permanent, so that we never lose our competitive edge.
It is not enough, however, to make little fixes here and there in the tax code. What we need is a simpler, a flatter, and a fair tax code. As president, I will propose an alternative tax system. When this reform is enacted, all who wish to file under the current system could still do so. And everyone else could choose a vastly less complicated system with two tax rates and a generous standard deduction. Americans do not resent paying their rightful share of taxes -- what they do resent is being subjected to thousands of pages of needless and often irrational rules and demands from the IRS. We know from experience that no serious reform of the current tax code will come out of Congress, so now it is time to turn the decision over to the people. We are going to create a new and simpler tax system -- and give the American people a choice.
Better tax policy is just one part of a pro-growth agenda that includes smarter regulation and a leaner, more focused government. Among the many benefits to America, these reforms will help to create jobs, improve the investment climate, attract global investors, and strengthen the dollar.
Americans also worry about stagnant wages, which are caused in part by the rising cost of health care. Each year employers pay more and more for insurance, leaving less and less to pay their employees. As president, I will propose and relentlessly advocate changes that will bring down health care costs, make health care more affordable and accessible, help individuals and families buy their health insurance with generous tax credits, and enable you to keep your insurance when you change jobs.
Many retired Americans face the terrible reality of deciding whether to buy food, pay rent or buy their prescriptions. And their government should help them. But when we added the prescription drug benefit to Medicare, a new and costly entitlement, we included many people who are more than capable of purchasing their own medicine without assistance from taxpayers who struggle to purchase their own. People like Bill Gates and Warren Buffet don't need their prescriptions underwritten by taxpayers. Those who can afford to buy their own prescription drugs should be expected to do so. This reform alone will save billions of dollars that could be returned to taxpayers or put to better use.
There's never been a problem Americans couldn't solve. We are the world's leaders, and leaders don't fear change, pine for the past and dread the future. We make the future better than the past. That is why I object when Senators Obama and Clinton and others preach the false virtues of economic isolationism. Senator Obama recently suggested that Americans are protectionist because they are bitter about being left behind in the global economy. Well, what's his excuse for embracing the false promises of protectionism? Opening new markets for American goods and services is indispensable to our future prosperity. We can compete with anyone. Senators Obama and Clinton think we should hide behind walls, bury our heads and industries in the sand, and hope we have enough left to live on while the world passes us by. But that is not good policy and it is not good leadership. And the short-sightedness of these policies can be seen today in Congress' refusal to vote on the Colombian Free Trade Agreement.
When new trading partners can sell in our market, and American companies can sell in theirs, the gains are great and they are lasting. The strength of the American economy offers a better life to every society we trade with, and the good comes back to us in many ways -- in better jobs, higher wages, and lower prices. Free trade can also give once troubled and impoverished nations a stake in the world economy, and in their relations with America. In the case of Colombia, a friend and crucial democratic ally, its stability and economic vitality are more critical now, as others in the region seek to turn Latin America away from democracy and away from our country. Trade serves all of these national interests, and the interests of the American economy as well -- and I call on the Congress once again to put this vital agreement to an up or down vote.
I know that open markets don't automatically translate into a higher quality of life for every single American. Change is hard, and while most of us gain, some industries, companies and workers are left to struggle with very difficult choices. And government should help workers get the education and training they need -- for the new jobs that will be created by new businesses in this new century.
Right now we have more than a half-dozen different programs that are supposed to help displaced workers, and for those who are not working at all. We have an unemployment insurance program straight out of the 1950s. It was designed to assist workers through a few tough months during an economic downturn until their old jobs came back. That program has no relevance to the world we live in today.
If I'm elected president, I'll work with Congress and the states to make job training and unemployment insurance what they should be -- a swift path from a job that's not coming back to a job that won't go away. We will build a new system, using the unemployment-insurance taxes to build for each worker a buffer account against a sudden loss of income -- so that in times of need they're not just told to fill out forms and take a number. And we will draw on the great strengths of America's community colleges, applying the funds from federal training accounts to give displaced workers of every age a fresh start with new skills and new opportunities.
These reforms must wait on the next election, but to help our workers and our economy we must also act in the here and now. And we must start with the subprime mortgage crisis, with the hundreds of thousands of citizens who played by the rules, yet now fear losing their houses. Under the HOME plan I have proposed, our government will offer these Americans direct and immediate help that can make all the difference: If you can't make your payments, and you're in danger of foreclosure, you will be able to go to any Post Office and pick up a form for a new HOME loan. In place of your flawed mortgage loan, you'll be eligible for a new, 30-year fixed-rate loan backed by the United States government. Citizens will keep their homes, lenders will cut their losses, and everyone will move on -- following the sounder practices that should have been observed in the first place.
It's important as well to remember that the foolish risk-taking of lenders, investment banks, and others that led to these troubles don't reflect our free market as it should be working. In a free market, there must be transparency, accountability, and personal and corporate responsibility. The housing crisis came about because these standards collapsed -- and, as president, I intend to restore them.
The grave problems in the housing market have been viral, spreading out to affect the credit and buying power of Americans even as the price of oil and gas is rising as never before. There are larger problems underlying the price of oil, all of which I will address in my energy plan, but in the short term there are crucial measures we can take.
I propose that the federal government suspend all taxes on gasoline now paid by the American people -- from Memorial Day to Labor Day of this year. The effect will be an immediate economic stimulus -- taking a few dollars off the price of a tank of gas every time a family, a farmer, or trucker stops to fill up. Over the same period, our government should suspend the purchase of oil for the Strategic Petroleum Reserve, which has also contributed to the rising price of oil. This measure, combined with the summer-long "gas-tax holiday," will bring a timely reduction in the price of gasoline. And because the cost of gas affects the price of food, packaging, and just about everything else, these immediate steps will help to spread relief across the American economy. [McCain is looking to do this today, for this summer, as a legislator]
By summer's end, moreover, millions of college students will be counting on their student loans to come through -- and we need to make sure that happens. These young Americans, including perhaps some of you at CMU, are among the many citizens whose ability to obtain a loan might be seriously hurt by faraway problems not of their own making. So, today, I propose that the Department of Education work with the governors to make sure that each state's guarantee agency has the means and manpower to meet its obligation as a lender-of-last-resort for student loans. In the years ahead, these young Americans will be needed to sustain America's primacy in the global marketplace. And they should not be denied an education because the recklessness of others has made credit too hard to obtain.
These are just some of the reforms I intend to fight for and differences I will debate with whoever my Democratic opponent is. In the weeks and months ahead, I will detail my plans to reform health care in America...to make our schools more accountable to parents and taxpayers...to keep America's edge in technology... to use the power of free markets to grow our economy... to escape our dependence on foreign oil... and to guard against climate change and to be better stewards of the earth. All of these challenges, and more, will face the next president, and I will not leave them for some unluckier generation of leaders to deal with. We are going to restore the confidence of the American people in the future of this great and blessed country. [Okay, he had me until climate change]
I do not seek the presidency on the presumption that I am blessed with such personal greatness that history has anointed me to save my country in its hour of need. I seek the presidency with the humility of a man who cannot forget that my country saved me. I am running to serve America, and to champion the ideas I believe will help us do what every American generation has done: to make in our time, and from our challenges, a safer, stronger, more prosperous country and a better world. [This is what is known as truly humility]
As I have always done, I will make my case to every American who will listen. I will not confine myself to the comfort of speaking only to those who agree with me. I will make my case to all the people. I will listen to those who disagree. I will try to persuade them. I will debate. [unlike Obama, who has promised to come onto FoxNews, but so far, has not] And I will learn from them. But I will fight every moment of every day for what I believe is right for this country, and I will not yield.
Thank you.
[I bolded the passages that I liked and all commentary in blue and in brackets are by me]
It is my understanding that McCain did not read this speech word for word, and several times, revised the speech as he spoke. This indicates that he is clearly able to think through these issues and that he does not simply reading from a teleprompter.
Michelle Obama’s “I ain’t no Elitist” Speech
Because of Obama’s remarks in the previous issue, Michelle Obama lets us know that she ain’t no elitist.
There’s a lotta people talkin’ ‘bout elitism and all of that...but let me tell you who me and Barack are so that you are not confuse. Yeah, I went to Princeton and Harvard but the lens through which I see the world is the lens that I grew up with; I’m the product of a working-class upbringin’. I grew up on the south side of Chicago in a working class community [clapping; video edit]...I want people to know that when they look at me, to be clear that they see what an investment in public education can look like [clapping and shouting].
It is interesting that, in the first minute of saying that she is not an elitist, even though she is a Harvard grad, that she cannot seem to properly enunciate her words or construct a proper English sentence; but then, at the end, when it is important for us to see what an investment of a public education can look like, her pronunciation and sentence structure improve real sudden-like.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Cwio7_L_hBQ
Democratic Debate 4-16-08
I watched the Democratic debate and I must admit, it was not nearly as bad as the ones which have gone before. First off, they did not argue about health-plan minutia, about which, no one cares. Secondly, the questions were, for the most part, good and tough; credit Charles Gibson and George Stephanopoulos.
For the first time, both candidates gave definitive answers on the withdrawal of Iraqi troops, to a fairly specific question. The question was (and I am paraphrasing the questions and the answers), “No matter what the generals on the ground tell you, Senator Clinton, will you keep to your promise to withdraw 1 to 2 brigades from Iraq every month?” Clinton answered in the affirmative, clearly and without equivocation. The follow up question should have been, “How far will you draw down the troops?”
Obama was asked a similar question and he said all combat troops would be out within 16 months and he would leave behind no permanent bases. Obama further and correctly stated that it was the choice of the commander-in-chief (actually, I think he used the word civilian leadership) who would decide the overall objectives, and the military’s job to carry out these objectives. I also recall LBJ bragging that no one would bomb and outhouse without his specific direction. The reason that I recall LBJ’s remark is, both Clinton and Obama plan to do what they plan to do, regardless of what the generals on the ground tell them.
In any case, although we don’t know exactly how far they will draw down troops, this is now a clear position...finally. In both cases, it was emphasized that they would do this, no matter what the generals on the ground said.
With regards to the economy, both candidates were a lot more vague, and they offered very little by way of specifics, in contrast to the speech by John McCain the day before. Obama was going to raise one set of taxes for those making $97,000 or above; but he promised not to raise taxes on those making $250,000 or below (maybe it was $200,000?).
One of McCain’s immediate proposals was, for the federal government to have a memorial of federal gas taxes this summer. I don’t recall if one or both candidates were asked about this, but the answer was not clear. However, the answer seemed to involve obscene oil profits. What the government takes in on gas tax is far more than the oil companies make, even in a good year. They ignored one statement of the questioner, which indicated that we in the U.S., in general, pay much less for gas than elsewhere in the world.
Clinton did suggest that she would investigate market manipulation and possibly do a study. Either Clinton or Obama said something about a windfall profits tax. I think Obama said something about energy independence (it was pointed out that candidate Jimmy Carter promised, “We will stop energy dependence dead in its tracks”).
McCain offers clear and understandable solutions to our high gas prices. Clinton and Obama either want to investigate, take away the oil profits or establish energy independence (which is not going to happen).
By the way, do you wonder where will the oil profits go to if the Dems get their hands on them? I can guarantee you that they won’t go into your pocket or into mine. Furthermore, when the government takes the oil profits, that will drop the value of oil stocks (we almost all own some) and increase our energy costs.
None of the 3 candidates seem to be saying anything about drilling for oil in the US; increasing gas refining in the US; or drilling off shore in the US.
It was pointed out to Obama that when the capital gains tax is lowered, tax revenues increase. So, does he still plan to increase the capital gains tax? I was glad to finally hear that question asked. He danced around the answer and at first appeared like he might double the capital gains tax; and then he settled on probably no more than 20% (he has been campaigning for 15 months now, but it seemed like he was making up his economic policy right there on the spot). Mrs. Clinton also drew the line at 20%. Neither one dealt with the fact that the tax revenue increases when you lower taxes, except that Obama said there are a lot of factors involved and that you have to look at a lot of things. Both talked about having to pay for this or that, and if you had to lower taxes here, then you would have to raise taxes there. I am sure one or both of them said something about being fair, but it was hard to wade through their words to figure out at what income level would they start to raise taxes at.
In both cases, the candidates were, for the most part, vague and unclear. They might have accused McCain of being weak on our economy and following the Bush economy; but neither really provided clear explanations or specifics.
Two of the problems with Democrats: they have no understanding of business whatsoever; and they think that everything is a zero-sum game. Remember, neither one has run a private business before. So, if some executive is making too much money, then that means, someone else is losing that money. If the government gives back a dollar to person X as a tax cut, then that dollar has to come out of the pocket of person Y. The idea that lower taxes has always resulted in higher tax revenue stumped the Democratic candidates (historically, this has been true under Kennedy, Reagan and Bush, the 3 presidents who cut our taxes).
Now, I did find it humorous that Hillary Clinton said, “We have to reign in the budget.” I completely agree with the sentiment. However, of the 3 candidates, she has had the most earmarks. And, of the 3 candidates, her programs will cost the most. Obama follows closely behind in proposed spending. McCain, unlike Clinton, Obama and Bush, actually has firm proposals dealing with federal fiscal responsibility.
Now, both candidates will continue to speak of making taxes more fair (or more progressive), removing the Bush tax cuts for the rich, and to move toward a system where everyone pays their fair share of taxes (meaning that, if you make too much money, the government wants it). Only McCain speaks in terms of, if you earned the money, then that money is yours, not the government’s, and the government ought to respect this fact whenever it taxes you.
Gun control was a topic, which surprised me. Neither candidate had a good clear answer here. Both agreed that the government needed to keep weapons out of the hands of criminals (Clinton pointed out that 80% of crimes committed with guns were done with illegal guns). One or both said that we need to maintain a balance between the 2nd amendment and government control. However, both candidates were short on specifics.
Clinton, to her credit, said that she did not favor the federal government making sweeping gun legislation and imposing it from the top down, recognizing that life in NYC is different from that in Montana. Obama mentioned that we needed to do away with straw man purchases of weapons. Both are good points, but that was the extent of their specificity.
Neither candidate was given any real time to wax eloquently about all of the programs they have thought up for the government to do. These are the programs which will cost us regular folks nothing, and will impose only a reasonable and fair burden on the rich. Sure.
For the most part, even though these two candidates had about 90 minutes, I felt that I got very little by way of clear specifics (the exception is the Iraq war); and when it came to economic issues, both candidates stuck with generalities and platitudes, as opposed to McCain who lined out an excellent economic program, with at least one thing which he would jump start today as a Senator (remove the federal gas tax this summer).
Choose the option watch full debate here:
http://abcnews.go.com/politics/democraticdebate/altindex
Debate Complaints, Part I
I heard the next day on conservative talk radio that there were complaints all over the place about this debate, which I must admit, I thought was exaggerated. Then I began to read the blogs and the commentary, and I must admit, I was floored by how many people were up in arms over this debate.
The general complaint was, too much time was spent on things which concerned Obama’s character and associations and speeches. The problem with this complain is twofold: (1) when given the opportunity to put forth clear and cogent proposals with regards to the economy and taxes, neither candidate gave a concrete answers and seemed to be thinking through their economic proposals right there on the spot; and (2) these candidates have had 20 debates to make their positions clear; if they have not done so as of yet, that is their fault. For either 18 or 19 of those debates, they got mostly softball questions. I know many of the things which McCain will do upon being elected president; I can make a reasonable guess as to 2 or 3 things which Clinton or Obama will propose. I know a number of specifics when it comes to McCain; I know only the most general approaches and ideas by Clinton or Obama. It is their fault that the specifics of their policies is not getting out there.
Debate Complaints, Part II
Obama Clinton Debate:
http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/DemocraticDebate/story?id=4666956&page=1
(there is a link on this page to see the entire debate)
Angry about the Clinton/Obama debate:
http://www.editorandpublisher.com/eandp/news/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1003790556
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/04/17/AR2008041700013.html
Comments about Shale's article (Shale thought this was the worst debate in the history of the world because of the questions asked—I am exaggerating only a little):
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/04/17/AR2008041700013_Comments.html
Comments on a Dailykos article:
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2008/4/17/133440/937/647/497685
Angry libs who like Shale's point of view and thought Gibson and Stephanopoulos were wrong to ask the questions that they did:
A solid evaluation of the dismal performance of Gibson and Stephanopoulos at this debate.
I was absolutely appalled by the sheer irrelevance of the majority of the questions asked by Mr. Stephanopoulos and Mr. Gibson, esp. Stephanopoulos, who seemed to take incomprehensible relish in asking the stupidest of questions. Heretofore I respected these men. If they had more sense, which I now know they don't, they would be too embarassed by their performance to show their faces on network news again. Instead, they seem and seemed quite pleased with themselves. Did NOONE at ABC's News Division review the questions that would be asked for relevance? These two gentlemen did a great disservice to the American public, who was hungering for real answers regarding very serious issues...
Instead of being called 'Philly Fight Night' it should have been 'Philly FRight Night'! I was so confused I thought I had turned in to the show 'To Catch a Predator'! Goodbye ABC...hello Cable!
The George and Charlie was pathetic. No one recall the first debate that George (Clinton supporter) hosted where he asked everyone on the panel if Obama was ready to be president. He did not ask anyone else that question about the other candidates feeding into my belief that he is a racist!
large numbers of US citizens cannot afford health care, they are losing their homes, cannot afford groceries, gas, etc., and this is how ABC informs its citizens of pressing issues --by asking about flag pins, etc. ABC has lost a viewer, and not because I am angry, it is because it doesn't care enough about the US citizens.
I don't wish to view George or anyone on ABC again. What a disgrace!!!
Once the moderators got past the soap-opera questions to actual substance -- was it halfway through, or more? -- Gibson seized opportunities to editorialize. At least twice (or was it 3 times?), his questioning went along the lines of, "How can you support retaining capital gains taxes when it has been proved that cutting capital gains taxes improves the economy?" I doubt that Gibson is an economist, or that the facts are that simple, but even putting that aside, wasn't the debate supposed to bring out the CANDIDATES' ideas, not Gibson's? Where was ABC's professionalism?
I always thought highly of both Charlie and George bu this was like the perfect storm or two pit bulls losing it. When Charlie was asking about Obama's position on capital gains and taxing the wealthy I could see Charlie adding up what this will cost him personally and George was being a lap dog for Charlie so that George will continue to be the fair haired candidate to replace Charlie upon retirement.
This debate was the equivalent of Jerry Springer shown. ABC should be embarrassed of this waste of 2 hours.
One of the best readings of the mock 'debate' on ABC - which will go down in history as a shame for the media and for American politics.
I turned debate off after 15 minutes. These guys should never be allowed to hold a debate again.
Stephanopolous has now entered "sniveling little twirp" country in my book. Population: 2
RESOURCES ON THE WORST PRESIDENTIAL DEBATE IN AMERICAN MEDIA HISTORY – THANK YOU ABC AND THE REST OF THE TRAITORIST CORPORATE MEDIA, [comment incomplete]
a big piece of poop.
a national embarrassment.
Democracy lost tonight
SHUT THE NETWORK DOWN!!!!
a grave threat to the very idea of democracy
Time to end the TV so called News
I feel like taking a shower after that debate
The FCC should jerk the ABC broadcasting license.
Charles Gibson & ..George
Stenpehnoipaiouiosrkisos just proved tonight
how much they hate America.
No patriot would deliberate dumb down America
How do I get rid of the media
We need to declare a war on the media!
I think I'll send in my frontal cortex all squishy and
seriously challenged by the debate.
TASS & PRAVDA would have conducted a better
debate.
I will not buy anything that is directly tied to ABC
or it's affliates.
I will not be going to Disney with my family this
year.
I WILL ACTIVEY WORK TO DISTROY THIS HIT JOB
NETWORK!!!
HILLARY I WILL NEVER EVER X (TIMES) INFINITY
VOTE FOR YOUR SORRY ASS!!!!!
YOU NO GOOD COOKIE MONSTER!!!!
[this is about a 3rd of this person's post; I kept the most interesting and/or cogent remarks]
From an Obama mailing list:
Ask for the news room. You will speak to a real person. That's key. Threaten to boycott local advertisers. Try to name at least one. I am a former journalist, now stay-at-home mom. Believe me, hitting local markets means A LOT more than complaining to corporate. They will have tons of e-mail and calls, no doubt. But it is at the local level that we make a difference. [what follows is a list of ABC local and national executives, addresses, phones and email addresses]
Those who like the debate:
Just out of curiosity, did Tom Shales decry the
shallowness and gossipy nature of the Republican
debates where candidates were asked if they
believe in evolution, what their favorite biblical
passage was, and whether they thought the Bible was the literal word of God? Seems to me those are a LOT more irrelevant to being president than whether or not the person actually likes America and Americans (which WAS the point of that line of questioning).
Dare someone ask King Obama a question about his character. I want to know why a potential President hangs out with a racist minister and has contact with a known terrorist. His answer "I was only eight years old", misses the point. Why would you associate with someone who was proud of boming the Pentagon, Capitol and police station. Appropriate question and too bad Tom Shales can't see it.
The questions asked I thought were questions to both candidates that have been troubling a lot of America. I know I personally feel uncomfortable with the white racist church that Obama belongs too. I do not believe Obama for one second that he did not know about the issues his church discuss's. He lost me with that whole story completely. I guess it would be like my going and supporting a church associated with KKK members, and I kept saying but they do so much good for the community.. Oh yeah that, no I had no idea they hated blacks, or said anything negative about them. YEAH RIGHT. No Way would I go to that kind of church, when there are thousands to choose from. Racism of any sort is dangerous. I don't like this comparison, however I think it states how ridiculous Obama's statement is about wrights church.
Its about time that someone had the nerve to ask the tough questions.
Barack Obama comes across as elitist by complaining about the questions and also not really answering the questions. If he would only answer the questions, then maybe they would go away.
Thank you ABC, thank you George and Charles! GREAT JOB! Don't pay any attention to the whiners! It is tough to be a loser, and Obama was IT in this debate! He couldn't take it, nor could his supporters! They can sure dish it out however!
The consensus from PBS, MSNBC, CBS, and NBC news this evening was clear; Obama had a terrible night. This whole attack against the moderators is simply a defensive reaction to Obama getting hammered.
that any candidate for President must go through. Obama entered this race a relative unknown and he kept it that way until recently, preferring to run on lofty rhetoric and platitudes. People are curious about him and want to know who he is, really. You can't believe what these candidates say because they are all liars to some degree, so you study his background, his associations, his mentors, etc. Well, in Obama's case some of that is not so pretty- a rev. Wright as a mentor, a connection to a 60's bomb thrower that may or may not be casual. You can't really blame the news guys for asking, people want to know.
You guys are pathetic. Pathetic! If Obama can't handle questions from Charlie Fucking Gibson good luck with the Republican attack machine in the general. You guys make me sick. This cry baby bullshit is gonna kill us. [posted by "Somebody call the Waaaa!mbulence" ]
Maybe it's time for the Dems to have debates run by the Dem party itself. Let's say--each candidate picks a mediator as does the party chair--Dean in this case.
And from someone I think liked the debate?
I'm a proud democrat that is furious that the party is about to hijacked by crazy dangerous lunatics!
And my own comment:
Thank gosh this was not another debate where Clinton and Obama drone on for 30+ minutes about the minute differences in their health care plans. From what I can tell of their positions, this is the greatest fundamental" disagreement between these two candidates (one of them is going to allow some people to say no to federal health care without being arrested?). They both hate Bush and think he has ruined the United States, if not all western civilization; they think the government can fix and improve health care and provide it for free for us regular folk; they both want to roll back the Bush tax cuts; they both want to withdraw our troops from Iraq, no matter what; and they both have double-handfuls of government programs and government regulations to foist on us for our own good.
7 Uncomfortable Truths for Liberals
This is an excellent article by John Hawkins. Whereas liberals often view the views of conservatives to be self-serving, mean, brain-dead and/or evil, we tend to view the attitudes of liberals as short-sighted and based upon false premises. I know a lot of liberals, and very few of them do I think of as self-serving, mean or brain-dead. However, all of them are wrong, partially because they will believe much of what the media tells them (unless, of course, it is something negative about Obama) and because they have fundamentally incorrect assumptions about man, society and government.
The list uncomfortable truths which John Hawkins offers us are:
1. Human beings are born selfish and badly behaved.
2. Change is often a bad thing.
3. People are different.
4. Most nations are interested in what's good for them.
5. Most of the world operates by the law of the jungle except when they fear the consequences of doing so.
6. The federal government is by its very nature, slow, stupid, expensive, and inefficient [to which I add a resounding duh!]
7. Every problem is not fixable.
Let me add two more (which are almost corollaries to the above):
8. Some individuals, people and nations are evil and irrational. No matter how many carrots and sticks and no matter how many meetings that you have with them, they are going to behave like irrational crazy people or like asses anyway.
9.Getting government involved in anything usually makes it worse, not better (and this is no matter who is in charge, Democrats or Republicans). Walmart, even though it made a profit, made life more bearable for Katrina victims than did the government. Walmart had water, food, generators and tools, and everyone knew where to find the nearest Walmart. We still have “Katrina victims” living here in Houston on the government dole, sitting on their butts on a couch day after day after day in one of the most prosperous cities in the United States. Since I have moved here, I have turned down almost as many jobs as I have taken. The government does no one any favors by supporting healthy men and women who are able to work.
Hawkins excellent article can be found at:
A Democratic Myth
One of the myths proposed by the Democratic party is that we are hated around the world and that Bush has single-handedly isolated us from the world. This ignores that fact that we have very conservative and very pro-American leaders elected over the past couple years in German, France and Italy. This ignores the fact that, when Bush called a Middle East conference a few months ago, representatives from almost every single Middle East nation and group showed up.
We have a free trade agreement with a great ally of ours (Columbia) before Congress. This agreement will help our economy and their economy. This would increase trade with Columbia and surely take our relationship with Columbia to a new level. Guess which party wants to shelve this agreement and ignore it?
Speaking of trade, which political party is proposing protectionist legislation and less involvement and trade with other nations. These are the people you think are going to improve our relations with other nations?
The Columbia Free Trade Agreement
Bush, with a lot of input from Democrats, hammered out a free trade agreement between the United States and Columbia. At one time, Columbia was one a the largest producers of illegal drugs, much of which found its way into the United States. Apparently that has been significantly reduced in favor of legitimate goods which the Columbians are producing.
Unions do not like free trade agreements. It cuts into their power. Whereas, at one time, unions began as a counterbalance to powerful corporations and companies, they are now simply another player in the economy, sucking up money and power. I live in the right-to-work state of Texas, which means that there is very little unionizing which takes place; and that means that, for most of the time that I have been here, there has been a very healthy economy. Even when the oil market went south, our economy rebounded within a decade. In areas where the unions have a stronghold, like Michigan, their economy has been stalled for decades, causing people there to cling to guns and religion and antipathy toward those who look different.
40% of our growth is based upon trade, and, whether we like it or not, we live in a global economy. We trade wtih nations all over the world, and this benefits us and benefits them. The fewer barriers to trade, the more efficiently we can trade. Quite obviously, there is some regulation which is required, given what China has produced and shipped here.
If our economy is hurting (which is debatable), then a free-trade agreement between the US and Columbia would help them and it would help us. Why would the Democrats in the House (specifically Nancy Pelosi) stand in the way of a vote on this agreement? Two reasons: (1) unions do not like free-trade agreements, and the Democrats are beholden to the unions. (2) It is good for our economy. What the Democrats would like to do is quietly sabotage the economy. You can draw a straight line between the current housing crisis and the House of Representatives. Whether this was intentional or not, is up for debate (I don't think that it was). However, the power players in the Democratic party see how well the housing crisis has played out for them; so why not continue with similar legislation? Or, why not dig their heels in when faced with legislation which would help our economy. Bear in mind, a majority of Democrats in the Congress do not want an improved economy. Now, they will send out money to their constituants, because this is how Democrats get many of their votes...they buy them. As long as they can be seen as giving us money, they will pass that sort of legislation. However, ultimately, they do not want our economy to get better...at least, not this year.
Correction
In Conservative Review #19, I said something along the lines that John McCain and Hillary Clinton hung around big surfer dudes (Kahunas); I meant to say that they both had more cajoles than Obama. Thanks to John for straightening me out on this.
Letter to the Editor
I have been recently reading Michelle Malkin’s book, UNHINGED Exposing Liberals Gone Wild. I figured during a slow news week, I would review this (along with some other books which I have read). I am actually reading it for the second time. It is an excellent toilet book. The overall narrative is explained by the title. It is just a list of various crazy things that liberals have said and done over the past 5 or 6 years. The craziness is humorous and their anger is palatable. One person who I know personally actually believed that President Bush, prior to the November 2006 election, called his oil friends and got them to lower gas prices for the election. This person also talked about moving out of the United States because Bush was elected president (this person would be difficult to get to move to a different and better house, let alone a different country). My point is, there are an amazing number of interesting things which liberals have said over the past several years. I say this by way of an introduction to this section.
A letter to the editor poured in last week.
Stop sending me this crap and stop contacting me. I don't want to hear from you, period. Does that register with you? I'm sick of having to delete the dreck you continue to send. Pay attention - I DON'T LIKE IT AND DON'T WANT TO HEAR FROM YOU AGAIN! You just pick and push and pull until it's all broken, don't you, you stupid asshole. You wouldn't leave well enough alone but continued to send your vomit-bag "Conservative Review" knowing I don't share your lunacy. I could have tolerated the odd e-mail but not an ongoing barrage of your addle-pated observations. Don't write me any more and include me out of all your future mailings. You sure figured out a way to piss away 40 years of friendship, Gary. Getting older didn't make you any smarter or less of a jerk.
Now, this was sent to me by an otherwise very intelligent and rational person, an old friend of, as the letter says, of 40 years. Although he and I might have had political discussions in the past, the only I recall took place about 40 years ago while we sat on his parent’s couch, watching Ronald Reagan on TV saying a few things, running for governor of California. My friend something along the lines of, “That seems to make sense to me.” I honestly did not know this person’s political views, although I suspected anti-Bush and anti-conservative, because he lives in California, and in his particular city, you have to search out a conservative viewpoint. He was raised by conservative parents and I was raised by liberal ones, and, in our youth, these were the positions which we took. I am pretty certain, after this letter, that he has taken on the predominant California far-left liberal view that Bush has ruined all that is good in America.
If, by any chance, you receive this and you do not want to, just drop me an email. I have had people ask me to add them to the mailing list and others who asked me to remove them (none so far as angry as this letter). Let me make it clear, if we know each other well, and you ask to be removed from this list, I will do so gladly and not hold it against you. I hope you understand that I, like most conservatives, see this election as a clear choice and have some strong positions; however, I do not hate anyone who thinks differently from me; and I think my ego can stand up to someone saying that they would rather not know what my opinions are. I doubt that, if Obama or Clinton are elected, that I will threaten to move out of the United States, even though I believe that the end result could be an administration as bad as Carter’s (remember, we even had a misery index for our lives under his leadership).
Obama Sound Bytes
These are hilarious.
Obama apologizes:
http://mfile.akamai.com/5020/wma/rushlimb.download.akamai.com/5020/New/obamaapologypa.asx
Voicemail apology:
http://mfile.akamai.com/5020/wma/rushlimb.download.akamai.com/5020/New/obamavoicemail.asx
Cool Vids
Ode to Obama:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6-YiHvl8Th0
Hillary:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NFHFLFfB11g
Bush:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dii3mzMQ3SQ
Obama’s Top Five Tax Increases:
http://townhall.com/video/TheFivewithAmandaCarpenter/1450_031108Five
Advertisement to tell us McCain is too old:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MNYHq0WuiUo
Rush on Obama’s Post-Debate Whining
RUSH: From the Raleigh News and Observer: "A debate Wednesday night that focused on Sen. Barack Obama's potential vulnerabilities was an example of outmoded political 'gotcha' games, Obama told a Raleigh audience today. 'That was the rollout of the Republican campaign against me in November,' Obama said during a 'town hall' meeting at the State Fairgrounds. 'They will try to focus on all these issues that don't have anything to do with how you are paying your bills at the end of the month.'" Well, that's none of your business, either, how people are going to pay their bills. That's not what a president's supposed to do, Mr. Obama. These questions that have been asked of you are totally legitimate. The people with whom and who you associate are very indicative of the kind of person you are. We all hang around people that we like. We all hang around people that reflect our views. There are some exceptions to this. But I mean everybody that we know that this guy runs around with is a radical, an extreme radical in one form or another. Here is Obama actually on tape whining about this in Raleigh, North Carolina, yesterday.
OBAMA: Forty-five minutes before we heard about health care, 45 minutes before we heard about Iraq, 45 minutes before we heard about jobs, 45 minutes before we heard about gas prices. I don't -- I don't -- I don't blame Washington for this, because that's just how Washington is. They like stirring up controversy and they like playing gotcha games and getting us to attack each other.
RUSH: Washington? Washington? The debate was in Philadelphia and it was ABC. By the way, do you not love the way ABC is being attacked by other Drive-By networks as well as the kook fringe leftist blogosphere? Folks, Operation Chaos has tentacles that have gone far beyond the presidential campaign. Operation Chaos now has taken root in America's newsrooms and America's networks. But Mr. Obama, 45 minutes before we heard about Iraq, I know everything you think about Iraq. I've heard it in 21 debates. I know everything you think about taxes. I've heard it in 21 debates. I know everything you think about jobs, gas prices, I've heard about it in 21 debates. What I haven't heard is the answers to the questions that you were asked on Wednesday night. The questions were perfectly justified. Can you imagine any great NFL quarterback after a loss talking to the press about how bad the referees were, how unfair circumstances were, how bad the play calling was, basically blaming everybody but himself? This is what Obama sounds like. This guy is coming off very amateurish. Whining and crying, this man is not a leader, ladies and gentlemen. He's whining about the questions he got in the debate, and it's embarrassing to listen to him whine.
By the way, have you seen the videotape where he's talking about Clinton twisting the knife in? Have you seen the videotape? He sticks one finger up as he's scratching his face, and it's the bird. He's scratching his face with the bird finger as he's talking about Hillary, and he's talking about the Drive-Bys and their tough questioning. You know, this guy's a spoiled brat. He is a spoiled brat. He's had it easy. You know that story he told about, "Well, I am not an elitist, my mother was on food stamps." You know where he was where his mother was on food stamps? At some elitist prep school, some private prep school somewhere that cost a lot of money to get into. You know, Tiger Woods just last week came in second at the Masters, and I don't know about you, I was stunned when I found out on Monday that he has to go in for knee surgery, the third or fourth surgery on the same knee. He played every tournament this year with a bum knee -- and, by the way, Augusta is not an easy place to walk, trust me. I hate walking, period. It's pointless. But that's a hilly golf course, it's not easy to walk, and he didn't complain. He didn't blame his loss on his knee. He didn't even mention it at the Masters.
The President Calls Rush
THE PRESIDENT: Hey, Rush!
RUSH: Mr. President, I can't thank you enough for calling. I'm gratified you took the time, sir. How are you?
THE PRESIDENT: Any time. Thanks. I'm doing great.
RUSH: I have to tell you, something stirred in my soul, Mr. President, during the welcoming ceremony earlier this week at the White House for Pope Benedict, and I've been moved by it ever since. The US Army Chorus and Band--
THE PRESIDENT: Yeah.
RUSH: The Battle Hymn of the Republic, I've been playing it over and over again. That ceremony, sir, was -- we're in a presidential campaign, and by definition, a presidential campaign, candidates are telling us what's wrong with the country, and that day, you and the pope brought God to Washington on public property. It was just amazing. I just wanted to thank you for it, because it was so uplifting, it was so timely. The facial expressions on both you and the pope during The Battle Hymn of the Republic were just priceless. I just wanted to take a little time to thank you for it because it didn't get much media coverage, the hymns and the song by Kathleen Battle. But it was just tremendous.
THE PRESIDENT: I wish you were there, because the spirit on the South Lawn was alive, and it was a fantastic moment. You know, it was great. I think there were about 13,500 people.
RUSH: It was the largest welcoming ceremony in the history of the White House.
THE PRESIDENT: Ever. And it was really interesting to watch people's expression during the ceremony, and particularly when His Holy Father got up to speak. There was this unbelievable respect, and everybody hung on his every word, and it was beautiful, and you're right, the Army Choir was just fantastic. I wish all Americans could have seen it. You're kind to say thanks. It was a great honor for me, and it's what you expect for the president to do, and that is to welcome a world figure, such as the Holy Father, in such grand fashion.
RUSH: Well, your remarks were excellent as well.
THE PRESIDENT: Well, thank you.
RUSH: Your humanity, of course, makes you leave yourself out of this, but your remarks were superb. The whole day, that whole ceremony, what was it, 45 minutes? You know, it was bang, bang, bang, but it was just powerful as it could be. And I played that song all afternoon on the program, got more phone calls from people who were inspired by that.
THE PRESIDENT: That's great.
RUSH: So it was a great day, and I personally wanted to publicly thank you for doing it, because it stirred my soul this week, it really has.
THE PRESIDENT: Well, you're a good man, and I can't thank you enough for your kind words, and look forward to seeing you up here in Washington again. I'll buy you another meal when you're up here.
RUSH: All right, I'll take you up on that.
THE PRESIDENT: Thank you, Rush.
RUSH: Have a good weekend. President Bush.
BREAK TRANSCRIPT
RUSH: Now, please indulge me here one more time, ladies and gentlemen. I got so much response from this on Wednesday afternoon, I want to play one more time here -- especially in our first hour, because the first hour of the program is broadcast on the Armed Forces Radio network to men and women in uniform around the world -- the Army Chorus and Band on Wednesday at the arrival ceremony for the pope, The Battle Hymn of the Republic. It is just stirring. You have to imagine a crystal-blue sky, crystal-clear day, 13,000 people clapping, cheering, smiling, God brought to the White House, public property, at just the right time. So many people in this country are hearing about how rotten we are and how dangerous we've become to the world and how we have no future and that the future we have is not going to be as good as our past -- part and parcel of a presidential campaign. I've listened to a lot of versions here since I heard this. I went out and I found the Mormon Tabernacle Choir version, which is stunning as well. I found a recorded version on a CD of the US Army Chorus and Band. But for some reason, and I think it's the visuals that I have, this version that we have for you from the actual welcoming ceremony for the pope, even though all three arrangements that I listened to are the same arrangement, this one to me is still the most stirring of the three.
The Battle Hymn of the Republic performance:
http://mfile.akamai.com/5020/wmv/rushlimb.download.akamai.com/5020/tv_archives/ArmyChorus.asx
Rush: the Good Cheer of Conservatives
RUSH: Here's Brent in Ohio. I'm glad you waited, sir. You're next on the EIB Network. Hello.
CALLER: Hello, Rush. Mega erudite dittos.
RUSH: Thank you.
CALLER: I just want to call and tip my hat to you. I mean, to call the president of the United States to say thank you, and have him return your call, I mean, that puts you in very rarefied air, and it's a testament to your parents, your upbringing, and your hard work, and, you know, in American history and American folklore, especially the number of times you've been mentioned on the congressional floor and in the mainstream media, you're right up there with Will Rogers, Edward R. Murrow, and so on and so forth. But anyway, the main reason of my call is I've had the luxury of time in the last six months to do a lot of reading, and I've read a lot about William F. Buckley. And I was thinking back -- I'm about seven years younger than you, and I first voted in 1976. From '76 until '80 is what I call the wilderness years, because, as conservatives, all we had was the National Review, Firing Line, and the weekly address by Ronald Reagan. And I noticed that some of your younger calls, they sort of don't appreciate how good we have it now with you, just the mere fact that your name is brought up everywhere. I was just wondering if you'd take some time and sort of tell your younger listeners what those years were like, '76 'til 1980.
RUSH: Yeah, you know, that's a good point. Even before that, I mean, if you go back to 1964, prior to that, the Goldwater election, which really was the birth of Ronald Reagan when you get right down it.
CALLER: Exactly.
RUSH: Those early years, they were dark but they were exciting because it was new and it was intellectually energetic. I know you've heard some of the college students that call here and others who are complaining. Their point of reference, you know, most people's historical perspective begins with the day they were born, maybe when they're five years old, their first memory. They have to study to know what happened prior to that.
CALLER: Correct.
RUSH: But they know what happened since they've been born, and so they're comparing what they see as the circumstances into which they're born, a powerful liberal media, a Democrat Party aligned with the media, they are seeing genuine reprobates attain power in the Democrat Party. They are seeing the American people buy into full-fledged hoaxes, such as global warming, and they're wondering, how can this be? They're worried really about the overall intelligence and ability to learn of the American people. They don't understand how this stuff can so easily be sold, and that's what they're complaining about. Every college professor they run into is a socialist who hates the country, and they don't understand that, and so it would be wise to tell these young people how far we have progressed versus where we were those four years that you mentioned. You left out that Jimmy Carter was the president then, and that didn't help.
CALLER: Exactly. That was the worst.
RUSH: We had a misery index to tell ourselves how bad it was.
CALLER: Yeah, and he was scolding us for his problems.
RUSH: Precisely.
CALLER: Yeah. It's just amazing that conservatives tend to be of good cheer. I've read about that about William F. Buckley, of you, of course. And the liberals are just so pensive and so angry at everything. Do they ever laugh at a nonpolitical joke?
RUSH: I don't think they're ever happy. By definition, they can't be. The worldview through a pair of eyes in a liberal skull is pretty bad, because they're seeking perfection, and anything that's short of perfection makes them mad, it depresses them and so forth, and they see things through a different lens. But by definition, liberals can't be happy.
CALLER: Yeah. This is not the United States of utopia, it's the United States of America.
RUSH: No.
CALLER: We try to form a more perfect union.
RUSH: And don't forget who the primary enemies of liberals are, anybody successful, independent of government.
CALLER: That's correct.
RUSH: US corporations, individuals who have not used liberal prescriptions in order to attain their success in life. They hate anything like a religion that proscribes boundaries and black and white, look at what's right and what's wrong.
CALLER: Exactly.
RUSH: And of course this week we've featured the vicar of Christ in town in the country for a week, and they have seen thousands and thousands show up to worship with the vicar of Christ. That makes 'em mad.
CALLER: Yeah.
RUSH: A couple of military jets flying over the Super Bowl will make 'em mad because that's the military. They can't even go to the Super Bowl without being happy.
CALLER: Or the Blue Angels.
RUSH: Oh, that's just a waste of precious --
CALLER: Yeah. Well, Rush, just so you know, there's millions of us who consider you part of our family, and thank you for all you've done.
RUSH: Thank you, sir. I appreciate your call.