All Episodes
Previous Next
April 15, 2008 - Rush Limbaugh Program
36:21
April 15, 2008, Tuesday, Hour #2
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Hey, folks, great to have you with us.
A genuine thrill.
I get up every morning.
It's uh it's an adult Christmas for me every day, the opportunity to be here, and to uh share with you the things that I'm passionate about, talk to you about them in the interests of the future of the country.
It's a genuine honor, and I'm happy to have it.
800-282-2882, if you want to be on the Rush Limbaugh program today, the email address, L Rushbo at EIBNet.com.
Let me finish this global warming riff, is it, as it has to do with the theme I established in the previous half hour, and that is liberalism is the greatest threat this country faces, not Islamo fascism, because if liberals dominate and win and are in power for four or eight years or more, uh they don't take Islamo fascism as a threat.
Uh and we know this because the Islamo fascists are actually campaigning for the election of Democrats.
Islamo fascists from Ahmadinezad to Al Zawahiri, uh Osama bin Laden, whoever uh are constantly issuing Democrat talking points.
So liberalism is the big threat.
One of the one of my big pet peeves, and it's more than a pet peeve, is that in addition to nobody anywhere, Republican or Democrat, speaking about American exceptionalism, trying to inspire the American people, motivate them, be proud of their country to tell them the truth of this country and how they live in the greatest place ever on earth, and that their opportunities, even economic downturns, are greater than any other persons on this planet.
Rather than do that, liberals advance a premise, and somehow in our defensive nature or our inferiority complex nature, or in the politicians' case, a desire to get something done to be seen as being a person of action, we accept the premise and then try to tweak it while opposing aspects of it and try to make a conservative notion out of the premise.
Global warming is one of these circumstances where we have accepted the premise.
And so what we're going to try to do is um accept the premise, and we've d why do we accept the premise?
Well, in global warming's case, uh or in the case of global warming, I think the reason we accept the premise is that for twenty years nobody of power, nobody with guts, nobody with a political bully pulpit has fought the premise.
And in those 20 years, there are a significant number of Americans who have bought into it, particularly young people.
People 1834, if you're younger than 35, you've been educated in the public school system, you grew up watching Captain Planet and these other cartoons on TV, and you've seen Al Gore's movie, and the teachers and everybody in the schools are showing you the movie and telling your kids how rotten the country is for what we're done to the planet and so forth.
You believe it.
Little false pictures of Fuller Bears, you know, little plots of ice uh trying to make kids think that glaciers are gone.
So you got a lot of people to believe it.
So a politician in a democracy will say, hey, well, the people believe it, and I need to get elected, so I have to act like I believe it.
So you accept the premise.
Then in accepting the premise, uh the people on our side who still oppose this after accepting the premise, then try to delay the implementation of the left's fixes on this.
Now, I guess at this stage of the game, uh that is one strategy, but I would prefer somebody standing up on a regular basis who has a bully pulpit and pointing out that this is a hoax.
That when there when that when there's consensus in science that there isn't science.
That science is not up to a vote.
And I would point out that nothing's been proved, that both people, both sides of this, and particularly the pro-global warming people, they're relying on faith.
And what they say when you challenge them, what and some of them will admit that uh they can't prove it, but they'll say, what if, you know, we're right and we don't do anything.
You know, we get 20 years to fix this.
What if we're right?
That that's that's such a straw dog argument.
Uh to say, what if we're right when we gotta t that's just continuing the whole basis of fear on which this takes place.
So where we are now is that uh because of twenty years of inaction uh from a bully pulpit uh point of view and from somebody with a position of power, the premise is settled in, and way too many Americans believe this notion, and they think that they're big and good people because they're gonna uh allow their lives to change in such a way that they think will help save the planet.
As ridiculous as that sounds, there are more Americans than you think who believe all of this.
So we accept the premise, and then we start saying, well, w we're we we think that the fixes that have been proposed are ineffective, and they will cost too much and they will not work.
And that's where we are.
Now we're gonna have people try to make the case that the premise is right, but these fixes are incurred.
You ought to read Roy Spencer's book, and I've mentioned this book two or three times, Climate Confusion is the uh title of the book, How Global Warming Hysteria Leads to Bad Science, Pandering Politicians, and Misguided Policies that hurt the poor.
And one of the things that Roy Spencer is our official climatologist here at the EIB network talks about is the is the literal economic stupidity of trying to fix the global warming problem.
All it is is a bunch pandering to a bunch of sentiments that can be described as feel good about doing something among misinformed people.
It's disgusting.
No matter whether it works or not, we got to do something, and we feel good doing something, but the cost involved, the restriction on liberty and freedom is profound.
So we've gotten to this point now where the premise apparently has been accepted by everybody of substance in terms of political power, and it's this has got to stop.
We have got to stop accepting these premises.
And we've got to stop being afraid of what the American people think.
Somebody with an electoral position of power, look at folks, conservatism's great, and we're going to end up triumphing over all this in time.
But conservatism that is loosely organized does not have nearly the ability in power to succeed as if it is in a political party.
And conservatism is under assault even in the Republican Party now, by a bunch of people who read rather be seen by people as moderates and uh open-minded types.
Uh the elites basically have gotten hold of it, uh, and it's going to be a battle to try to get it back.
But these things happen, you've got to keep fighting the battle.
We're willing to do it here in manners and ways in which I'm describing here.
Uh so we're gonna we're gonna we're gonna take the premise, we're gonna accept the premise, we're gonna say, but you keep these carbon offset programs are not gonna work, that's too expensive, and we're gonna come up with other solutions to a problem that doesn't exist.
If it does exist, there's nothing we can do about it.
That's the next reality.
There's nothing we can do about it but adapt, which human beings have done over the course of human civilization.
We adapt.
We adapt every day to what's put in front of us.
We adapt to natural disasters, we adapt to fires, we adapt to any number of things.
So we're have to adapt.
That's what we're capable of doing.
Every living organism has to adapt to its surroundings.
We have to build houses to stay warm in the winter.
We have to do so.
We can't just survive as we are under normal climactic cycles.
Climatic cycles.
Anyway, I Roy's book explains this stuff uh so so well.
Uh it needs to be read.
Again, it's called climate confusion.
You can get it on the Amazon or Barnes and Noble or at your uh favorite bookstore.
You know, I uh, ladies and gentlemen, well, here, give you another example.
Liberalism on parade.
And this is how slowly, incrementally this stuff happens.
This is a serious news story.
It's from the French news agency.
Plants deserve respect, according to a group of Swiss experts.
They argue that killing plants arbitrarily is morally wrong, except when it comes to saving humans, or maybe picking petals off a daisy.
In a report on the dignity of the creature in the plant world.
The Swiss Federal Ethics Committee on Nonhuman Gene Technology condemned the decapitation of flowers without reason, among other sins.
Still, Commission member Bernard Birch suggested the body weighed such cruel acts on a case-by-case basis, noting the simple pleasure of picking the petals off a daisy might suffice as a reason.
Similarly, all action that involves plants in the aim to conserve the human species is morally justified.
Only a minority of the group's members objected to patenting plants, with a majority ruling the action did not infringe on their moral values.
So the dignity of the creature in the plant world.
They condemn the decapitation of flowers without reason.
Okay, so we've gone through the animal rights phase.
We've gone through the spotted owl BS.
We've gone through the Condor, we've got through all of these things, the coral reef, every you see how evil we are.
We human beings.
Now we're decapitating roses.
And that is immoral, and that is unethical.
And so here comes the guilt play.
What happens?
Are we are we next going to be banned from walking on our lawns?
Are we going to be banned for weeding the lawns?
I mean, grass is a plant.
You think you want to get stepped on?
How would you like it if people in your house just walked and stepped on you all the time?
You think the grass likes it?
You see where this stuff I warned you about this when the Sierra Club got on the SUV craze, and you thought I was crazy and over exaggerating.
You wait.
We already can't cut down some trees, places we can't.
Life, liberty, pursuit of happiness.
What liberty?
Now, plants have greater value than we do.
Because in certain circumstances, you can decapitate a person.
And in certain places you can get away with it.
But decapitating a rose, big big problem.
Now, ladies and gentlemen, just to show you that I participate.
General Motors is going to be bringing a car by here for us to drive as they introduce uh introduce new models.
The first car they're gonna be bringing by is the is a Malibu.
Now, you I've I'm I love General Motors.
General Motors is one of these four, all these the automaker industry in this country is one that we have been told to hate and one that we have been told to despise.
They make worthless garbage and they try to sell it to us.
This is what the left has tried to do in terms of creating attitudes about all American businesses.
I love General Motors.
I went up there last spring, about a year ago, met with Bob Lutz, and I got a lowdown on some of the new things coming.
He showed me what was coming with the with with the Malibu.
The Malibu's a four-cylinder car.
We're going to be tooling around down here in a four-cylinder Chevy Malibu, North American car of the year, by the way.
Thirty miles to the gallon.
We are going to be contributing our best, according to the premise of the left, by not polluting the planet any more than we should be.
Snerdley is gonna is gonna park his twin turbo twelve-cylinder hog out there, and he's gonna be driving the Malibu around.
I'm gonna take a turn in it too.
They've got a number of technological advances in the uh in the Malibu.
Variable valve timing basically helps the engine squeeze every mile out of uh out of gallon of gas, which is important now with the price of gasoline, what it is.
You can learn all about the Chevy Malibu uh at uh www.gm.com slash explore.
Or you can find it on my website, Rushlimbaug.com.
We're excited, it should be delivered here this week.
We'll be reporting to you on the four-cylinder.
I've I've driven a four-cylinder car before, and you'd be s I have when I lived in Sacramento.
I kid you not.
Yeah, well, yes, I remember what it was, and it was uh it was a Chrysler Chrysler New Yorker, I think it was.
Four cylinder that thing zoomed up the hill to Lake Tahoe.
Had no problem with it uh with it whatsoever, and it was economical as is the Chevy Malibu.
We're excited to get it.
I gotta take a quick time out.
We'll be back and continue here in just a second.
Stay right where you are.
Better get some phone calls in here before we move back to the content portion of the program.
Still, we have barely scratched the surface today on Operation Chaos.
We'll start in Ann Arbor, Michigan.
Mark, thank you for calling, sir.
I'm glad you waited.
Welcome to the program.
Megadiddles rush.
Hey, these democratic liberal so-called leaders, They're not statesmen.
They're not lawmakers.
They can't come up with any coherent policy.
But what they are is professional apology demanders.
They scour the land looking for something to be outraged about, and then they demand their apologies.
They can't go back and tell the American people they created jobs or got any economic progress or that they've saved us from global warming, but they can go back to their constituents and brag about all the apologies they got for them.
And these annex are just tailor-made for the drive-by media because it's lazy journalism.
Not only that, you're right about everything you said, but when they do go back home and brag, it's about how much bacon they bring home, brung home, or how many old folks centers or water treatment plants they built, or how much global warming improvement there's going to be in some sort of little project that they're going to build in the state.
I know this is this is to me, it is a uh runner apologize for this and that, demanding other people apologize.
Uh we're just absent leadership, uh, folks, primarily.
Uh we're absent leadership.
We have a bunch of people who are uh afraid and defensive of what people believe, what they think they believe.
This is probably the result of people paying way too much attention to polls.
Uh do you know how do you know how orgasmic it would be if some elected official now Jim Inhoff does.
I don't I there's there are exceptions to this.
Jim Inhoff, Senator from Oklahoma.
But he doesn't actually do it on television, he does it from the Senate committee that he chairs, and they do a lot of great work getting information out of it.
But can you imagine somebody, an elected official on television routinely, just nuking the premise of some of this stuff and expl that is what here I go again.
It's precisely what Ronaldus Magnus did in a charming engaging, charismatic way.
And the blueprint is there.
It worked.
My fear is that way too many elected officials become so immersed in the concept of government being so enmeshed in the tentacles of government being so intertwined in as many things as possible because of the power that they derive from it,
uh, that the uh the ideological notion of of uh of a smaller government, less intrusive one, uh, becomes foreign even to those who arrive there with uh with those beliefs.
Tom in South Chicago, you're next on the EIB network.
Hello.
Yeah, Rush, I'm a reformed Democrat.
I worked for um in democratic politics for probably 30 years, and I actually worked four blocks away from Obama's church and work with some of the worshippers from Obama's church.
And they are doing a massive cover-up job because um I mean, what you've heard is the tip of the iceberg.
Everything from that church is seen through the prism of race.
Uh, of course it is.
I uh we may have only heard the tip of the iceberg, and this is why they're trying to put a cap on it.
And this is why everybody's trying to uh, you know, Obama turns around and starts attacking his attackers and dismissing uh their criticism as invalid rather than addressing it.
Uh I I this is this is another reason to keep talking about Obama because he's telling us who he is.
These are his words.
These are his words, folks.
Nobody's putting these words in his mouth.
Nobody's putting these words in the mouth of his pastor.
Nobody's putting the words in the mouth of his otherwise radical supporters.
This guy is the most radical extreme liberal democrat to come along in my lifetime, including McGovern, because at least, you know, some people took exception when I said this.
How can you say that anybody more radical and left wing than McGovern?
Say what you want.
George McGovern, who loved the country.
I am not convinced that Obama and his band love the country.
I think that there is a deep resentment for it.
Uh I think that there is a sidling up to people who have great problems with it, and not from the standpoint of love.
Not from the standpoint of love.
You can like America and you can like it because you think you can change it and mold it and shape it to be more what you like and more what you want.
You can also love the country and have this deep passion for it, uh, but think that it is slightly off-kilter and want to change it because you for the good, and there are other people who want to change it because they want to corrupt it.
And then there are other people just plain incompetent, which I think describes Obama, lack of experience, rookie incompetent, but at the same time dangerous as he can be, because of the things that he has said.
He views various groups of people in this country in a very stereotypical fashion, and he's prepared to act on things that way.
As Michael Barone says in his column today, Obama's remarks are just plain liberal snobbery.
He says, I believe Obama's words are not really defensible.
There's a major problem for him as uh the Democrat nominee, he's parroting the argument of Thomas Frank's what's the matter with Kansas.
But the problem is that Frank, like Obama, in these comments at the millionaire house out in uh San Francisco, is hugely condescending to voters.
Liberals don't understand why people are rejecting them and government.
One more phone call, ladies and gentlemen, and back to the audio sound bites in Operation K. I Scott in Sarasota, Florida.
Welcome, sir.
Nice to have you here.
Great to talk to you, Rush.
I'll be real quick.
Global warming.
Um I believe everything that you've said about it.
The only thing that I'm concerned about is I want I want to know the depletion of the ozone layer.
How how do you explain that in reference to all of that?
Or do we put that in in?
I mean, where where do we know how do we acknowledge that?
How do we balance or acknowledge the depletion of the ozone layer?
Or or any other scientific facts that support.
What scientific facts supports the f the notion that human beings are destroying the ozone?
Well, no, no, I don't I don't necessarily believe that.
I'm just looking at the fact that the depletion of the ozone is one of the contributing factors of the global warming.
Is the way I've always understood it, unless I'm wrong.
I'm asking, how does how how would you explain that in reference to everything else that does make sense of what you're saying about every liberal putting out there uh all right?
Let's let's examine uh the ozone layer and the ozone hole, and let's go back in time and history and listen and remember what it was we were told was responsible for the depletion of the ozone layer.
Do you recall what that yeah, yeah, it was what uh the the sprays, uh what was it, the um aerosol can aerosol sans, right?
Like hairspray.
Uh fluoroclorofluorocarbons.
Right, right.
Which came from Freon.
All of that has been debunked, by the way, the Freon aspect's been debunked, but we had to go to a more expensive substance when everybody feared this.
Do you know what makes ozone, you know what creates the ozone layer?
Tell me.
Sun.
The sun.
The sun makes atmospheric ozone.
If we wanted to destroy the ozone layer, we would have to put out the sun.
If Ronald Reagan back in his day said to Cap Weinberger, the Secretary of Defense, Cap, I want every Democrat in the world to get skin cancer.
I want you to destroy the ozone layer.
That's what thought they thought Reagan was capable of doing these kinds of things.
Weinberger would have taken it back to the defense department and researched it, came back and said, Mr. President, we've got to send some fire trucks up and put out sun because uh it's the sun that manufactures uh atmospheric ozone.
Uh we don't know whether that hole uh is been around for the from the beginning of time.
We know it shrinks, we know it fills in, we know that it expands.
Uh it's not permanent.
Uh the relationship that the hole in the ozone layer uh has to global warming is another wild guess.
If that were something that were scientifically proven, and nothing about global warming is scientifically proven.
Among the the most important things that's not proven, one of the the most is that carbon dioxide has not been established scientifically to have any effect on climate.
Yet it's called a greenhouse gas.
Their models indicate that it this is intense buildups can create greenhouse gas or greenhouse uh situations, which the whole global warming theory relies on, the heating of the planet because heat gets trapped and can't escape, much like in a um in a In a greenhouse, but nobody's firmly established this.
This is a theory, and it all sounds good, and especially when you announce the theory when it's 104 degrees in July in Kansas.
Yeah, boy, someone's gonna explain this.
It was really hot here.
Um the uh the the I I see I rely on this.
The whole premise that we human beings can take this magnificent creation.
And by virtue of the enhancement of our lifestyles and our standard of living can destroy the planet.
That's a that's a non sequitur to me.
Now, this is not a scientific answer.
I understand that.
Uh this is more an answer rooted in awe, respect for the creation and the creator, the absolute complexity that is this planet and its ecosystems, so complex we can't understand it.
But beyond all that, Scott, here maybe just in simple common sense language.
There is no climatic event that we can cause.
There is no climatic event that we can alter.
We cannot change the direction of a line of thunderstorms.
We cannot, for sure, look at a squall line of thunderstorms and say it's going to be tornado coming out of this and it's going to hit over here in five minutes and give it appropriate warning.
We can see circumstances where tornadoes have formed in such squall lines, and we can't predict them.
If a tornado does happen to form, guess what?
We can't stop it.
A hurricane or a series of hurricanes can form in the Atlantic or anywhere else in the world.
We can only guess pretty much as what their intensity is going to be, and we can only guess a couple three days out with certainty the direction a hurricane's going to take.
We can't stop it.
If we need a lot of rainfall, like in South Florida because there's a drought, there's nothing we can do.
If we're in the midst of a of a Noah-like flood, there's nothing we can do to stop it, other than move, other than leave.
Put sandbags out.
There is not one climatic.
If we're tired of the hot sun, we can't just summon clouds.
There's not one climatic event we can change, alter, create, manufacture.
So on what basis do we arrogant little people accept the notion that we can destroy the climate of the planet or change it to the point that we're going to be destroyed.
Now I know this is not scientific.
And I know the Darwinists would throw me out of the classroom if I dared ask them about this.
And I know the evangelical Marxists that showed up at the compassion forum for Hillary and Obama in Philadelphia would probably have a fit with me.
Don't you care about being a good steward of the planet?
Of course I do.
I'm not for pollution.
I'm not for destroying anything like this, except if I need it to survive.
Just like it would destroy me if it needed to survive and if it had a gun.
Meaning animals and so forth.
But the point is, well, there's nothing we can do here.
We are we're all we can do is adapt, Scott.
We cannot predict how big the ozone hole is going to be, and if it's not big enough and we want it bigger, we can't make it bigger.
And if it's too big, we can't fill it in.
We just have to wait and keep our fingers crossed.
And usually it fills in.
It's usually over Antarctica, too, right?
So you gotta wonder what all the people in Antarctica and all the plants and all the aerosol cans and all the air conditioning in Antarctica are doing to cause the ozone hole over Antarctica.
All those people down there, you know.
My point, there isn't anybody down there but a bunch of scientists and the penguins.
Nobody's down there, and yet that's where the hole happens.
Rush, that's not a scientific.
I know it's not a scientific answer.
It's a common sense answer.
We had the story yesterday, and most of these scientists admit to taking a riddle, and these guys are taking mind-altering drugs to stay focused, to stay up, to be sharp.
Wow, how how comforting is that?
Riddlin and two or three other drugs they admit taking prescription drugs, in order to enhance their work.
Uh so I just, you know, rely on on common sense.
I also know this.
Our planet has been along, uh, been around here, you can argue about it in a religious sense or what it's been around thousands and thousands and maybe millions and billions of years.
Guess what?
It's still here.
And it's still here in an inhabitable way.
Amazing, isn't it?
And we know that there have been periods of time where it's been far warmer than it is now.
And it's been much colder than it is now.
We know that in Greenland, it's called Greenland because it used to be.
And there were civilizations that lived up there, and they grew crops and everything.
How can that be?
Had to be a hell of a lot hotter there then than it is now.
But they didn't have any of the so-called emissions that we're utilizing today that say warming up the planet.
Scott, this is liberalism on parade.
It's just global warming and the hoax of global warming is just the latest attempt by liberals to affect the power of government, give government power over businesses and people to limit freedom, to raise taxes.
I'll tell you what, if you want to make it boil it down to real two simple things here, Scott, my man?
Global warming understands just two things.
It's all it is.
It is about allowing government to take over as much of the operation of as much of American capitalism as possible, and number two, it is attempt to turn carbon dioxide into gold.
Meaning all of these charlatans out there selling you carbon credits to handle your your carbon footprint.
You're giving them all kinds of money to assuage your guilt, and they're supposedly planting trees.
The Fresno B had a story recently.
I don't have it in front of me.
Certain kinds of trees pollute more than automobiles do.
You know, Ronald Reagan said this back in uh in the eighties, too, uh, and his own son called him a buffoon.
For it turned out to be right.
Pollute in terms of carbon.
If you accept that carbon and carbon dioxide are is a pollutant, then there are trees that put out more of it than certain automobiles.
And some of them are in California.
This is such a hoax.
It's such a blue ribbon hoax.
And I can't tell you how frustrating it is to have every damn politician of consequence in this country accept it and want to move on the basis of the premise of the hoax.
How are you, Rush Limbaugh, with half my brain tied behind my back just to make it fair?
I remember somebody sent me a story on the ozone hole some weeks ago, and I don't I don't still have it.
But the latest theory about the ozone hole is that cold air going through the ozone layer is creating a vortex that thins.
There is no hole, by the way.
There's never a hole.
There is just a thinning.
Some have speculated the ozone hole thinning was simply the target area for alien spaceships to arrive when they built Stonehenge and the pyramids.
But seriously, folks, it doesn't, there's not a hole.
It just thins.
And the theory, uh latest theory is that cold air in the ozone layer in the Antarctic region is what's causing it.
Nothing to do with heat.
Nothing.
Zilt zero nada.
Okay, back to the audio soundbites.
CN and Operation Chaos.
This is CNN's election center.
Last night, the host Campbell Brown talking to Roland Martin.
And she says, Roland, what did you what did you think about the candidates' answers dealing with the questions of faith at the compassion forum in Philadelphia?
I heard Rush Lembaugh say that these are Marxist evangelicals talk about the you know poverty.
I don't even know if Rush even reads a Bible.
The reality is Jesus often talked about poverty and the poor more than anything else.
And so it was great to see Democrats embrace the issue of faith.
See?
See how foreign it is?
It's great to see Democrats embracing the issue of faith.
Ooh, as though that's odd.
That's unique.
It was great to see them doing so.
What I specifically referred to was I'm sure a decent and good-hearted man stood up and asked Obama if he would commit to reducing poverty by 50% in ten years.
Now, if you're going to ask a question like that to a socialist, I mean, what kind of answer do you expect?
Of course, you think Obama's gonna say no, we can't do it in ten years.
The fact of the matter is that we have had a wall on poverty since 1964.
That's what now, uh 44 years later, am I right, doing quick subtraction?
Forty-four years later, and have we made a dent?
In in a expressed as a percentage, we've not.
The way to fix poverty is economic growth, not redistribution politics.
Of course, Jesus talked about the disadvantaged and the poor, and nobody who is a Christian is ignorant of that.
But the answer is not to make everybody poor in the process of fixing poverty.
And that is not what Jesus said.
And yet they want to rewrite it.
Hey, that's no different than saying uh like they did 10 or so years ago that the homeless are the modern equivalent of Mary and Joseph.
I mean, these people bastardize religion to suit.
Can you imagine liberals who get all bent out of shape when anybody brings up God?
This is one thing I'm I have to note.
Here we had a compassion forum.
Here are a bunch of liberals.
Hillary and Obama at Messiah College, and here they are talking about faith and politics.
When that happens on the Republican side, good lord, folks, you've got to put it to a stop.
Separation of church and state.
Who do these people think they are?
When liberals do it, why, isn't it wonderful?
And isn't it unique?
Here's Joe Klein of Time Magazine on Charlie Rose last night, essentially admitting Operation Chaos' work.
He doesn't use those terms.
But you can listen to all of these comments from these people about the unsettled nature of this campaign, and there's one reason for it: Operation Chaos.
Charlie Rose said, Joe, you've written a column called a patriotism problem.
Dick just talked about the idea of sort of seeing Obama as an American and how someone likes play and talk about his religion and talk about his flag, what's in his lapel, all those other issues.
What is his patriotism problem, Joe?
Not what is reality, but what's the perception about patriotism for Obama to deal with?
One of the greatest problems he has is one of his greatest strains.
He has a very highfalutin way of talking.
When he says, you know, if you're a typical uh, you know, working class American and working two jobs, trying to get your kids through college, you come home from your second job, banging the cash register at 11 o'clock at night, you turn on the TV, and there's this guy saying, we are the ones we've been waiting for.
You say, huh?
What's that about?
And I think that he has made some adjustments to talk about the meat and potatoes, things that people care about, but something like this kind of knocks him off stride.
What is what is Klein saying here?
Is he saying that these people aren't smart enough?
These working class stiffs aren't smart enough to understand Obama's brilliance?
What is he saying?
Notice also the liberal characterization of working stiffs.
Working people.
typical working-class American, working two jobs, trying to get your kids through college, you come home from your second job banging the cash register at 11 o'clock at night, you You turn on the TV, and there's this guy.
Say, we are the ones we've been waiting for.
You say, huh, what's I don't even know what he's talking about.
Who's the one we've been waiting for?
Obama.
We're the ones that we've been waiting for.
Whatever.
So here's Joe Klein in the Northeastern Enclaves of Elitism, looking out over middle class Pennsylvania and sees a bunch of dorks slaving away for whatever pennies an hour they get during the day, but that's not anything to go home after banging the cash register at 11 o'clock at night.
What kind of cash register are you banging up till 11 o'clock at night?
The quick shop, the 7-Eleven, the porn store, where are you?
Banging a cash register at 11 o'clock, and then you get home, you turn on the TV, you see Obama, and what do you do?
You're too stupid to understand what he's saying.
Obama needs to get back on stride and learn how to talk down to these idiots, is what Joe Klein said.
Okay, so they don't like the phrase, we're the ones we've been waiting for.
It's a common phrase Obama uses.
It got roots in South Africa, by the way.
I just found it.
But the bottom line is you don't know how to talk to regular people, but who who cares?
He doesn't like regular people anyway.
As evidenced by his San Francisco comments.
We only have an hour left.
▲
Export Selection