Speaking of Rush, this is a good rant ...Associated Press Leads Democrats with Stupid,
Idiotic Story on Bush Inauguration
rushlimbaugh.com
January 14, 2005
BEGIN TRANSCRIPT
You know, this story has been effervescing out there, been bubbling up out there. You've seen strains of this story, sort of like the flu that have been trying to catch hold and we've been warding them off, but the latest push for this story now comes from our old buddy Will Lester, at the Associated Press. And this story is exactly why the majority of the people in this country do not trust the American media. There's a new Harris poll out, and it shows a large degree of distrust of the US media. This story is a classic example of why. This story reads like a Democrat National Committee press release. The headline of the story: "Some Now Question the Costs of the Inauguration." Hells bells, folks, this story has been running since December in one form or another, but this one takes the cake. This one reads like a DNC press release. "President Bush's second inauguration will cost tens of millions of dollars — $40 million alone in private donations for the balls, parade and other invitation-only parties. With that kind of money, what could you buy?"
It's all irrelevant. It's all private money! It's all been donated. It's irrelevant. It doesn't matter. These are private citizens who decided, for whatever reason, they wanted to donate to the inaugural balls, to the festivities. This question was never raised when Bill Clinton was inaugurated. It was never even brought up. In fact, it was celebrated how great the parties were going to be, and how wonderful it finally was that we were back, and they didn't bother flying those jets over there. They were flying jets over Washington, you know, in the week leading up to it. It used to upset Ron Silver before he became a conservative Republican. But you don't know how much that costs until you order it done. Flying jets over Washington to celebrate the arrival of a Democrat president. Anyway, here's what the AP has concluded here. The $40 million in private donations to the balls could buy: "200 armored Humvees with the best armor for troops in Iraq." What? You people in the press still don't get it. You still do not get it. In fact, you know what I think is going on here? I think the press, rather than retrenching and trying to figure out what they're doing wrong, like the Democrats claim they're doing, I think the Democrats have said we got to carry these people. We've got to show the Democrats how to do it. We've got to show them what to say. We got to give them their talking points. So instead... I want to correct myself. I don't think this AP story is a DNC press release. I think this story is a fax, if you will, from AP to the Democrats saying, "Hey, get your acts in gear." That would be a-c-t-s, for those of you who didn't quite catch the pronunciation.
So for $40 million you could buy: "200 armored Humvees with the best armor for troops in Iraq, vaccinations and preventive healthcare for 22 million children in regions devastated by the tsunami," and all of this, by the way, is written in such a way as to imply we're spending nothing on these things. We still don't have any armored Humvees, this is what AP wants you to know. We're still not doing anything for the kids and the children and the devastated in the tsunami-wrecked regions of the Indian Ocean. We're not doing anything. Oh, no, we're not doing anything, to the point that they're kicking us out over there.
By the way, I made CNN on that score last night on Anderson Cooper 180. No, it was Anderson Cooper 360. Sometimes I get confused what direction they're going on that show. But they always end up right where they start, so they're doing circles thinking they're moving forward. (Laughter). Anyway, we'll play that sound bite for you. It's actually Andrea Koppel's sound bite. The sound bite they played of me was from yesterday describing... Somebody called and asked me what I thought of the Indonesians kicking us out over there, kicking our military out and giving us three months and my quote you will hear in a moment and Andrea Koppel goes and finds some official over there, not quoted himself but she paraphrases what he says, essentially saying I'm wrong, and then get this: The reason they're kicking our military out is because they are worried that our military will team up with the al-Qaeda insurgents over there who are also providing aid. That was essentially the reason that CNN reported that our military would team up with the insurgents or that the insurgents would team up with our military, co-opt our military and use our military against the existing government. I kid you not.
So we're going to spend $40 million on the inauguration. It's going to be all privately donated. This is enough "to vaccinate and cause preventive healthcare for 22 million children as though we're doing nothing, a down payment on the nation's deficit, which hit a record-breaking $412 billion last year," and about that we've got a big piece in Larry Kudlow, National Review Online. It's (whispering: Pssst! Nobody's talking about it but the deficit's shrinking. Pssst! Nobody's talking about it but the deficit's shrinking big time. Nobody wants to talk about it because it says that once again the Democrats were wrong.) What's next on this list? "Weeks ago the inauguration..." Oh, "Two years' salary for the Mets' new center fielder Carlos Beltran, or all of pitcher Randy Johnson's contract extension with the New York Yankees." That 40 million we're spending on the inauguration could... You know, it's clear what the intent of this story is. This money on the inauguration is being wasted. There are much better uses for it. The fact that it is privately donated is noted, but it is not given proper weight in the story.
"Weeks ago, the inauguration and its accompanying costs were considered a given, an historic ceremony with all the pomp, pageantry and celebrations that the nation had come to expect every four years. But a recent confluence of events — the tsunami natural disaster, Bush's warning about Social Security finances and the $5 billion-a-month price tag for the war in Iraq — have many Americans now wondering why spend the money the second time around." No, they don't. Many Americans are not "wondering" about this. Many Americans? To the extent that many Americans are wondering about it, it's only because you people in the mainstream press have put this sickening little thought in their heads. But they're not upset about this. Nobody is running around beefing and moaning about it. They're trying to create the beefing and moaning. After they run this story, they're going to do a poll. Watch for a poll next Monday or Tuesday on whether the American people think the $40 million being privately spent on the inauguration is excessive, given all these disasters out there, and I can guarantee you what the results are going to be: Close to 50% or a little higher are going to say, "Yep, 40 million is a waste of money. We could better spend it elsewhere."
That is what they're trying to create. "While the Presidential Inaugural Committee hopes to raise $40 million in private donations for the balls, parades and candlelight dinners for high-roller donors..." That's always what happens, Mr. Lester. You present this as though it's unique and only done when Republicans are there. "...millions of government dollars will be spent on construction of the platform and stands at the Capitol, police overtime, military personnel and the tightest security for the first post-Sept. 11 inaugural. The questions have come from Bush supporters and opponents: Do we need to spend this money on what seems so extravagant?" Then they go quote a bunch of Democrats, and they talk about FDR's inauguration in 1945, made a short speech, served guests cold chicken salad and plain pound cake and went back to work. So let's see. We got to do it the way FDR did it because FDR is a great liberal icon; we can't mess with Social Security right now even though it's in a crisis because it would mess with FDR's legacy. So once again, ladies and gentlemen, the mainstream press coordinating activities with the Democratic Party. The only question now is who is in the lead? Who is doing the coordinating and who is doing the following? I actually think it's the mainstream press attempting to lead the Democratic Party out of the shadows of defeat and agony.
However, ladies and gentlemen, this is not the way to go about it. This is still representative of a bunch of people out of touch with the American people, particularly a majority of the American people, and this money that's being spent on parties for high-level donors and high-rollers, the way I read this, they're paying for their own parties. The way I read this, they're paying whatever they want to pay for their own parties. What's the problem with this? It's a problem if government doesn't spend the money? It's a problem if government does spend the money because it's too much. It could be better spent elsewhere. Can you people on the left ever be happy? Can you ever, just one day, just be happy and proud to be Americans? There are many of us who ask this question and doubt that you can answer in the affirmative. I, by the way, was invited to the inaugural balls last week. Actually earlier this week I received my invitation, and it was very informal. We got a phone call, "You want to go to any of them, just let us know," and I didn't pay anything. I didn't donate anything. So there are people being invited who aren't paying. (interruption) What, Mr. Snerdley? (interruption) What? Go ahead. (interruption) You can say it. (interruption) Uh-huh. (interruption). I know how many people (interruption) but those people are making a mistake. He asked me, "Do I know how many people are waiting to be invited to these things and have gotten nada," and I said, "Yeah, those are the people with expectations sitting around thinking they should be invited." I never thought I'd be invited and lo and behold the phone rang. It's amazing how things work.
BREAK TRANSCRIPT
So we have Will Lester at the Associated Press all concerned over $40 million alone donated by the private sector to pay for their own parties during the inauguration, claiming we could buy 200 armored Humvees. Why focus on that, huh? I'll tell you in a moment. "...vaccinations and preventive health for 22 million children devastated by the tsunami. Down payment on the nation's deficit, which hit a record-breaking $412 billion last year." Question, Mr. Lester and anybody else in the mainstream press: Did you or anybody question the lavish events surrounding the $200 million Clinton Library and Massage Parlor party a month or so ago? Whenever we tried to find out who had paid for this, you aided in the cover-up. You wouldn't help us find out where the donations for the Clinton Library and Massage Parlor came from. No, all you wanted was your invitations. You wanted to be there. You wanted to rub elbows with the high-falutin', big-time rock n' roller people of the Democratic Party from the Clinton era. Did any of you reporters break down how many armored vehicles or school lunches could be bought for the money that was spent during the lavish opening of the Clinton Library and Massage Parlor? No, you did not!
Did you tell us how much money could have been spent on these items when FDR was inaugurated in 1945, and did you also tell us, Mr. Lester, that when FDR was inaugurated in '45 and basically served cold chicken and pound cake, he was extremely ill and didn't feel like partying? Why don't you mention his three previous inaugurations, Mr. Lester? Why don't you go back and look at the pomp and the circumstance and the relative wealth that was on display during the three previous FDR inaugurations? Why focus on 1945? Why don't you mention Truman's inauguration or LBJ's inauguration? Why don't you tell us about JFK's? Why don't you tell us about JFK's inauguration? Why don't you compare what's going on now to then? That was Camelot. Why can't we do Camelot today? We could do Camelot in the '60s. Truman's inauguration, LBJ's inauguration, both took place during wars, nobody says a word about that. And I'll tell you what, this business of saying, "Well, for this money that's being spent on this inauguration, $40 million, 200 armored Humvees with the best armor for troops in Iraq could also be bought," you're not fooling me, Mr. Lester.
This is just a cheap way for you liberals to pretend that you are morally superior and supportive of the troops when everybody that pays attention knows that you are not morally superior, nor are you supportive of the troops. These are free cheap shots without having to sacrifice anything on your part. They are totally irrelevant to what is going on, these comparisons. And I might remind you of this, Mr. Lester. Go back and take a look at the inauguration of Jimmy Carter back in 1976. Remember the press was very unhappy back in 1976 when Jimmy Carter low-keyed his inauguration because that's just the kind of fellow he was. He just low-keyed his inauguration, didn't want to make a big deal about it. In fact, the press was so unhappy, they actually celebrated Reagan's first as "bringing back the pomp and circumstance of the White House," and by the way, speaking of that, how many of you same people in the media, led by what's her name, Sally Quinn and then Tina Brown, how many of you liberals in Washington have been whining and moaning and literally crying over the fact that the Washington social scene has gone to hell because we've got a dryball in the White House that goes to bed at 9:30?
You get all bent out of shape because there aren't any parties to go to. "Washington is dead socially. There aren't any state dinners. We're not made to feel important. We're not invited." Now here comes an inauguration. This is why the country literally hates some of you people. This is why the country looks upon the mainstream press with utter disrespect and disdain, because they know how contradictory you are. This is nothing but a partisan rag piece that's no better than any of the most pointed partisan pieces today. The problem with it is it purports, it pretends to be objective. It pretends to have the nation's best interests at heart when you only have one purpose here, Mr. Lester, and that's the discrediting of the president of the United States by claiming he's a rich power broker who doesn't care about average, ordinary people, doesn't care about the tsunami sufferers, doesn't care about the troops in Iraq who don't have armored Humvees, doesn't care about Randy Johnson, doesn't care about Carlos Beltran and doesn't care about the deficit. Now, what's it going to be for you people?
You want Washington to be a big social scene full of pomp and circumstance or don't you? I mean, it's just mind-boggling to watch these people in action. But I am telling you, friends, what goes into writing this. I don't know who put this together. This is a collaborative effort. These statistics, this kind of thinking comes from liberals. I don't know whether the liberals are at the Democrat National Committee; I don't know if the liberals are in the AP newsroom or elsewhere, or if this is just a bunch of reporters sitting around all mad and bent out of shape because Bush one and Bush is going to be inaugurated to come up with a gotcha, but I'll guarantee you this is not reporting -- and this is not informative. It's not relevant to anything. It does not further anybody's need to know. It doesn't have any relevance to some information-gathering out there. All it is, is a partisan hit piece about a Republican whose buddies and friends are paying for their own party, and you got to make up your minds. Either you want Washington to be perking and sizzling as a social scene or you don't. I guess what would make this all better is if the government were paying for it all. No, I'm just kidding because we still have these disasters. The whole problem with all this is that the inauguration is going to inaugurate Bush. The whole problem is the celebration is about Bush and these people are so angry they are seething with rage. They just can't stand it. Their veins are popping and they don't know what to do with themselves and they can't contain their utter hatred, rage and disdain for George W. Bush. Nothing has changed, ladies and gentlemen. We keep smiling.
BREAK TRANSCRIPT
The more I think about this idiotic, stupid piece from Will Lester, L-e-s-t-e-r, in the Associated Press, the more examples I keep thinking up that would challenge this guy's ridiculous premise. See, that's the problem. So many people end up accepting the premise, and then they get mad and they argue the premise. I don't even accept the premise of this piece. The premise of the piece is, we have no business -- nobody has any business -- spending any money on an inauguration when we've got a tsunami out there, we've got a war going on out there, we got floods out in California, dams about to burst, mudslides. Nobody has any business spending any of their own money. Why? Because something that's very, very common among liberals: As long as there is suffering, no one should have a good time. Unless you throw a charity ball for the suffering, and then you can claim you're doing it for the suffering, which is why most rich people get most of their fame by going to charity balls and donating to charities, because that lets them get past this notion they shouldn't be having fun while there's so much suffering.
But if you have the fun, that is apparently part of an effort to release suffering, then you are a big person. You get a hospital wing named after you or something. So nobody should spend any money: Government, private sector, no money whatsoever on this inauguration during all this suffering, right? Well, I haven't seen, ladies and gentlemen, the Clintons give up any of their book royalties for the tsunami effort or the Humvee up-armor effort, nor to help Steinbrenner pay for Randy Johnson or the Mets to pay for Carlos Beltran. Nor have I seen them donating any money to reduce the federal deficit. I haven't seen Ted Kennedy closed any of his trust funds and take the money and donate it anywhere. Why don't members of Congress forsake their next salary increase and, instead, apply those funds to veterans' benefits? Why don't we eliminate welfare and use that money to buy body armor and armored vehicles for the troops? Why did all the major networks spend millions on the celebration of the new year at Times Square and other places, money that could have better been spent on tsunami relief?
Who needs Dick Clark or whoever the hell else at Times Square telling us what's already going on? The people there can't watch it anyway. Who needs to watch that stuff? A total waste of money, folks. I'm sure you can come up with your own examples. None of us should be having a good time. None of us. You better stop eating. And if you do eat, it better be nuts and berries that fall out of the trees. Maybe you better go dumpster diving. We need solidarity with the suffering, ladies and gentlemen. Nobody is to have a good time except, of course, when the president's a Democrat. It's Camelot and there's all kinds of suffering going on at the time in Cuba, when a bunch of people have been abandoned offshore trying to rescue the country from the evil clutches of Castro, Bay of Pigs I'm talking about. It's just literally amazing. The hypocrisy on this is breathtaking and common, and it represents no change whatsoever. It just proves that there's still seething hatred and rage at George W. Bush and an attempt to get you to feel the same thing. They may generate some negativity, the press. They may generate some anger, but it will be directed at them, not at their target.
|
