All Episodes
Previous Next
Nov. 26, 2008 - Rush Limbaugh Program
37:44
November 26, 2008, Wednesday, Hour #1
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Welcome to today's edition of the Rush 24-7 podcast.
Live from the office of America's Anchorman, I am Rush Limboy, and this is the Excellence in Broadcasting Network.
You may be seated.
Staff now duly standing prior to my approaching the EIB microphone at each hour.
Great to have you here, ladies and gentlemen, the day before Thanksgiving.
And we're going to do Open Line Friday on Wednesday today since we won't be here on Friday.
So we're going to suspend the normal rules that we impose on callers.
And we will allow you, whenever we go to the phones, to basically control a content portion of the program.
Whatever you want to talk about is pretty much a go.
Feel free.
You think something hasn't been discussed that needs to be.
If you have a question or comment, you want to blow off some steam.
If you're an Obama caller and you want to make a plea here for bipartisanship, feel free.
800-282-2882 is the number, and the email address is lrushbow at EIBnet.com.
Well, it says here that despite plummeting gas prices and unusual last-minute holiday deals on airline tickets, more people are expected to stick close to home this Thanksgiving.
The AAA says that 41 million Americans are expected to take trips at least 50 miles for Thanksgiving.
It's about 600,000 less than traveled last Thanksgiving.
Now, they'll find a way to convert this into bad news.
For a lot of people, it's good news.
It's less crowded airplanes.
It's less crowded airports.
It's less crowded highways.
And for some people, it's fewer guests not showing up.
So there's all kinds of good news here, ladies and gentlemen.
But you watch, it's going to be reported as something horrible.
Barack Obama today walked out again.
The press corps duly stood up as he went out to the podium to do a third consecutive economic press conference.
He announced his Economic Recovery Advisory Board, and he named two people to it, Paul Volcker, who is 81 years old, and he has served in two previous administrations.
And this is more of the change that we can expect from Obama.
Also, Austin Goolsby, who was the economic advisor during the campaign, is also part of the Economic Recovery Advisory Board.
Now, Paul Volcker, 81, he came in under Carter.
The media, however, knowing full well how horribly he advised Carter, is spending all of their time associating Volcker with his tenure under Ronald Reagan in a tantamount admission that the economy under Ronald Reagan was something to be pointed to with fond remembrances and pride.
But let's not forget that Paul Volcker was the architect of these sky-high interest rates under the Carter administration that led to the misery index and Jimmy Carter saying the country was in a malaise.
We have audio soundbites coming up of the press conference.
Obama today finally got a question that was a tough question.
He got a probing question, a challenging question, unlike any question he has been asked in my memory during the campaign for a year and a half, and he didn't like it.
He Messiah got very testy for a moment there.
It was asked by Ed Henry of CNN.
Now, when I watched it, I didn't think it was Ed Henry.
I mean, I looked at it and I thought I'd never seen this reporter before.
But my transcriber guys say that it was Ed Henry.
If it's Ed Henry, he's finished at Obama press conferences.
If it was Ed Henry, he's grown a lot of hair.
And they tell me it was Ed Henry, but I never saw him identified on TV.
I never thought I saw this guy before.
Let's go right to the sound bites here.
This is the question that got Obama all testy.
Sir, you talked about John McCain was going to come back to Washington if he won, and it would just move people into different chairs.
We've got Tom Daschell, Hillary Clinton.
Wait, wait, wait, wait.
Hold on, hold on.
We're here anyway.
Wait, wait, wait.
You hear that.
So, first of all, that's not the topic.
We're not talking about my cabinet because I haven't made those appointments yet.
So can we talk about Paul Volcker?
He's been around a long time.
So he's somebody who knows the ways of Washington.
But what do you say to your supporters who were looking for change?
Actually, Paul Volcker hasn't been in Washington for quite some time.
And that's part of the reason he can provide a fresh perspective.
Austin Goolsby, from my understanding, you've never worked in Washington.
Yeah, I've been on vacation.
This is about as fresh a face as you can get.
So you see, that's not the topic.
You can't ask me about that.
That's not the topic.
This is an Open Line Friday.
This is not the Rush Limbaugh show where you get to ask the host anything you want.
You're going to stay on topic or you're never going to get back in order, wait, Hold on, hold on, hold on, wait, wait, wait.
You hear that?
So he was looking for sympathy from others in the press court.
You hear that?
You hear his question?
You hear how unfair this is?
First of all, that's not the topic.
We're not talking about the cabinet.
So Volcker, who is 81 years old, is now a fresh face.
Volcker looks like a bald eagle.
Nothing wrong with looking like a bald eagle, except when you're not a bald eagle.
He was standing there.
He sent Volcker and Goolsby out there to have their hands in their pockets for about five or ten minutes before the Messiah walked out from behind the curtain or behind the stage.
They are clearly props.
Here he, next soundbite, Obama rehashes his last two days of press conferences.
With respect to the details of the economic plan, as I've said before, we are going to be working over the next several months to put those details together.
I've described for you the framework within which we are going to put that legislation forward.
We're going to have a strong stimulus, an economic recovery plan that is designed to put people back to work.
That's priority number one.
It is going to be large enough to jumpstart the economy.
That was what I talked about on Monday.
Now, a couple observations.
Look, and I'm not trying to nitpick, but I need to set this up because of the bite that's coming next.
This soundbite, and throughout this whole press conference, other than when he lost his cool with whoever this reporter was, that's not the topic.
It's not the topic.
We're not talking about my cabinet.
And he eventually he did go.
Let me see if we have that bite.
Yeah, it's it's I think we've got the bite.
I just got this.
I haven't had to read the transcript, but he did go on and answer the question, and it was lame.
It was a lame answer.
He said, how can you expect me to have new faces?
I mean, all these people are from the last Democrat administration that happens to be the Clinton administration.
I have to get people in here who know what they're doing.
The last Clinton administration.
So he really fumbled the answer, and I don't think I'm being told it is Ed Henry.
Ed went in there in a disguise, I guarantee you, because he wants to be let back in.
At any rate, he botched the answer to the question, and he was asked about Dashel and all these other people.
But we'll get to that here in just a second.
This answer that you just heard is Obama sounding like he's in charge.
And if you didn't know anything, if you just landed from Mars and you were told this is the country's next president, and you hear him say with confidence and vigor that I just described for you the framework within which we're going to put that legislation forward, get a strong stimulus, economic recovery plan designed to put people back to work.
That's priority number one.
It's going to be large enough to jumpstart the economy.
That was what I talked about on Monday.
He sounds totally confident, totally in charge.
And if you happen to be an Obama voter or neophyte, hard to tell the difference, listening to this, then you'll be inspired.
Okay, here's somebody in charge, and he's going to fix it.
He's going to get my job back and so forth.
Then here's the next bite.
On Tuesday, I talked about the fact that we are going to have to pair back on programs that do not work.
And I think would hardly be expected to provide you a detailed list now.
That's why I have Peter Ortzeg, our budget director, who's going to be going through that budget page by page, line by line.
And the expectation is that we will identify those programs that are not working, make sure that those are eliminated, and put money into programs that do work around things like healthcare modernization, making sure that we've got the first-class schools that our kids need in order to compete in the 21st century, start putting a down payment on a new energy economy.
Okay, so the first answer, I'm in charge, I'm going to get your job back.
We're going to put people back to work.
That's priority number one.
Then the second answer, here comes the giant expansion of government.
And so nothing's changed here.
But if you just listen to the second bite with no knowledge of this guy, you would think, wow, this is going to be pretty good.
Here's a guy finally in charge, understands he needs to put people back to work.
We got people working on a recovery plan that's designed to do just that.
That's priority number one.
But then the next answer betrays who he really is, what his economic theory is, which is basically collectivism and the expansion of government, the notion that government can best jumpstart the economy as opposed to people who make the country work.
This has never worked before.
And they're still going to try it because it's all about cementing and ensuring their power for at least 10 years.
Then Obama said this about his team.
When it comes to the people that we've pulled together, because I know this has been sort of conventional wisdom floating around Washington, that, well, you know, there's a recycling of people who were in the Clinton administration, although Paul dates before that.
Listen now.
The last Democratic administration that we had was the Clinton administration.
Yeah.
And so it would be surprising if I selected a Treasury Secretary who had had no connection with the last Democratic administration, because that would mean that the person had no experience in Washington whatsoever.
What?
And I suspect that you would be troubled and the American people would be troubled if I selected a Treasury Secretary or a chairman of the National Economic Council at one of the most critical economic times in our history who had no experience in government whatsoever.
Now, this is awfully sly, but there are count.
How many hundreds of thousands of people are there in government that he could have chosen that are brainy acts that might have some decent ideas that have no ties to the Clinton administration?
They're all over the place.
This answer is so lame, it's so well, where else am I going to get my staff?
I got to raid the only Democrat administration we've had in the last 20 years.
Where am I going to get my staff?
Then there's this, and this is even better.
This is even more telling because here Obama tells us what his role in all this is going to be.
What we are going to do is combine experience with fresh thinking.
But I understand where the vision for change comes from first and foremost.
It comes from me.
That's my job, is to provide a vision in terms of where we are going and to make sure then that my team is implementing.
I think that when you ultimately look at what this advisory board looks like, you'll say this is a cross-section of opinion that in some ways reinforces conventional wisdom, in some ways breaks with orthodoxy in all sorts of ways.
And that's the kind of discussion that we're going to want.
We want ideas from everybody.
What I don't want to do is to somehow suggest that because you served in the last Democratic administration, that you're somehow barred from serving again, because we need people who are going to be able to hit the ground running.
All right.
So he finally gets a tough question, and he's flailing around.
If you listen to his answer, he's flailing around all over the place.
He sounds confident and in charge, though, but he's flailing around.
Oh, look, understand where this vision for change comes from.
It's come from me.
That's my job, to provide a vision.
And so he is.
He's planning on being a figurehead.
He's going to sit there in the Oval Office.
He's going to tell this team his vision.
They're going to go out and act on his vision.
I thought yesterday he said that these are the people going to come up with the ideas, and he's going to have competing ideas among these various groups of advisors.
And then they're all going to come together and make a decision on what ought to happen.
The way he answers this question, he doesn't need a team.
He doesn't need competing ideas.
All he needs is a bunch of lackeys because he's going to be sitting there providing the vision and he's going to tell them what he saw and then they're supposed to go out and implement it.
Look at, he's going to be more than a figurehead, but this is my job is to provide the vision.
That's strangely like CEO talk.
It is strangely like CEO talk.
And of course, he wants all CEOs to forego their bonuses this year.
We have that coming up as well.
But, you know, Obama repeated during the campaign constantly, over and over, putting the same old Washington people in the same jobs and expecting different results is not going to provide meaningful change.
Amen, bro.
You have just said that everything you talked about change, at least as people understood it, is off the board now.
And the real change is going to be a full speed ahead approach to trying to expand the government as large and as quickly as possible.
We'll be right back.
They'll go away.
Yes, of course, we will have the real story of Thanksgiving in the final hour of today's excursion into broadcast excellence.
It's from my first book out there.
No, from the second book out there, see I Told You So.
And we will have that as it's become a tradition.
All of America eagerly awaits the reading of the real story of Thanksgiving in the final hour of this program.
More good news for the Somali pirates.
Everybody thought that the Somali pirate mothership had been sunk by the Indian Navy.
Turns out that the pirate mothership supposedly sunk last week was actually a Thai fishing trawler that had been commandeered hours earlier by the pirates.
This, according to an international maritime agency, the Indian Navy nevertheless defended its action, saying it had fired in self-defense.
Noel Chung, who heads the International Maritime Bureau's Piracy Reporting Center in Kuala Lumpur, said that one Thai crew member died when the Indian frigate fired on the boat in the Gulf of Aden on November 18th.
So the Somali pirates did not lose their mothership.
They just lost a frigate that they hijacked.
We don't know what the cargo was.
So the Somali pirates live, ladies and gentlemen, to continue to prosper.
As you know, we had the news report yesterday.
The Somali pirates are building stone houses.
They are hiring chefs and preparing specialized meals for their hostages.
They are marrying beautiful women.
They have really stepped up their lifestyle as a result of their piracy in the Gulf of Aden.
They have lowered the ransom demand on that $100 million of oil they hijacked from the Saudis.
It was $10 million, and I made fun of them for being so cheap.
Then they upped the ransom to $25 million.
They got no offers on that.
They've now lowered the ransom to $15 million.
Yesterday, ladies and gentlemen, we had a story about all of the misery that exists in New Orleans and all of the unspent federal and state money to help people in the Katrina hurricane aftermath.
The story yesterday featured the plight of people who rent apartments and the people who rent them from the landlords.
And there's all this money that was allocated to help people get back in, and it's just a mess.
It's a bureaucratic nightmare.
And once again, it was an illustration.
Here, the government's going to do all these make work projects under Obama.
The government's going to fix this, streamline that, streamline that, take care of this.
And yet, every bit of evidence that you look at when the government goes in to try to fix a mess, straighten something out, it becomes a joke.
Well, from Newsweek, more proof that when government does the work of churches and communities or tries to, it fails.
What you're about to hear is just sad, and it should not happen in this country.
Even before Hurricane Katrina, they were some of the country's neediest kids.
Now, the children of Katrina, as they're being dubbed, who stayed longest in ramshackle government trailer parks in Baton Rouge are, quote, the sickest I have ever seen in America, says Erwin Redleiner, president of the Children's Health Fund and a professor at Columbia University's Mailman School of Public Health.
According to a new report by the Children's Health Fund and Mailman, focusing on 261 displaced children, the well-being of the poorest Katrina kids has declined to an alarming level since the hurricane.
41% are anemic, twice the rate found in children in New York City homeless shelters, more than twice the Center for Disease Control's record rate for high-risk minorities.
More than half of the kids we're talking about here that lived in these ramshackle government trailers, provided by FEMA, have mental health problems.
And 42% have respiratory infections and disorders that may be linked to formaldehyde and crowding of the trailers.
Now, we have to allow for one thing.
We have to allow for the fact this is Newsweek.
This is the drive-by media.
This is the media that wants to continue to try to destroy any aspect of the Bush administration, including its legacy.
So we have to, they may be exaggerating some of this stuff.
They may be doing it in order to continue to harm Bush.
But what they don't realize is that this would happen regardless what administration was in charge of it.
The government is simply not equipped to do the work of churches and communities.
It's not equipped to do so.
I don't care who runs it.
And so what Newsweek has inadvertently done here is spell out how the Obama campaign plan is going to bomb out.
We're having more fun than a human being should be allowed to have, Rush Limboy.
And Thanksgiving Eve on the Excellence in Broadcasting Network.
If you're driving somewhere, the next two and a half hours are going to be the fastest you can possibly experience if you are tuning into the EIB network and El Rushboe 800-282-2882.
And again, we're doing Open Line Friday on Wednesday today, which means pretty much what you want to talk about is a fair game.
I want to go back to this answer that Obama gave.
Actually, let's see.
Four and five.
Actually, number one, I'm not going to play number one again.
We'll do that one later.
I want to stick to the substance here.
Obama was asked finally a tough question today at his press conference.
He did not like it.
He was intimidated to reporters.
That's not the topic.
Wait, wait, wait, wait, that's not the topic.
He was asking you about him appointment of all these Clinton people in the cabinet.
So here are two sound bites, just to repeat this, because there's some things I want to add in addition to my already salient and brilliant analysis up to this point.
When it comes to the people that we've pulled together, he's got to stop the stuttering, too, by this drive.
Nuts.
That, well, you know, there's a recycling of people who were in the Clinton administration.
Although Paul dates before that.
The last Democratic administration that we had was the Clinton administration.
So?
And so it would be surprising if I selected a Treasury Secretary who had had no connection with the last Democratic administration, because that would mean that the person had no experience in Washington whatsoever.
What?
And I suspect that you would be troubled and the American people would be troubled if I selected a Treasury Secretary or a chairman of the National Economic Council at one of the most critical economic times in our history who had no experience in government whatsoever.
That's what you said you were going to do, though.
That's the impression you left with all of these neophyte people that voted for you.
They were going to get rid of the usual human debris that populates the bureaucracy, going to bring in some fresh faces just like you, and that they're going to have all these brilliant new ideas.
And it is a recycling.
Here's the next bite.
What we are going to do is combine experience with fresh thinking.
I understand where the vision for change comes from first and foremost.
Where?
It comes from me.
That's my job, is to provide a vision in terms of where we are going and to make sure then that my team is implementing.
All right, cut it.
That's not what he's been saying the past two days.
He has been giving his team assignments to come back with solutions.
He today is saying that this team is going to listen to his vision and they're going to go out and implement his vision.
But the past two days have been saying he's been wanting to wait to see what they recommend.
What this all means.
Obama just made the case why Hillary Clinton should be president.
That is what this means, my good friends.
He is picking the Clinton team because they have experience and he doesn't.
He is admitting that his lack of experience can only be balanced by people who have experience.
He is obviously not going to choose Republicans.
So where else is he going to go?
He's got to go to Democrats who are most recently there.
That means he is re-impaneling, in large part, the Clinton economic team, the Clinton cabinet.
And he wants a cross-section of opinion.
Okay, here's the cross-section.
The cross-section of opinion that Obama has assembled ranges from liberal to very liberal.
The cross-section of opinion does not include very liberal, liberal, moderate, conservative.
It's a very narrow range of opinion, this cross-section.
And folks, I'm not trying to be, I told you so here.
You got to hammer it home when you have the opportunity to hammer it home.
It proves everything that we have been saying about Obama's zero experience, left-wing ideologue.
So he appoints people who will implement his left-wing ideology, which is, quote-unquote, his vision.
Now, as to this business, this is the second day in a row that he has said he's going to have this guy with the bad wig.
What's this guy's name, Ordzag?
Drudge has a picture of this guy, the OMB guy, Peter Ortzag.
I've heard the name.
I hadn't seen a picture of this guy in a long time.
Drudge has a picture of this guy up in a side view with the link headline is the Whigs, W-H-I-G-S.
But I mean, this is.
I know we're not supposed to comment on this, but sometimes, folks, just things just hit you so, I mean, you can't miss them.
This is one of the lousiest hairpieces I've ever seen.
Take a look at it.
Take a look at it.
There is no way anybody would style their hair this way.
If there is, we're in big trouble.
But that doesn't matter.
The point is, he said this guy is going to go through the budget page by page, line by line, and he's going to find all this waste.
And he's going to get rid of all this waste.
And he focused yesterday on all the waste in the farm bill.
Now, this has drawn some responses, even from advisors to Obama.
Late yesterday afternoon on DNC TV, the anchor Andrea Mitchell, NBC News, was interviewing former labor secretary Robert B. Rice.
And Andrea Mitchell said, I've been hearing about getting rid of waste in government going back probably 30 years since I've been covering this stuff.
Does it ever really happen?
Well, I've been hearing about it for, let's say, about 50 years, and it never really happens all that much, Andrea.
I can tell you in 1993, I was there sitting with Bill Clinton and Al Gore and his economic team.
And we did literally go through step by step, line by line, almost every budgetary item, and we got rid of a lot of stuff that shouldn't have been there.
But did it make a huge difference?
The answer is no.
What a crock!
What a crock.
Folks, there is no such thing as getting rid of anything in Washington.
We've been through this baseline budgeting.
A cut is nothing more than something that's not growing as fast as was originally forecast.
Have you ever seen the budget get smaller?
Have you seen the budget deficit what it's projected to be next year?
Try $1.3 trillion.
And yet here's Reich.
Oh, Bob Reich, I've been hearing about it for 50 years, and it never really happens that much.
And yet this is a guy that was part of a campaign team and kept talking about draconian cuts, the worst economy in the last 50 years.
He's part of the party.
Whenever a Republican president submits a budget, why too many cuts, draconian cuts, poor in the minority's heart has said, you can't take that much money away from this.
There are never any cuts.
And these guys went through the budget line by line and got rid of some things.
I'd like to know how they did that because there is no line item veto.
I mean, these guys are flapping their gums out there, making it sound like Obama's got a magic wand and he too can do it.
And then Rice throws cold water on the whole thing.
Yeah, we did it.
We got rid of a lot of stuff.
It shouldn't be, it didn't make any difference.
Didn't make any difference.
This was also discussed on the Fox News All-Stars last night on the Fox News channel, a special report with Britt Hume.
He was speaking with Fred Barnes, and Hume said, you know, in Washington, cut means something that doesn't grow.
And in Washington, anything that doesn't grow as fast as it was previously scheduled is called a cut.
Now, what do you make of all this line-by-line budget stuff they're going to do?
When I was hearing that from Barack Obama, I just rolled my eyes.
Remember zero-based budgeting with Jimmy Carter brought?
Remember the Grace Commission under Ronald Reagan?
And now this poor Peter guy is going to have to go through page by page, line by line.
It really is preposterous.
I mean, look, on the one hand, Edward, I think you pointed out Barack Obama is proposing one of the great spending binges of all time, and then we're going to attack the structural deficit.
I mean, come on.
No, I mean, it's silly.
It is silly.
Forget Obama's binge spending.
What the hell have we been doing the past six weeks with these bailouts?
I saw a number today that we're now up over $8 trillion.
It's hard to know what the number is in bailout money.
$8 trillion.
What Obama's going to spend is inconsequential to this, even though it's huge.
His spending, however, is going to be directly related to government growth.
Now, remember, the example that Obama used yesterday, ladies and gentlemen, was the farm bill and all these crop subsidies and people that make way too much money getting paid by the government not to do so.
The Wall Street Journal has an interesting editorial on this today.
They say Obama yesterday introduced his new budget director, Peter Ortzag, vowing to conduct a line-by-line review of the federal budget.
Most incoming chief execs promised this sort of thing, but here's a detail that really caught our eye as part of his plan to kill government programs that have outlived their usefulness.
The president-elect singled out farm subsidies for the rich.
Now, if he really means it, this would be big news.
Obama cited a recent government accountability office report that found that of the 1.8 million people receiving farm payments from 03 to 06, nearly 3,000 of the 1.8 million had incomes above 2.5 million, which ought to make them ineligible for aid.
Nevertheless, they cashed into the tune of some 49 million buckos.
Having written 40,000 or so editorials against this corporate welfare over the years, we'd love to see a Democrat join the fight against these subsidies.
However, there is the small matter of where Senator Obama was on this issue when we really needed him.
The 2008 farm bill, which set national policy for five years, was a perfect chance for real change thanks to surging crop prices, record farm income, and a president unconcerned about reelection.
President Bush actually sought a $200,000 annual income cap on subsidy payments, but Congress couldn't bring itself to vote on anything below $750,000.
And even that got killed by the likes of the Senate budget chairman Kent Conrad, who, as it happens, helped Ortzag get his current job running the Congressional Budget Office.
So the members ended up passing a $300 billion farm bill in which nearly every crop from corn to sugar won subsidy increases.
Bush vetoed it in May.
It was overridden.
The vote in the Senate was 82 to 13.
Obama missed the roll call, but he issued a campaign statement saying that the bill was far from perfect.
He would have preferred tighter payment limits.
However, he added this, quote, in his statement, with so much at stake, we cannot make the perfect the enemy of the good.
And then he went on to rake Bush and McCain, who opposed the bill, over the Kohl's for saying no to America's farmers and ranchers, no to energy independence, no to the environment, and no to millions of hungry people, unquote.
In other words, given the chance to support cuts in farm subsidies for the rich, Obama voted present and instead attacked Republican opponents for doing precisely what he did.
So his record suggests that times are too crucial now to be hard on the farmers, any of them.
Now he wants to portray himself as some giant budget cutter.
And it's all smoke and mirrors.
Because I'm telling you, folks, there aren't going to be any budget cuts in our country for the rest of the time you and I are alive.
The bailout has just seen to it.
What are you freaking out over there for, Snerdley?
You think I'm wrong about this?
How in the world can we get budget cuts, Snerdley, when we're now spending over $8 trillion on a bailout?
Where are we going to get the budget cuts?
I'm telling you that the federal budget is not going to get smaller.
Once it's a safe bet, when has it for the rest of our lifetimes?
He may find a couple things in there, you know, subsidies to something that benefits Republicans, the private sector, he'll try to get out, but he's going to be replaced with something else.
There aren't going to be any budget cuts.
I mean, show me where the impetus for it is even now.
I'll listen to you.
I don't want to be...
Now, that's stupid.
I'm sorry.
I just saw something on television.
It's a dumb move.
So much even happening on Thanksgiving Eve, but I, ladies and gentlemen, will not be distracted.
My last comment that the budget's not going to get cut for as long as the rest of us live.
My friends, I'm not saying there's not stuff in there to cut.
There's so much to cut out of there.
You could probably cut billions, if not hundreds of billions, out of this budget.
But I'm not saying that there's not fat and waste, all this stuff in there.
I'm just telling you that where's the impetus to do it?
Obama, look what he's doing.
We've been here before.
This is the Clinton administration redone.
Except we got a guy who's now admitting he has no executive experience.
He's got to go out and get executives.
He is admitting that Sarah Palin is more qualified to be president than he is.
Anyway, this is a side issue.
What he's doing is he's promising this $700 billion in new spending and then saying he's going to cut spending at the same time.
This to give the impression that this massive new spending is going to be offset by his cuts, and they're not going to be cuts.
It ain't going to happen.
The Democrats have controlled Congress for two years, including Obama as one of its Democrat members.
What have they even attempted to cut from anywhere in the federal budget of any consequence?
These are essentially Democrat budgets that Bush signed.
I'm not trying to depress anybody here.
It's a little temporary dose of reality.
And by the time you but rush, but rush, if the Republicans would run on cutting the budget, yeah, yeah, but except this time they'd have to do it because they ran on it a bunch of times and then they got saddled with a big spending president and they couldn't.
It can be done.
I'm just saying the atmospherics and the opportunity for it will probably present themselves sooner than I think, by the way, because this is untenable what we're doing here.
Just from a standpoint of common sense finance, this is untenable.
Okay, I want to grab a quick phone call.
This is Roy in Summerfield, North Carolina.
Hi, Roy.
Great to have you on the EIB network.
Rush, Mega Grazi for taking a call from an Obama supporter.
Thank you, sir.
Wow.
And mega condolences on the last few months.
I couldn't get Hillary on the head of the ticket, Democratic ticket.
Couldn't get her on the tail.
And then Obama got elected, and looks like we might have 60 Democratic senators coming up here.
Yeah, but, you know, I tell you what, we got the Clinton cabinet.
And if it hadn't been for me supporting Mrs. Clinton, I don't know that we would have this many Clinton people around.
So, you know, but I don't look at these things as personal failures.
You don't need to offer me condolences.
I'm sitting here hat in half, you know, happy and as a clam here, waiting for the future.
Yeah, I think they're really going to do something good here.
He's shown a willingness to – he's got a certain humility.
I think Biden does too.
You know, I would love to be you for a day just to find out what it's like.
I just would.
What do you mean by that?
To live a lie.
To live a lie, to believe the lie, to be so ignorant and be in so bliss, to be so happy about an utter disaster that is about to swallow you and everybody in your neighborhood.
Obama and humility.
That's what did it.
The two do not go together.
But I want to talk, if there are more of you Obama voters out there and you want to call and gloat or whatever, give us a call.
▲
Export Selection