BEGIN TRANSCRIPT
 
RUSH: Here's the E.J. Dionne, Jr. column, Washington Post today: "'Rush and Newt Are Winning' -- A media environment that tilts to the right is obscuring what President Obama stands for and closing off political options that should be part of the public discussion. Yes, you read that correctly: If you doubt that there is a conservative inclination in the media, consider which arguments you hear regularly and which you don't. When Rush Limbaugh sneezes or Newt Gingrich tweets, their views ricochet from the Internet to cable television and into the traditional media. It is remarkable how successful they are in setting what passes for the news agenda.  The power of the Limbaugh-Gingrich axis means that Obama is regularly cast as somewhere on the far left end of a truncated political spectrum. He's the guy who nominates a 'racist' to the Supreme Court (though Gingrich retreated from the word yesterday), wants to weaken America's defenses against terrorism and is proposing a massive government takeover of the private economy." He's not proposing, he's doing it, E.J.! 

E.J., your premise is wrong.  We're not turning state-controlled media to the right.  It's just that I, maybe Newt now and then, are the only ones saying what we say.  Everybody else in the state-controlled media is an echo chamber.  Whatever dictation you get from Axelrod or Gibbs, you're right, but there's an alternative voice out there and it stands out simply by virtue of its stark contrast and difference.  I mean, what would be so hard, E.J., about you realizing and reporting that Obama is taking over the private economy?  He's not proposing to.  He's doing it.  What would you call a guy who gave a speech -- somebody counted it up the other day -- his speech assuring the country what was going to happen to General Motors after bankruptcy, 34 times he used the word "I."  He never said we're going to get legislation to get this done.  I, the president, the president and the White House statement that came out, the president has deemed the plan put forth by GM workable.  We've got a miniature dictator-in-waiting here, in his own mind, and he is taking over the private sector. 

E.J. Dionne, Jr., is alarmed. "Steve Forbes, writing for his magazine, recently went so far as to compare Obama's economic policies to those of Juan Peron's Argentina."  I don't need to point this out, but I think I did that first, too, when talking about industrial policy and automobiles, and Forbes is right.  This is out of Juan Peron's Argentina.  The only thing we're waiting on is for Michelle to become Evita and Michelle has now weighed in on Sotomayor, and Victor Davis Hanson at National Review has a brilliant take on this.  He is also convinced that anger is what is inspiring and motivating the Obamas and the Sotomayors of the world.  They are angry.  Even though she's been appointed to the Supreme Court she's still mad at the way she was treated at Princeton. Michelle is still mad the way she was treated at Princeton.  That was the subject of her thesis.  These people have chips on their shoulders.  First lady of the United States, and she's still mad, president of the United States, he's still mad.  I don't doubt this at all.  In fact, I mentioned that to Sean Hannity in the second installment of the interview that will run tonight on the Hannity show on the Fox News Channel, second installment at nine o'clock.  By the way, thanks to all of you with the wonderfully nice e-mail notes about that interview, very kind. 

Back to E.J. Dionne, Jr. here: "While the right wing's rants get wall-to-wall airtime, you almost never hear from the sort of progressive members of Congress who were on an America's Future panel on Tuesday. Reps. Jared Polis of Colorado, Donna Edwards of Maryland and Raul Grijalva of Arizona all said warm things about the president -- they are Democrats, after all -- but also took issue with some of his policies. ... As it happens, I am closer than the progressive trio is to Obama's view on Afghanistan. But why are their voices," meaning these Democrats in Congress. Have you ever heard of these people before I mentioned their names?  "-- why are their voices muffled when they raise legitimate concerns, while Limbaugh's rants get amplified?"  Poor E.J., he just doesn't understand, even though he is a member of the state-controlled media, he doesn't understand how it works. 

Let's see, "For all the talk of a media love affair with Obama, there is a deep and largely unconscious conservative bias in the media's discussion of policy."  That is just incomprehensible, how anybody could view the state-run media today and conclude that it has an unconscious conservative bias.  E.J., have you noticed when all these outlets that you decry use videotape or audiotape of me, have you noticed what they do with it?  They satirize it, they pound it, they criticize it, they loop the video, they try to make me look like the biggest buffoon on the face of the earth.  They are now running bulletins at MSNBC of what I say, but here I am, CNN just announced the latest approval numbers, I'm at 30%, I have a 30% favorable rating, and yet I am dragging, according to E.J. Dionne, Jr., the state-controlled media to the right. (laughing)
 
END TRANSCRIPT
[/quote]

BEGIN TRANSCRIPT
 
RUSH: Here's the E.J. Dionne, Jr. column, Washington Post today: "'Rush and Newt Are Winning' -- A media environment that tilts to the right is obscuring what President Obama stands for and closing off political options that should be part of the public discussion. Yes, you read that correctly: If you doubt that there is a conservative inclination in the media, consider which arguments you hear regularly and which you don't. When Rush Limbaugh sneezes or Newt Gingrich tweets, their views ricochet from the Internet to cable television and into the traditional media. It is remarkable how successful they are in setting what passes for the news agenda.  The power of the Limbaugh-Gingrich axis means that Obama is regularly cast as somewhere on the far left end of a truncated political spectrum. He's the guy who nominates a 'racist' to the Supreme Court (though Gingrich retreated from the word yesterday), wants to weaken America's defenses against terrorism and is proposing a massive government takeover of the private economy." He's not proposing, he's doing it, E.J.! 

E.J., your premise is wrong.  We're not turning state-controlled media to the right.  It's just that I, maybe Newt now and then, are the only ones saying what we say.  Everybody else in the state-controlled media is an echo chamber.  Whatever dictation you get from Axelrod or Gibbs, you're right, but there's an alternative voice out there and it stands out simply by virtue of its stark contrast and difference.  I mean, what would be so hard, E.J., about you realizing and reporting that Obama is taking over the private economy?  He's not proposing to.  He's doing it.  What would you call a guy who gave a speech -- somebody counted it up the other day -- his speech assuring the country what was going to happen to General Motors after bankruptcy, 34 times he used the word "I."  He never said we're going to get legislation to get this done.  I, the president, the president and the White House statement that came out, the president has deemed the plan put forth by GM workable.  We've got a miniature dictator-in-waiting here, in his own mind, and he is taking over the private sector. 

E.J. Dionne, Jr., is alarmed. "Steve Forbes, writing for his magazine, recently went so far as to compare Obama's economic policies to those of Juan Peron's Argentina."  I don't need to point this out, but I think I did that first, too, when talking about industrial policy and automobiles, and Forbes is right.  This is out of Juan Peron's Argentina.  The only thing we're waiting on is for Michelle to become Evita and Michelle has now weighed in on Sotomayor, and Victor Davis Hanson at National Review has a brilliant take on this.  He is also convinced that anger is what is inspiring and motivating the Obamas and the Sotomayors of the world.  They are angry.  Even though she's been appointed to the Supreme Court she's still mad at the way she was treated at Princeton. Michelle is still mad the way she was treated at Princeton.  That was the subject of her thesis.  These people have chips on their shoulders.  First lady of the United States, and she's still mad, president of the United States, he's still mad.  I don't doubt this at all.  In fact, I mentioned that to Sean Hannity in the second installment of the interview that will run tonight on the Hannity show on the Fox News Channel, second installment at nine o'clock.  By the way, thanks to all of you with the wonderfully nice e-mail notes about that interview, very kind. 

Back to E.J. Dionne, Jr. here: "While the right wing's rants get wall-to-wall airtime, you almost never hear from the sort of progressive members of Congress who were on an America's Future panel on Tuesday. Reps. Jared Polis of Colorado, Donna Edwards of Maryland and Raul Grijalva of Arizona all said warm things about the president -- they are Democrats, after all -- but also took issue with some of his policies. ... As it happens, I am closer than the progressive trio is to Obama's view on Afghanistan. But why are their voices," meaning these Democrats in Congress. Have you ever heard of these people before I mentioned their names?  "-- why are their voices muffled when they raise legitimate concerns, while Limbaugh's rants get amplified?"  Poor E.J., he just doesn't understand, even though he is a member of the state-controlled media, he doesn't understand how it works. 

Let's see, "For all the talk of a media love affair with Obama, there is a deep and largely unconscious conservative bias in the media's discussion of policy."  That is just incomprehensible, how anybody could view the state-run media today and conclude that it has an unconscious conservative bias.  E.J., have you noticed when all these outlets that you decry use videotape or audiotape of me, have you noticed what they do with it?  They satirize it, they pound it, they criticize it, they loop the video, they try to make me look like the biggest buffoon on the face of the earth.  They are now running bulletins at MSNBC of what I say, but here I am, CNN just announced the latest approval numbers, I'm at 30%, I have a 30% favorable rating, and yet I am dragging, according to E.J. Dionne, Jr., the state-controlled media to the right. (laughing)
 
END TRANSCRIPT
[/quote]

While I don't count myself a fan -- his tears and emoting are a bit much -- Glenn Beck isn't the hate-mongering racist that Howard Dean, Leonard Pitts, and others claim he is. And many good, hardworking Americans put a lot of stock in Beck -- average Americans who are concerned about the moral and fiscal direction this country has taken.

So, it was out of curiosity that I went to Washington with my brother, Patrick, his son, Jack, and my daughter, Bridget, to attend Beck's "Restoring Honor" rally. None of us was quite sure what to expect. The rally was billed as apolitical -- yet Sarah Palin was going to be there. How could an event not be political with her there?

Left-wing pundits warned us in the days before that the event's main focus was to steal Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.'s 1963 message of unity. Ed Schultz, of MSNBC's "The Ed Show," claimed that "the only thing the rally will be spreading is hate and intolerance."

John Batchelor, on The Daily Beast, dismissed the rally, claiming it would be about nothing at all, just a bland event promoted by FOX News to fill up dead summer space.

But it wasn't political, it wasn't bland -- and hate was nowhere to be seen.

At times taking on an almost tent-revival atmosphere, the rally focused on rededicating the nation to God and remembering our military.

Palin spoke, not as a politician, but as the mother of a combat veteran. She recognized the service of three decorated war heroes, retelling each man's incredible story.

There were other speakers -- Native Americans, Hispanics, African-Americans, and whites -- all of whom touched on issues of national pride and responsibility.

Medals of recognition -- merit badges, Beck called them -- were presented to three Americans whose lives best defined the spiritual gifts of faith, hope, and charity.

On this 47th anniversary of her uncle's "I Have a Dream" speech, Dr. Alveda King spoke to the huge crowd, urging everyone to "focus not on elections or on political causes but on honor, on character . . . not the color of our skin."

King made frequent references to her uncle and she spoke of her own dream to see "a country less divided."

Yet, of all the speakers and the military heroes who were there, the rally's most moving presence was not on stage -- it was the crowd itself.

Standing shoulder to shoulder, it was a demonstrably patriotic gathering, a group of people concerned that America has lost its footing and that Americans have lost their pride. These people had come to this rally, concerned not that our president is black, but that our fiscal bottom line is red.

My brother summed up the day, noting how impressive it was to see "at least half a million people who want the U.S. to be a powerful nation again. It was important because it showed everyone who attended that there are half-a-million other people just like them who think this country can be restored to the bastion of individual rights our Founders intended. Beck's message was that restoration is not going to come from some Ronald Reagan we have not found yet, but from within every individual who truly cares for this country and freedom. The Silent Majority has said, 'We will not be silent any longer!'"

We talked to a lot of people that day.

We met a 73-year-old engineer from St. Petersburg, Fla., whose retirement dream home's mortgage was underwater -- and his savings decimated. He had flown up the night before and was flying back Saturday night. I asked him if the trip had been worthwhile and he smiled enthusiastically and replied, "Oh yeah!"

We met two men from Texas who had driven 19 hours to get there. We talked to folks from South Carolina, Illinois, Maryland, Florida, Ohio, and California. The crowd was not -- as columnist Stanley Crouch claimed -- a bunch of "white Southern necks" with "a redneck agenda." It was concerned citizens from across the nation worried about their homeland.

Most of the men and women we spoke with owned or worked for small businesses. These were people who were accustomed to doing for themselves. One Park Police officer I talked to called it "a dream crowd." They were well-behaved, well-mannered, and left behind park grounds nearly as spotless as they found them.

The segment of society that was most overwhelmingly represented at the rally was veterans. Everywhere one looked were T-shirts and ball caps proclaiming each wearer's service affiliation. Nearly all of the men and three of the women I spoke with were vets.

The only overtly political episode we saw that day was a group of 20 or so African-Americans standing front and center at the base of the Lincoln Memorial, holding signs and chanting. Initially thinking it was a counterrally, we instead came upon a group of black conservatives holding signs stating, "The KKK Was Started by Democrats," and "Martin Luther King was a Republican."

A delicious moment of irony occurred when a tall, strikingly beautiful woman in that group was approached by a man who asked her if she was the ACORN activist he'd seen on TV.

She whipped out a retired military ID card and informed him, "ACORN?! No, sir! I am a retired lieutenant colonel, United States Marine Corps, and a practicing Roman Catholic! I have nothing to do with ACORN."

If you've ever seen a senior Marine Corps officer dress someone down, you can envision the red face, mumbled apology, and quick retreat of the gentleman she corrected.

Veterans could be a key element in the conservative movement. What many left-wing commentators do not, or cannot, seem understand is that veterans -- these folks who have done the fighting and the bleeding for this country -- don't give a fig about the color of a person's skin. They are far more interested in the content of one's character and his devotion to God and country.

The day after the rally, President Obama told NBC's Brian Wilson that he had mostly ignored the Beck rally, saying he had more important work to do during this political "silly season."

That's his decision. He can choose to ignore Beck, ignore Palin, and every other speaker at the rally. But he should not ignore the crowd that attended.

Beck may have been the draw, but as my brother noted, this crowd of Americans looked around and found strength and voice in one another. Patrick's right: They won't be silent any longer.

Contact Robin Beres at (804) 649-6305 or mberes@timesdispatch.com.

While I don't count myself a fan -- his tears and emoting are a bit much -- Glenn Beck isn't the hate-mongering racist that Howard Dean, Leonard Pitts, and others claim he is. And many good, hardworking Americans put a lot of stock in Beck -- average Americans who are concerned about the moral and fiscal direction this country has taken.

So, it was out of curiosity that I went to Washington with my brother, Patrick, his son, Jack, and my daughter, Bridget, to attend Beck's "Restoring Honor" rally. None of us was quite sure what to expect. The rally was billed as apolitical -- yet Sarah Palin was going to be there. How could an event not be political with her there?

Left-wing pundits warned us in the days before that the event's main focus was to steal Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.'s 1963 message of unity. Ed Schultz, of MSNBC's "The Ed Show," claimed that "the only thing the rally will be spreading is hate and intolerance."

John Batchelor, on The Daily Beast, dismissed the rally, claiming it would be about nothing at all, just a bland event promoted by FOX News to fill up dead summer space.

But it wasn't political, it wasn't bland -- and hate was nowhere to be seen.

At times taking on an almost tent-revival atmosphere, the rally focused on rededicating the nation to God and remembering our military.

Palin spoke, not as a politician, but as the mother of a combat veteran. She recognized the service of three decorated war heroes, retelling each man's incredible story.

There were other speakers -- Native Americans, Hispanics, African-Americans, and whites -- all of whom touched on issues of national pride and responsibility.

Medals of recognition -- merit badges, Beck called them -- were presented to three Americans whose lives best defined the spiritual gifts of faith, hope, and charity.

On this 47th anniversary of her uncle's "I Have a Dream" speech, Dr. Alveda King spoke to the huge crowd, urging everyone to "focus not on elections or on political causes but on honor, on character . . . not the color of our skin."

King made frequent references to her uncle and she spoke of her own dream to see "a country less divided."

Yet, of all the speakers and the military heroes who were there, the rally's most moving presence was not on stage -- it was the crowd itself.

Standing shoulder to shoulder, it was a demonstrably patriotic gathering, a group of people concerned that America has lost its footing and that Americans have lost their pride. These people had come to this rally, concerned not that our president is black, but that our fiscal bottom line is red.

My brother summed up the day, noting how impressive it was to see "at least half a million people who want the U.S. to be a powerful nation again. It was important because it showed everyone who attended that there are half-a-million other people just like them who think this country can be restored to the bastion of individual rights our Founders intended. Beck's message was that restoration is not going to come from some Ronald Reagan we have not found yet, but from within every individual who truly cares for this country and freedom. The Silent Majority has said, 'We will not be silent any longer!'"

We talked to a lot of people that day.

We met a 73-year-old engineer from St. Petersburg, Fla., whose retirement dream home's mortgage was underwater -- and his savings decimated. He had flown up the night before and was flying back Saturday night. I asked him if the trip had been worthwhile and he smiled enthusiastically and replied, "Oh yeah!"

We met two men from Texas who had driven 19 hours to get there. We talked to folks from South Carolina, Illinois, Maryland, Florida, Ohio, and California. The crowd was not -- as columnist Stanley Crouch claimed -- a bunch of "white Southern necks" with "a redneck agenda." It was concerned citizens from across the nation worried about their homeland.

Most of the men and women we spoke with owned or worked for small businesses. These were people who were accustomed to doing for themselves. One Park Police officer I talked to called it "a dream crowd." They were well-behaved, well-mannered, and left behind park grounds nearly as spotless as they found them.

The segment of society that was most overwhelmingly represented at the rally was veterans. Everywhere one looked were T-shirts and ball caps proclaiming each wearer's service affiliation. Nearly all of the men and three of the women I spoke with were vets.

The only overtly political episode we saw that day was a group of 20 or so African-Americans standing front and center at the base of the Lincoln Memorial, holding signs and chanting. Initially thinking it was a counterrally, we instead came upon a group of black conservatives holding signs stating, "The KKK Was Started by Democrats," and "Martin Luther King was a Republican."

A delicious moment of irony occurred when a tall, strikingly beautiful woman in that group was approached by a man who asked her if she was the ACORN activist he'd seen on TV.

She whipped out a retired military ID card and informed him, "ACORN?! No, sir! I am a retired lieutenant colonel, United States Marine Corps, and a practicing Roman Catholic! I have nothing to do with ACORN."

If you've ever seen a senior Marine Corps officer dress someone down, you can envision the red face, mumbled apology, and quick retreat of the gentleman she corrected.

Veterans could be a key element in the conservative movement. What many left-wing commentators do not, or cannot, seem understand is that veterans -- these folks who have done the fighting and the bleeding for this country -- don't give a fig about the color of a person's skin. They are far more interested in the content of one's character and his devotion to God and country.

The day after the rally, President Obama told NBC's Brian Wilson that he had mostly ignored the Beck rally, saying he had more important work to do during this political "silly season."

That's his decision. He can choose to ignore Beck, ignore Palin, and every other speaker at the rally. But he should not ignore the crowd that attended.

Beck may have been the draw, but as my brother noted, this crowd of Americans looked around and found strength and voice in one another. Patrick's right: They won't be silent any longer.

Contact Robin Beres at (804) 649-6305 or mberes@timesdispatch.com.