|
|
|||
|
|||
|
|
Limbaugh Decries Dem 'Contract'
In 1994, Republicans campaigned on their Contract with America, laying out a specific program that they promised to pursue if given control of the House of Representatives. In 2006, Democrats have their own contract with America, according to Rush Limbaugh, and he says it has three key elements. "There are three basic components," America's top talker told listeners during his broadcast Tuesday. "The first component is we will discourage conservative turnout at the polls. The second element of the liberal Contract with America is we will discourage conservative turnout at the polls. The third element — this is the clincher in the liberal Contract with America — we will discourage conservative turnout at the polls. "I think, folks, it's becoming more and more apparent and obvious to one and all that the left has nothing to run on. [former Rep. Mark] Foley is it." It won't stop with Foley, however, Limbaugh predicted. "Now, there's going to be another scandal that they've been holding in abeyance," he said, explaining that the "Clinton war room is working on these things, and we have a little office pool here. I think by 3 o'clock Friday we'll know what the next one is as they gin up discussions for the Sunday shows and into next week."
Story Continues Below
According to Limbaugh, it is predictable because "What they're running on is nothing but negatives. They don't offer peace, a recipe or a policy for peace. They don't offer prosperity. Just the opposite. They're trying to convince you that your country is in an economic shambles. They're not even talking about offering up what they consider to be good Supreme Court judges, they're not even being positive about that." In contrast, he pointed to Republican campaigns in past presidential and midterm campaigns. They had, he recalled, "many elements, and they have been positive things. Tax cuts, smaller government. I know, chuckle, chuckle. Reducing spending. I know, chuckle, chuckle. Peace, prosperity, changing the direction of the Supreme Court. There have been specifics." On the other hand, however, Limbaugh said the liberals have nothing to offer. "They are obsessed with doom and gloom. So their strategy depends entirely on conservatives staying home and not voting, especially you Christian conservatives. You really need to stay home. They convince you to stay home. "Why, they think that's the recipe for victory. So the liberal playbook, the game plan is to discourage as many conservatives as possible from voting. So that leads to the question: Are you discouraged? And should you be discouraged?" he asked. "Let me ask you again, what does Mark Foley and all of this attention being paid to his instant messages and so forth, what does that have to do with the key issues of our times? What does Mark Foley have to do with keeping us safe at home? What does Mark Foley have to do with winning the war on jihadism? What does Mark Foley have to do with keeping our economy growing? What does this whole Foley episode have to do with putting more money in your pocket and not Washington's? "You know, Mark Foley, had to have a mandatory rejoinder, what he did was inexcusable. But whatever it is he did, it has nothing to do with the issues that shape the future of the country over which most of you traditionally go to the polls and vote. But Foley has everything to do with your turning out or your not turning out, and their Contract with America is to discourage conservative turnout, period. That's it! "That is all they have! You really couldn't even say that that's all they have to offer. They're not offering anything. They're threatening. "The key to the [2008] election is not really President Bush, and it's not President Hillary." The key to the election, Limbaugh said, could be ABC reporter Brian Ross. "Brian Ross, you say, why Brian Ross, Rush? Well, who's Brian Ross? He is the solemn and very serious investigative journalist who broke the story, not of Foley, not of Foley's e-mails; he broke the story of the IMs, the salacious instant messages right before the election. The question is, did Brian Ross find the story, or did the story find him?"
"We know the how, but we don't know the who. Someone in some war room handed him this story. We know he wasn't out beating the hustings. He wasn't out there, as these reporters want us to believe, scouring the bushes or wherever he'd have to go to find this information. "Brian Ross knows who gave him the story, but of course sources are protected. We must always protect our sources, shield laws and so forth. If that name ever gets out, if we ever learn who is behind this, and there are a bunch of theories out there on the Internet already, it will be very interesting. I suspect that we'll learn more about this after the election." Limbaugh said that Ross could be the focal point of this, and cited a New York Times story by Anne Kornblut and Kit Seelye headlined "Papers Knew of Foley E-Mail but Did Not Publish Stories." Wrote the Times reporters: "At least two news organizations were tipped off to e-mail messages sent by Representative Mark Foley long before the story of his sexually explicit remarks to teenage pages broke last week and forced him to resign. "The St. Petersburg Times and The Miami Herald received copies of an e-mail exchange between Mr. Foley, Republican of Florida, and a teenager, but neither paper gathered enough solid material to publish a story, according to statements by the papers’ editors ... At the same time, the papers’ decisions not to report the accusations are being cited by Republican leaders as justification for why they themselves did not step forward earlier to try to stop Mr. Foley. 'He deceived his in-state newspaper when they each questioned him,' Speaker J. Dennis Hastert said Tuesday. 'He deceived me, too.' "The St. Petersburg Times said that last November, it received copies of an e-mail exchange between Mr. Foley and a former page from Louisiana. The newspaper said the boy, who was under age, did not want his name used, and the paper said it did not want to publish accusations based on unnamed sources." That, said Limbaugh was "awfully convenient. Didn't want to publish because of unnamed source," Limbaugh said, laughing. "But it gets better. 'Brian Ross of ABC News said he learned about the e-mail messages in August but was too busy with Hurricane Katrina and the anniversary of the Sept. 11 attacks to pursue them immediately. None of the organizations seemed to anticipate how big the story would become. 'I never thought it would lead to his resignation,' Mr. Ross said. Translation: I never thought I could get a Pulitzer out of this. "So Brian Ross of ABC News has known since August of possible crimes against children and held it until he thought he could get a Pulitzer with it. Because you know how you win Pulitzers? You drive Republicans out of office or you give it a good shot, like [Dan] Rather, Mary Mapes, they got Peabody awards for this. "It could have been that the papers might have been fearful of outing Foley because these were male pages. I'll tell you, it's the Democrats that are coming across as gay bashers the way they're going after Foley, but it is interesting. If these pages had been women, young girls, would the St. Petersburg Times and the Miami Herald have gotten into action sooner or were they afraid of outing Foley as gay? That's a reasonable supposition. "So you could say is it possible the St. Petersburg Times and the Miami Herald would hold news, would suppress news that is possibly placing children at risk so as to avoid outing someone who everybody is now saying they always knew was gay?" Limbaugh asked. Editor's note:
Inside Cover Stories
|
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Print Page 
Forward Page 
|
| All Rights Reserved © 2009 NewsMax.Com |