All Episodes
Previous Next
March 24, 2009 - Rush Limbaugh Program
36:27
March 24, 2009, Tuesday, Hour #1
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Welcome to today's edition of the Rush 24 7 Podcast.
Looks like I was right, ladies and gentlemen, and it looks like it's a little soon to say definitively, but it looks like some high powered opinion leaders on the left are starting to come around now.
There's something's just not quite right with this Obama guy, and what he's trying to do here.
Great to be back.
Great to be with you, Rush Limbaugh behind the golden EIB microphone here at the distinguished and prestigious Limbaugh Institute for Advanced Conservative Studies.
As I told you all along, folks, what has apparently been the plan here, drive down the economy, sit, not just sit by and let the economy sink, but drive it down.
Drive it down, create all kinds of class envy, these protests over the weekend at the homes of AIG executives in Connecticut, sponsored by Acorn, subgroups of Acorn.
Obama could have shut that down.
He could have told these guys we don't, this is going a little bit too far, 90% retroactive tax rate and so forth.
So they've been driving down the economy so that they'd have the excuse to go in and seize control of troubled companies.
Now companies are up uh possibly um being seized or could be seized, even companies who are not taking TARP money.
I saw this headline on Saturday night Sunday when I was doing on working on show prep for today.
The Obama administration will call for increased oversight of executive pay at all banks, at Wall Street firms, and possibly other companies as part of a sweeping plan to overhaul financial regulation, government officials said.
Now remember that the and by the way, welcome, it's Rush Limbaugh, and this is the EIB network.
Here's the phone number.
Uh if you want to be on the program, we get the phones.
It's 800-282-2882.
What this is all about is returning the nation's wealth to its quote rightful owners, unquote.
The poor and the middle class.
This is a bunch of people that believe a bunch of things.
One of the things they believe is that the uh the nation's achievers and so-called wealthy have acquired their wealth by stealing it or not allowing others to have it, and this has created the middle class and the uh and the poor.
And so we've got to go get that money back, and what that's what we're in the process of doing.
Remember Obama told some people in a California town meeting not to be investment bankers.
The same thing his wife did during the campaign in Zanesville, Ohio.
Uh I'd say this is one angry guy.
He's a bad guy, he's one angry guy, his wife is angry as well.
Everybody around him is in full rage, uh, although they're probably happy now to see and sit around uh what is uh what's happening.
Now, on Sunday, it was it was interesting.
The New York Times had four moderate hit pieces on Obama, the lead editorial, Frank Rich, uh Thomas Friedman, and Maureen Dowd.
And then yesterday, Paul Krugman with another hit piece in the New York Times on Obama objecting to this toxic asset plan that Geitner's up announcing today in hearings before Barney Frank's committee.
She had four people in the New York Times raising red flags.
Now, most of what they were raising flags about was Obama's substance.
The the poor performance on Leno, the laughing on 60 Minutes, the uh, you know, just uh just he did he's he's not the guy.
He's not the smooth, suave guy they thought that he was.
There was some disconcertion, uh disconcertedness with uh with some of the policies.
But where we are right now, see the left believes in the ideas.
This is the conundrum for the left or the dilemma.
The left believes in what Obama wants to do.
They believe in seizing as much of the private sector as possible and taking it over.
They believe in punishing achievement.
They believe in all of this.
But they're concerned about Obama's style now.
Most of these pieces in the New York Times on Saturday were devoted to Obama's style not being as smooth And suave and cool and calm as he was during the campaign.
What you have to understand about leftists, they can never and they will never admit that their ideas are bad.
They will never admit that their policies are bad.
They never admitted that what was going on in the Soviet Union was bad.
They came up with other excuses.
Well, they had the wrong leaders.
Who was going to follow Yuri Andropov?
They loved Gorbachev because he was relatively young and stylish, and they thought that Gorbachev could finally bring it off.
They're not going to rip Obama's plans.
So that's why they're starting to rip Obama a little bit.
They can't, and it's a mild rip.
Now don't misunderstand.
It's a mild ripping, but at least it's a ripping end.
It's happening within two months, 60 days of the one's inauguration.
So they can't rip the plans.
They can't, well, Krugman is.
Krugman is is just distraught over this toxic asset deal.
And I have to tell you, Krugman may be more right than wrong about it's it's well, I'll I'll this is a tough thing to explain and understand, which is one of the reasons why it's being done.
But Krugman's complaint is the toxic asset plan, which you know caused the market to go up nearly 500 points yesterday.
It's down somewhat what is it uh coming up here in just a second, down 83 today.
Uh they gave the plan all this credit yesterday.
Actually, it's housing starts surprisingly higher than what the experts said.
Speaking of that, every month, every month we get new economic figures, and every month everybody's shocked and surprised by them.
Whether they're up or down, they're surprised by them.
The experts.
Anyway, I mean it's it's a this is a tough thing to try to explain to people, which is uh, I think part of its allure to people in government.
It's complicated.
Uh the whole the whole concept of toxic assets is complicated.
How do you explain to people what a toxic asset is?
And after you've explained what it is, how many people still are going to understand it?
So, okay, we got to get the toxic assets off the books.
What the the the real crux of the plan here is that the Obama administration needs the private sector to bail it out of this.
That's why private sector investors are being given the chance to go in and buy these things up, try to set a price for them, and then they get to keep a majority of the profits.
The private investors that take the risk here will get to keep the majority of the profits.
If there are any losses, and nobody knows if this is going to work.
Nobody has the slightest clue.
We won't know until it gets underway.
We're not going to know for a year or two whether this has worked.
If it works, private sector's uh investors get the uh get the profits rather than the taxpayers.
If it doesn't work, and the reason they need the private sector is because they've so maligned the public sector, they've so maligned Wall Street and so forth, um, that they can't appear to be doing anything that favors them.
So they get a they're trying to get any any of you in in the uh private sector who want to invest in these things, these toxic assets, if there are losses, the government takes the heat.
The taxpayers will absorb every loss, so there's no downside, and this is what Krugman doesn't like.
There is no downside for the private investors who are going to take a risk buying up and then reselling these toxic assets.
There is no risk.
There is no risk.
The taxpayers absorb any losses, the private sector investors get uh get whatever profits there are, but then the private sector guys have to be worried, okay, if there's too much profit, am I gonna get a 90% tax break?
You they can't show too much profit here.
This administration's making it clear they don't like profit.
I'll tell you what, these private sector people who are going to start this plan had better get a prenup on this marriage from the Obama administration.
They'd better get a prenup because if they don't get a prenup, if they make too much money, they're gonna end up being demonized.
And what happened today on these hearings in Capitol Hill is gonna be totally ignored.
We're gonna forget it just like we forget the fact that everybody knew about the AIG bonuses.
This remains one of the biggest feints, F E I N T S, one of the biggest distractions, this whole AIG Bonus thing.
It is an outrage.
We don't have a Constitution anymore.
Do you realize they if if they can just singularly disregard the Constitution in this 90% retroactive tax on bonus payments, then what good's the Constitution anywhere?
They can just discard the Constitution anywhere they want.
Very, very serious stuff that is happening here, uh, folks.
And there are, you know, there's as many people that don't like the Geitner plan as do, in fact, there may be more people that don't.
Uh Washington posted a Geitner seeks broad power to seize firms.
So they get to make taxes high.
They get to make regulations impossible.
They get to make unions strong, and then when your company fails, the government can go in and seize it.
They are raising the chances, they're raising the odds against success with every passing day, as they talk about raising taxes, increasing regulations such as the EPA and carbon dioxide becoming a poison, uh, cap and trade, making the union stronger with with the with card checks.
So after they have made it doubly tough for anybody to run a profitable business, then they can go in and seize it when you can't make a profit when your business isn't doing it.
This is all part of a plan.
This is not a rescue.
This is a plan they are focused on the destruction of the private sector.
They this is an all-out assault on capitalism.
Uh the Obama administration going to ask Congress to give the Treasury Secretary unprecedented powers to initiate the seizure of non-bank financial companies, like large insurers, investment firms, hedge funds, whose collapse would damage the broader economy.
This from White House spokesman Robert Gibbs.
They're going to use it until they get control of as much of the private sector as they want.
They're going to use the line that any collapse would damage the broader economy.
That's why we had to bail out the banks back in November, October, November.
That's what we're going to they're going to use the line as long as it continues to work on people.
And if you if you're the government and people believe you, and you keep running around talking about, my God, there's going to be a collapse.
If we don't seize this hedge fund, the country is going to collapse.
Oh no, it's horrible.
We got to see okay, go ahead and see it and save us Pat Obama, because we don't want the economy to collapse.
They're going to keep using it as long as they can get away with it.
And you'd have to say they're getting away with it.
Do you see any opposition to it on Capitol Hill?
Here where the Republicans have just told Cheney, they just told Cheney shut up.
Republicans said on Capitol Hill.
Yeah, we're trying to reinvent ourselves and Cheney coming along.
We love Cheney, but he's not popular.
Everybody hates Cheney.
We just wish he would just shut up.
They're trying to reinvent themselves.
How so?
We have a glorious golden opportunity to poke all kinds of holes at what the Democrats are doing, and there's barely a whisper from Republicans in Washington.
The government right now, folks, at present only has the SAR authority to seize banks.
But Geithner is going to advance the argument that the government needs more tools in its arsenal in order to write the nation's economic ship.
Don't let a good crisis slip through your fingers.
And so it's going to continue to be portrayed as a horrible economy and getting worse.
The government needs even more power to save it.
I warn people, I predicted this.
This is the get-go, this of the aim from the get-go.
Create a crisis, create a collapse, create all these things, tell people it's good.
Chaos.
It's all about chaos.
The more chaos, the more people will seize or relinquish, I should say, their own freedom, and let the government do what the government says it has to do in order to save things.
At the end of the day, what people have lost is their freedom and their liberty.
Giving the Treasury Secretary authority, this is from the Washington Post today, the power to seize a broader range of companies would mark a significant shift from the existing model of financial regulation which relies on independent agencies that are shielded from the political process.
The Treasury Secretary, a member of the president's cabinet would exercise the new powers in consultation with the White House, the Federal Reserve, and other regulators, according to an internal administration document.
So they're going to get rid of the independent agencies that examine the health of various aspects of the economy.
They're going to turn that over to Geithner.
Geitner's going to get total control over determining whether something needs to be seized or not, whether it's uh it's it's working or not.
Uh, and uh it's just keeps on coming, folks.
There's there's nothing in the road to uh stop these people, nothing on the road to stop there, no boulders in the way.
And even if there were boulders, these people are in a jet.
They're flying over the land, they're not driving over it, and they're proceeding full speed ahead with Barney Frank running cover for the Democrats and all that they're doing as he chairs his committee up on uh on Capitol Hill.
Got to take a brief time out, sit back.
We'll be back and continue right after this.
We are back, Rush Limbaugh here at the Excellence in Broadcasting Network.
All right, let's let me try to explain the Geitner thing, and it's very difficult to do.
I am a layman when it comes to all this.
But I'm gonna try to set it up here in a general overview.
After six months of benign neglect, false starts, costly bad judgments.
The Obama Geitner Summers Pelosi administration has finally done what was obvious to all.
Let the market establish market prices for these so-called toxic assets.
And everybody's supposed to go yip, yep, yep, yep, yahoo.
Now, why did they wait?
What's the delay here?
Presumably the delay was to negotiate what percent of the costs would be picked up by private investors, and what percent would be picked up by the government, i.e., taxpayers, i.e.
us.
And I still don't know who these private investors are.
I have my suspicions, but I don't know that any citizen can get involved in this.
I don't know who these private investors are.
Uh private investors could well be Wall Street people for all we know.
Private equity and hedge funds, I mean, this the same players.
The same players, except in this case, they get all of the well, they have no risk.
They get all the upside potential.
There's no downside potential.
If if they buy the toxic assets and they don't make any money on it, they lose money.
They don't lose money.
We do.
The taxpayers, the government will is going to subsidize them, essentially, which is which is well, it's just a repeat of what gave us the problem in the first place.
So after after they worked out the uh the breakdown of money in, they had to negotiate the money out.
By money in, I mean money in to save the toxic assets.
So then they had to negotiate the money out.
That is the profits, if there are any, after people who buy these assets, uh, then make any money on them.
What percentage would go to the private investors and what percentage would go back to the government or back to us, back to the taxpayers.
Now, as a negotiating tactic, and I think this is key to understand.
As a negotiating tactic, the smartest president in history and his smartest administration in history did everything they could to assure that we're gonna get a worse deal and private investors get a better deal.
Here's what they did.
They bashed Wall Street and they still do.
They trashed the banks, and they still are.
They denigrated profits, and they still are.
Barney Frank is up there talking about legislation now that would tie income to performance when it comes to Wall Street executives and executives at other firms.
Federal law, federal legislation tying any income to performance.
Of course, you know who's exempted from all that happens to be unions, more on that in just a second.
So they're denigrating profits.
They ran television hearings to humiliate market participants.
They acted to void contracts retroactively.
They threatened a 90% retroactive tax on bonuses.
They demanded the names of private citizens at AIG.
They encouraged the protests at the homes of AIG executives over the weekend.
This is what the smartest president history has done.
And by the way, every time you Every time you read the word Geithner, we need to put the word Obama in there.
This is Obama's plan.
He's not sitting up there twiddling his thumbs.
Well, Geithner comes up with this.
Geitner's not an independent contractor.
This is Obama's plan.
So after all of this trashing of the private sector, private investors have every right to say that the risk of investing in these toxic assets is chump change compared to the risk of working with this Congress, this liberal Congress.
I'll be glad to invest in your toxic assets, but I'm not going to have myself dragged up there and be made a fool of and ruined after this is all over.
If this so-called partnership between government and investors is to be a marriage, whoever these private investors are had better get a very night tight prenup agreement on this.
Otherwise, they're going to be the next AIG execs.
Now here's my point on all of this.
Here we have, let's take a look at AIG.
And forget for a moment what you think of AIG.
AIG and insurance company gets bailout money, 170 billion dollars of bailout money.
We learned that of the 170 billion, they pay out 165 million in bonuses.
We also learned that everybody involved knew those bonuses were going to be paid, and that Geitner and the Federal Reserve and the Treasury Department knew of them, and they thought it was okay.
Everybody's hunky-dory with this.
Then we get to the conference legislation or the uh the legislation that uh would write the stimulus bill, and somehow it shows up in the stimulus bill.
Somebody, what do you mean we're bailing out AIG?
How the hell can this happen?
And so they take it out of there.
They take the bailout out of the stimulus.
When it gets to conference, somebody sees to it that the bailout on the uh and the and the exemption of any penalty on the bonuses is put back in the conference bill, the final stimulus bill, meaning somebody saw to it that those bonuses could be paid.
Now the question is, who?
Was it Geitner?
Was it Obama?
Was it Rahm Emanuel?
Was it Chris Dodd?
For the sake of this discussion, it doesn't matter who it was.
The bottom line is that we have now learned that on March 3rd, Geitner knew about the bonuses.
He knew about it long before that.
He was questioned about them by a Democrat congressman, the video tapes on C-SPAN.
Geitner says he didn't know about it until March 10th.
Last week, we had one of the most deceitful, shameful exhibits of Washington power in my lifetime, where everybody, every Democrat on a committee acting shocked and stunned that there were bonuses and exemptions for the bonuses to AIG's bailout, acted like they knew nothing about it.
They got to act like innocent bystanders.
All of this was for show.
All of this was a diversionary tactic.
All this was to get members of Congress off the hot seat and position themselves as populists, raving and ranting against uh all these big-time power brokers on Wall Street, which this administration, the Democrat Party has done everything they can to make people hate.
And so after that, what happens?
Here comes the CEO of AIG, and he's he's volunteering to do this for a dollar a year.
He had nothing to do with the bonuses, but he has to have himself dissected by members of Congress up there.
I'd have told him to go to hell.
But he has to sit up there and put up with all this.
And it was all phony.
It was all a joke.
It was, and then they come up with this 90% tax rate retroactive.
You got Andrew Cuomo demanding the names.
And then you got these same people sponsoring tours of protesters led by Acorn of AIG executive's homes.
So everybody knew the bonuses were going to be paid.
There was legislation to exempt the bonuses from any limitation in the final stimulus bill.
And yet last week happened.
So what I'm suggesting is that whoever these private investors are, they're going to now go in and save the banks by buying up all these toxic assets.
They had better get a prenup so that a year from now they're not brought up to face Barney Frank.
While Barney Frank and the government get to sit there innocently standing by acting, what the hell was this?
How did this happen?
The toxic asset plan.
We got to remember they're talking to Geitner today.
Geitner's explaining it to them in detail.
And if the private investors, if this thing happens to work and the private investors do make a profit, um, and it's too big a profit, believe me, the Obama administration is going to go after them and they're going to be up there again unless they get an agreement that they're not going to be treated this way.
So they've got to they got to get a deal.
If the venture makes a profit, no hearings or threats for government to get a bigger share of the profits.
If the venture loses money, no hearings or threats for investors to be responsible for the government share of the losses, no Barney Frank showboat hearings.
Every Congressperson has to take a blood oath.
No retroactive tax increases, no public humiliation, no protests outside their homes, none of that that the AIG people had to put up with.
That's whoever these private investors are, they better be demanding that today.
This administration did everything it could to assure a worse deal for taxpayers and a better deal for private investors who they loathe or they vilify, but they desperately need in order to bail out the banks.
They just don't have the political capital, I guess, uh to successfully go in and ask for another trillion dollars, even though they are.
I mean, this whole thing is smoke and mirrors.
This whole thing is just a it's it's just a joke.
Uh in fact, you know, even at the new republic today, John Judas uh says this, Geithner's plan could work if the bad loans and the seamy securities that the banks hold are actually worth something, say 60% rather than 30% of their original value.
If not, and there are plenty of skeptics who question that, then Geitner's plan will transfer more money from taxpayers to private investors and bankers without reviving the banks.
This will amplify the growing populist outcry against Geithner and Obama and make it more difficult to do what is necessary to revive the economy.
We're not going to know any of this, whether it's worked for a year or not.
And I think one of the tricks, the government has agreed in this toxic asset purchase plan, that they're going to loan the investors the money to buy the assets.
And they're going to guarantee they're going to finance 90% 93% of the loan.
So I don't know who these private investors are, but the government's going to give them the money to go buy these toxic assets in the form of a loan.
It does not have to be repaid.
That's the deal.
If there's a loss, they don't have to repay it.
And if they win big, they don't have to repay it.
So the government is funneling, it's it's it's done.
It's a show, folks.
It's made, it's made to look like the private sector is bailing out the banks when it's not.
Hell, I'll raise my hand and be a private investor for this.
They'll give me 93% of the money it takes to go in and buy some of these toxic assets.
I'll take that, especially when I can't lose.
So who are these private investors?
These private investors are the people that Obama and Geitner loathe.
It may as well be AIG.
It may as well be Lehman Brothers.
It may as well be any of these people that you hear the Obama administration ripping to shreds each and every day.
It's just another bailout.
The toxic asset relief program here is just another bailout.
Whoever the private investors are, and I'll guarantee you it's going to be a select group, and most of them donated to Democrats.
I'll guarantee you this, 93% of their investment will be in the form of a loan from the government that doesn't have to be repaid.
Now there's a reason also why this is happening.
The reason that the government is going to loan up to 93% of the purchase price of toxic assets on the part of the private investors is that what they're hoping is that the investors will overpay for these bad assets.
You got a bad asset, you got a worthless piece of paper.
It's toxic.
And it's dragging your bank's asset value down.
You want to unload them.
That's what the original TARP was about in November, by the way.
Still haven't gotten there, have we?
You want to unload those assets.
Can't find a way to do it.
Got the Geithner plan.
Government says, you private investors out there, we're going to loan you some money to go out and buy these assets.
It doesn't work if these assets are purchased at 30% or 20% of their original stated value.
These are mortgages in all cases.
But if these private investors can be encouraged to pay over 50 cents on the dollar for these things, then the government Can say, whoa, this is work.
This is fabulous.
So how do you get investors to overpay?
You loan them all the money.
You bail them out, you are loaning the private investors money.
This is think of it this way.
AIG's financial products division is going to be given a bunch of money by the government.
It's going to be called a loan.
And with the money the government lends to AIG, they are then going to be able to buy up their own toxic assets at they hope 60 cents on the dollar.
And the AIG is going to be able to show a huge profit on the transaction, and lo and behold, everything's wonderful.
Except what's happened.
What's happened is that these toxic assets have been given a false value because the government's involved, not the market.
The government is hoping that by investing or lending most of the money to buy these things, that uh with no downside, you don't ever have to pay it back.
The upside is that these investors are going out and spend far more for these assets than they're worth, thereby getting rid of them.
It's just a bail out.
And the bailout is going to the same people who are being vilified left and right.
So maybe the price for this is the vilification.
So that's where we're at.
This is this is why a lot of people uh do not like this.
The reason Krugman doesn't like it at the New York Times is because the private investors are the same people who are in financial trouble now.
This the people who hold the toxic assets, in essence.
Look, folks, I know this is convoluted, and I know that it it sounds complicated, but it's very simple.
It's just another bailout in the guise of a loan.
The government lending money to people who will never have to pay it back.
Private investors, Wall Street hedge funds, whatever.
The hope is that by loaning so much money, quote unquote loaning so much money, that the investors will overpay on the value of these securities.
And thereby making them worth something.
And even if they take a loss, the government absorbs it, you and I, and the toxic assets get to be taken off the books.
The government will have claimed the private sector did this when in fact it's just another bailout.
And the key is the people being bailed out here, the people who are giving an opportunity to make all this money, are the very people Obama has spent all of his time since being elected vilifying.
I gotta run.
A quick timeout will take it.
Be back and continue after this.
Don't go away.
The drive by media, by the way, ladies and gentlemen, still in the business of covering up for Barack Obama last night on CNN the Situation Room.
Remember when Obama had the Irish Prime Minister to the White House on St. Patrick's Day, a big party up there, and the Irish Prime Minister went up to make a speech, and the um uh the wrong speech was in the prompter.
The Irish Prime Minister goes and makes his speech, then Obama gets up to thank the Irish Prime Minister, and the same speech is still in there.
The Irish Prime Minister's speech, or Obama's speech is in for the Irish Prime Minister.
So Obama goes up after 20 seconds, the Irish Prime Minister reading Obama's just delivered speech.
Obama goes up there and uh and thanks himself, reads the prompter, prompter told him to thank himself for throwing this big party.
Then the uh the teleprompter changed, he got it right for the Irish Prime Minister to go back in.
And everybody said, Why is there no video of this?
The drive-by's have to be shielding this.
CNN discussed it last night, uh, Jeannie Moss and her feature unusual report.
You will also hear from me in this little excerpt.
The blog started after a mix-up with the Irish Prime Minister's speech at the White House.
Too bad it wasn't on camera.
The wrong speech got inserted in the prompter.
The Irish Prime Minister started reading President Obama's speech.
He quickly realizes amid much laughter that something's amiss.
Then when President Obama comes back to the podium, he jokingly says, as if he's reading the wrong speech.
First, I'd like to say thank you to President Obama.
He ended up thanking himself.
That's Rush Limbaugh rushing in.
This is hilarious.
They called it a gaffe, a blunder, but the pool reporter who was there said it was a joke.
Yeah, see, Obama had the presence of mind to run to the teleprompter and thank himself, knowing full way he's just trying to bail the Irish prime minister out of an embarrassing moment by thanking himself.
Well, if that's the case, show us the tape.
If it's just a joke, if it was I mean, this could really help Obama.
To show that he can add lib off the prompter.
Isn't that one of the big complaints that people have about him?
So, Jeannie, go get the tape and show it to us that this is such a brilliant effort by Obama to tell a joke, which he can't do, by the way.
Obama is not a person with a sense of humor.
No serious, angry leftist ever has a sense of humor.
Obama does not have one.
He's got an engaging smile.
But when he tries to crack jokes, we know what happened.
He is not funny.
He is not a funny guy.
What?
What?
Well, we got yucks at the handicap.
That's that's what I mean.
He's not a funny guy.
He does not know how to tell a joke.
This whole notion this was a joke.
Obama going up there to bail out.
Show us the tape, Jeannie.
Or get this pool porter pool reporter.
Show us the tape.
It's just a joke.
It's just a joke.
So we'll continue to cover for him.
All right, let's grab some phone calls here as we get started.
This uh in Warren, New Jersey.
Manly high, nice to have you on the EIB network.
Hello.
Hello, Rush.
How are you?
Fine.
Thanks much.
All right.
Uh, my name's Manly Rash.
I have a conservative blog called Manly's Republic.
Today I wrote about a couple of articles that I saw.
One by uh Jonathan Martin, the politico.
The other appeared in the Boston Herald.
The political article.
Uh Martin was talking about the bloom, basically being off the road with the drive-by, and it looks like the White House now is looking to sail over their head and basically go to what I call the moonbat media.
And that's the far left, uh, Huff Poe, the bloggers, the left.
Okay, what's what's what's the point here, Manley?
What are we going to have limited time?
The next one is the Zogby article showing his ratings dropping now.
Zogby came out with a poll that showed it his disapproval is at 50-50 right now.
And I'm wondering, I want to get your take here.
Is there a connect here?
Is there a convergence?
Is one the result of the other?
Well, the uh the political story you're talking about is all about Obama going over the media's heads, right?
He's going, he's going straight to people, and they sort of they sort of marvel at it, and then they're a little upset about it at the same time, right?
Of course.
The Zogby poll, uh, which was indeed published at uh at the Boston Herald, uh Zogby has his poll out today will show uh that uh the uh uh Americans are 50-50 on uh on Obama.
Uh some polls show him coasting with a 65% job approval, but Zogby says these numbers are going down.
It's not because of the gaffes, but a combination of high expectations and that things aren't moving fast enough with the economy.
We've also got Rasmussen who is polling approval numbers and disapproval numbers, giving us the uh the approval index, and it's tightening the uh the strongly approved versus the strongly disapprove is now at a plus four.
He started at a plus nineteen or plus sixteen.
Uh there I who knows what to believe here when you got these polls all over the place.
We want to believe people are wising up.
We want to believe people are wising up.
Zagby, I don't know how he knows this.
I guess he's extracting this from his polling data.
Remember the numbers are going down, he says, but not because of his gaffs, but a combination of high expectations, and the things aren't moving fast enough with the economy.
Well, that would have to mean that either moderates, gosh, I hate that.
Just the word that just bugs me all to hell, independents, Democrats are upset their gas tanks aren't full, or they don't have a new house or whatever.
If things aren't happening fast enough, if if if Zogby is uh is right about this.
It can't, of course, be uh the gaffs.
However, I want to point something out.
Big time poll, respected poll, don't remember what it is now, but the poll that shows the generic congressional battle tied at 4242.
Guess what that comes after?
That comes after demonizing me.
That comes after all of the stuff they did for two weeks about me trying to make me the most hated, the leader of the Republican, and in the process of demonizing me and trying to make me the most hated Republican and the leader.
The Republicans have pulled even with Democrats in the generic congressional ballot.
This doesn't bode well for the Democrats as of now.
Quick time out, back with much more in a jiffy.
First hour is in the can, on the way over to the uh warehouse, housing artifacts for the soon to be gigantic limb Broadcast Museum.
Great to be back with you, folks, and we'll continue in our next big hour right after this.
▲
Export Selection