All Episodes
Previous Next
May 11, 2009 - Rush Limbaugh Program
37:21
May 11, 2009, Monday, Hour #2
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
On this day, we come to proclaim an end to the petty grievances and false promises, the recriminations and worn-out dogmas that for far too long have strangled our politics.
In the words of Scripture, the time has come to set aside childish things.
President Barack Obama mere months ago at his immaculation address upon assuming office.
Great to have you back, folks, and great to be back.
It's Rush Limbaugh, the EIB network.
I, of course, a highly trained broadcast specialist executing assigned host duties flawlessly.
Zero mistakes.
So far, and there won't be today.
Telephone number 800-282-2882, the email address LRushbo at EIBnet.com.
In one hour, a little bit less than one hour, the space shuttle Atlantis will launch.
There is another space shuttle on the launch pad down the road from Atlantis.
That is the shuttle Endeavour.
In the 28 or so years of the space program, what is being planned for this mission has never been planned for nor happened before.
I was reading about this over the weekend.
The news on the Atlantis mission is really scary, perilous.
It's about the Hubble telescope.
Now, I think we've had a couple shuttle missions to the Hubble to make repairs on it before.
But apparently, we got to get up there and do major work on the Hubble telescope, the kind of work not designed to be done in orbit, because the shuttle's last flight is 2010, and whatever replacements on the drawing board will not be ready till 2015.
And if these repairs are not made to Hubble, Hubble goes dark.
It'll melt.
And so we're sending this space shuttle Atlantis up to where the Hubble is.
Now, normally the space shuttle, its missions these days are to the International Space Station, which is around 125 to 150 miles high in orbit above the Earth.
But the Hubble is up there with all the satellites and stuff.
And apparently there is space junk galore up there.
350 mile altitude is where the shuttle has to go.
There is real concern that the shuttle could be hit by space debris.
The shuttle doesn't have much power up there.
It's got some maneuvering jets, but it doesn't have any real propulsion.
All it can do is slow itself down and return to orbit.
Five spacewalks are planned over the 11-day mission.
Each of the spacesuits worn by the astronauts doing the spacewalks cost $10 million.
They are going to be removing printed circuit boards and other elements from deep inside the guts of the Hubble that are razor sharp that could slit open these $10 million suits and the astronauts perish.
If space debris happens to knock out the space shuttle Atlantis, if it's hit and rendered useless, incapacitated, they're going to send Endeavour up to rescue the crew.
That's why it's on the pad.
We've seen this in movies, send a shuttle up to rescue, but we've never done this in real life.
Now, they've trained for this mission for a long time.
They've gone through all kinds of training as they do all of these space missions.
But this is still very painful.
In fact, this mission is so perilous that when it was first proposed, it was refused.
It was rejected.
We're not doing this.
I mean, We're not going to potentially lose five or seven lives here to fix a telescope.
We're just not going to do it.
Somebody came up with the idea of a rescue shuttle on the pad, ready to go.
I mean, getting the shuttle ready to launch is a little more involved in Air Force One, and that's not just a phone call.
But they're going to have the crew of the Endeavor standing by and the Endeavor fueled on the pad so that at its next available window, it can get up there and perform the rescue mission.
Now, the only question that I had that wasn't answered in all of the stories I read about this: if the Atlantis runs the risk of being hit by space debris and incapacitated, what's to prevent the same thing happening to the rescue shuttle, which has got to go to where Atlantis is to rescue the crew?
Now, maybe the Atlantis can maneuver in lower altitude so that they don't have to go up.
The story didn't say, maybe the story didn't say if it's incapacitated, maybe that means it simply can't get back.
Some of the tiles, the heat shield tiles are damaged, flight control surfaces, whatever that you need in Earth's atmosphere.
Maybe if they're talking about that, maybe the shuttle can descend 100 miles or so or 50 just to get out of that altitude where all the space junk is.
And then the rescue could effectively be made.
But the story didn't say that.
So I'm left to question how can the rescue shuttle get up there without running the same risks as the Atlantis.
And common sense tells me that the Atlantis would somehow be able to maneuver out of that altitude and that orbit.
But this is fascinating.
It goes up about 2.01.
That's the exact time it goes up.
And all systems are go 201 Eastern Time this afternoon.
A 49-year-old former Navy PICE ACE pilot is, I think this guy, if I read right, he did some of the stunt flying in the movie Top Gun.
And I'm having a mental block on his name, but he's the commander.
He's piloting the shuttle.
And he said in this story, I'm not going to breathe easy until our wheels stop rolling when we get back to the Kennedy Space Center.
Now, admittedly, there may be some hype in some of this, but the shuttle program's over.
I mean, the shuttle program, its last flight is 2010.
The space budget, you know, it is what it is.
But I have to believe if they're putting a second shuttle out there and ready to launch a rescue mission that this is pretty perilous.
And look, it's not just the space junk that's perilous.
It's the repairs.
Five spacewalks, hours upon hours of replacing parts that were never meant to be dealt with in orbit.
They're traveling.
This shuttle is going to be at 17,500 miles an hour in geosynchronous orb with the Hubble.
It's at 25,000 miles an hour that you orbit at 17,500 miles an hour that you're in geosynchronous, which means you're always over the same spot on the Earth.
And they've got to go out and they've got to use this robot arm in the shuttle cargo bay to grasp hold of this thing.
And they're both moving at the same speed and they're both weightless, but 17,500 miles an hour is still 17,500 miles an hour.
And you've got to duplicate that speed.
You've got to maneuver and you've got to latch on to the Hubble and then all these spacewalks.
This is just amazing.
It's going to be an amazing feat if this gets done.
A genuine tribute to American exceptionalism and to the American can-do spirit.
And the Hubble has been plagued ever since it went up there.
The first repair mission for the Hubble stupid lenses were not right.
They were ground or installed improperly, and the thing was out of focus.
And there wasn't an autofocus on it, so they had to send a shuttle crew up there to fix that.
They've had to fix other things on it, but never anything this extensive deep inside the guts of it that makes it work.
And it has sent back something like 600,000 pictures since the time it has been orbiting and functioning as a deep space telescope.
So we'll be watching this with extreme interest to see how this plays out, because again, it's a first, a series of firsts that have never happened in the U.S. manned spaceflight program.
A quick timeout.
We'll be back and continue after this.
Stay with us.
And we are back.
Howard Dean says America has had enough capitalism.
We have an audio soundbite.
We do have an audio soundbite.
Let me find it.
Hang on.
Howard Dean, Howard Dean, Howard Dean.
Audio soundbite 19, I think we've got, let me see, yes.
This is Howard Dean.
It was last Thursday on CNBC's Power Lunch.
And he said, well, it was only Jason Lewis, who said, I think the vast majority of Americans are tired of substituting bailouts for bankruptcy.
They understand that politicians invest for a political return, not an economic return.
That's the difference between politicians and capitalists, and we need to get a little bit more capitalism back in the economy.
I think we had quite enough capitalism in the last eight years.
I think we need some regulation now.
You know, it is becoming more and more apparent to me, and I guess I was a little blind not to have seen this all during these past eight years.
I know there was Bush hatred.
And I know that there was a desire expressed by Democrats and the left for us to lose in Iraq.
And it was more than a desire.
Harry Reid actually out there saying America had lost.
And I know that there were attempts made to convince the American people that the U.S. economy was in recession all of those eight years.
But it wasn't in recession.
The economy was gangbusters.
We were adding new jobs left and right coming out of the mild recession of 2000 and then the attacks at 9-11.
The economy was booming under George W. Bush.
It was only in the last year that some of these things, the bank bailouts and all that, became obvious.
Now, Bush was a little, you know, got crazy in government spending and so forth, but the economy, the country was not a disaster.
But for all of those eight years, the Democrats just harped on how rotten this country was.
And I guess I, for one, thought that most Americans did not want to think of their country that way, that they did not really think it was that bad shape.
I know that Bush was not popular, and I know that he was despised.
I know how the Democrats did that.
And they were helped by the fact that Bush wouldn't defend himself against any of these things.
But I have to tell you that I am shocked and surprised that as a byproduct of those eight years of constant nipping Bush's heels, that the end result would be that the American way of life was over, that American capitalism, that individual liberty, that American exceptionalism, that the principles of our founding also had been decided to have been failures.
And so here's Howard Dean saying, well, we've had enough capitalism in the last eight years.
We need some regulation now.
We've had capitalism our whole life.
There have been some temporary interruptions, New Deal and so forth, but we came out of New Deal, World War II, and we became a capitalist boom nation.
It's just mind-boggling now to hear that we've had enough capitalism.
So there is a genuine dislike for this country and a genuine preference for it to be transformed into something else.
Certainly by a lot of Democrats.
I don't know how many of the American people are really caught up into all this in terms of meaning, if they even understand what's going on right before their very eyes.
My hope is that not nearly as many understand it and support it as appears to be the case.
And the Rasmussen has a story out today on a poll they did on cap and trade.
The gap between Capitol Hill and Main Street is huge when it comes to the so-called cap and trade legislation being considered in Congress.
So wide is the gap that few voters even know what the proposed cap and trade legislation is.
And they were given multiple choice options when asked what they thought cap and trade is.
They had three options.
24% of voters correctly identified cap and trade as something that deals with environmental issues.
29% believe that cap and trade has something to do with regulating Wall Street.
And 17% think the term applies to healthcare.
30% of the people in the Rasmussen survey had no idea what cap and trade is.
Only 24% knew, 30% didn't know.
Another 39 to 29% thought it was something to do with Wall Street.
17% thought it applied to health care.
Democrats are pushing cap and trade.
Democrats around the country are a bit less likely than Republicans and voters not affiliated with either party to know that the concept has something to do with the environment.
And this helps explain why some Democrat pollsters have advised the president to back away from the term cap and trade to describe what he wants to accomplish because people don't know what it is.
Now, I would think that would be to Obama's benefit.
If they don't know what it is, if they think it has something to do with Wall Street or health care, they'll support it.
If it's his, there is always political danger when major legislation is enacted without engaging the public in debate.
How much legislation is even read by people who vote on it anymore?
Much less involving the American people in debate.
While the public view is clear, for example, the direction most Americans would like to go, 69% say healthcare issues are more important.
15% say global warming is a higher priority.
While the public view is clear, opinion among the political class is more evenly divided.
45% say health care is more important, while 38% name global warming.
7% of Americans belong to the political class.
Another 7% lean in that direction.
The bottom line is they do not know what cap and trade is, which I guarantee you is to Obama's benefit.
I would venture to say that the vast majority of Obama voters have no idea what he really stands for, what he's really doing, and the damage that he is causing them.
And it may be that they will never admit it even when they are forced to.
Who wants to admit that big a mistake?
This poll does not surprise me.
This is a Reuters story.
President Obama's popularity in leading Arab countries far outstrips that of the popularity of the United States.
And the way Reuters reports this is to say that that means Obama could be able to boost goodwill in the region toward his country.
Obama said to give a major speech to the Muslim world in Egypt next month, currently enjoys widespread optimism among citizens of that region that he will have a positive effect on their own country, the Middle East, the U.S., and indeed the world.
Ipsos did the poll.
7,000 people in March in Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates, which is Dubai, Kuwait, Lebanon, Egypt, and Jordan.
Of those surveyed, 33% had a favorable view of the United States, 43% negative, 14% neutral, 10% said they didn't know.
Whereas 33% had a favorable view of the United States, 48% of these people had a favorable view of Obama.
Does that surprise anybody?
Obama would have a higher approval number than the country he is elected to represent.
One of the things that must be said about this is that Arabs love dictators.
They do.
You will not find when you show me a representative republic in the Arab world.
Would you show me a free willing democracy in the Arab world?
They like dictators.
Iraq doesn't count anymore.
We've liberated Iraq.
They like, okay, Iran, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, United Arab Emirates, Egypt, United Arab Emirates is Dubai.
But not the oil cartel guys, Omar Abdel Maktoum, whatever his name is, the royal families run these countries, and the Moas, the religious freaks, run it in Iran.
They love dictators.
They look at Egypt.
Well, yeah, I guess you could say Hosni Mubarak's elected and so forth, but it's still, I mean, there's no such thing as freedom of speech in these places.
In fact, I've got a story here in the bottom of the stack.
The feminises ought to be interested in this.
Saudi Arabia has just said it is okay for a man to slap his wife if she spends too much shopping.
I'm not kidding.
I put it near the back of the stack because I didn't think I would get that deep to it today, but let me find this.
And Dawn doesn't believe this.
See, you say stuff like this and it's true.
Oh, that is not true.
That can't possibly be true.
But I'm going to find it here.
No, we're not going to start looking at foreign law.
Let's see.
New York Times, I got that story.
Well, I'll find it.
I'm going to find it during the break.
But it's now permissible to slap your wife for shopping too much.
Saudi judge says it's okay to slap wives.
Husbands are allowed to slap their wives if they spend lavishly.
A Saudi judge said recently during a now, if you're a man in Saudi Arabia and a judge, you got to like that judge, right?
Says you can slap your wife for spending lavish.
You like dictators.
And that's why Obama has a high approval rating.
We'll be back after this.
Welcome back, El Rush Bull Behind the Golden EIB microphone, half my brain tied behind my back, just to make it fair to Ogdensburg, New York.
Susan, thank you for waving.
I appreciate your patience and hello.
Hello there, Rush.
I'm so glad to talk to you.
Thank you.
I want to go back to Dick Cheney being out there in the public.
Sure, go right ahead.
Just his love of country.
I love my country too, but I love my family.
I have children in large cities.
I expect this country to keep us secure.
And I do not understand.
Don't the media have family members?
Doesn't Congress have family members?
Sometimes that's how I approach it when I call their own.
You are going about this the wrong way.
Okay.
You are asking rational questions about irrational people.
You don't, it's hard for somebody rational like you to understand the quest and desire for power at all costs, all costs, whatever it takes to acquire it and hold it.
Also, the liberal mind is an irrational mind.
The liberal mind, they don't think that we are being placed at greater risk by releasing terrorists into the general population.
They think the rest of the world hates us as they hate us and that we must apologize that there's nothing special about America.
There's nothing exceptional about America.
We're no different than any other country, but we act as the big guy on the planet with our big military and our big police force, and we run around and we conquer countries, they think, and we make people mad.
They think terrorists hate us because of our support for Israel, because we have raped the world of natural resources.
They think everybody is like them.
And when they have disagreements with their own country, then other people do, they're kindred spirits.
So they think that by showing the world that there's a new America with an America that doesn't threaten them, an America that has no intention of harming them, that all these people are going to love us.
Now, that's irrational.
It's irrational when you're dealing with criminals in your neighborhood.
It's irrational.
But they have been able to insulate themselves from some of this harm.
And so you're asking the same question when you say, do they like paying higher taxes?
Yes, right.
Well, they don't pay taxes.
We've learned that now.
Well, I think I have to say about Dick Cheney and George Bush, they treated Americans as individuals.
And I saw that when they would meet the veterans and meet those, the families, individual families that came back and had funeral services for their loved ones.
It was so touching to see them reach out individually with compassion.
That, to me, is a mark of a great administration.
Well, they're decent people.
They might have done some things policy-wise that befuddled people and did some damage to the identity of the Republican Party with excessive spending and so forth.
But they're decent people.
And they're rational people.
I mean, look at me.
I mean, in 12 weeks, on Tuesday before Obama is inaugurated, I'm invited to the White House for a birthday lunch by the president.
And I'm toasted.
12 weeks later, I am public enemy, number one, in 12 weeks in the same country.
So you have to, you know, you understand where these people are coming from.
And they think the biggest threat to them exists in this country, not outside this country.
And if you don't understand that about them, nothing else that they do will make sense to you.
By the way, here's Cheney.
One more soundbite from Bob Schieffer yesterday.
Bob Schieffer said, President Obama said that Guantanamo is going to be closed within a year.
It proved to be a little more complicated than perhaps some of the administration thought it was going to be.
Now you've got Congress in a real uproar about if these people are brought to prisons in this country.
We've had resolutions introduced up there on the hill that unless the state legislature gives the go-ahead, you can't put them into prison anyplace in a particular state.
But can we ask other countries to take these people back, Mr. Vice President, if we're not willing to release them in our own country?
These are the worst of the worst.
This is the hardcore.
You'd have a recidivism rate out of this group of maybe 50 or 60 percent.
They want to get out because they want to kill more Americans.
And you're just going to find it very difficult to send them any place.
There's been some talk on the part of the administration about putting them in the United States.
I think that's going to be a tough sell.
I don't know a single congressional district in this country that's going to want to say, gee great, they're sending us 20 al-Qaeda terrorists.
It's a graphic demonstration of why Guantanamo is important.
We had to have a place, a facility where we could capture these people and hold them until they were no longer a danger to the United States.
If you bring them to the United States, they acquire all kinds of legal rights.
And as Khalid Sheikh Mohamed said when we captured him, he said, I'll talk to you guys after I get to New York and see my lawyer.
That's the kind of problem you're going to have with these terrorists.
Right.
So, trying to understand the liberal mindset on this.
This is pure irrationality to release terrorist prisoners of Guantanamo Bay into the United States.
And Eric Holder went to Germany last week or two weeks ago, week before last, trying to convince other countries to take some of the prisoners.
And there's no way, Jose.
All these countries are out there condemning us for having Club Gitmo and condemning us for whatever's going on there.
But when we say, okay, fine, well, help us out.
We're going to close it down.
We're going to do what you want.
We're going to get rid of this bad vibe the U.S. is putting out by having this prison open.
They won't.
They don't want anybody.
And meanwhile, members of this administration are saying, well, we might have to, we might release them just in the general population.
Because this administration thinks that most of them are innocent, that they have had human rights violated by the United States of America.
We owe these prisoners a debt.
We have unfairly incarcerated them.
This is pure irrationality.
Now, when Vice President Cheney says it's going to be a tough sell, I don't think there's a congressional district in the country that's going to be happy to hear to get in 20 al-Qaeda terrorists move in.
I have to disagree with the vice president here.
I don't know that if a congressional district doesn't want them, that they can stop it.
This president is willing to intimidate anybody to get what he wants.
And if he wants to close Guantanamo Bay, if he's insistent on doing this for whatever reason, and he has to release these prisoners into the United States, then that's going to happen.
Whether some congressman doesn't want them in his district or some senator doesn't want them in his state, I don't see anybody standing up stopping Obama and anything.
Do you?
Here's Scott in Cincinnati.
You're next, sir.
Nice to have you on the EIB network.
Hello.
Hi, Rush.
Thanks for taking my call.
Yes, sir.
Rush, I see no progress in the economy right now.
I see no progress in our foreign policy.
I see no progress in unifying the country.
Yet all this president has to do is get up and dispense a little bit of rhetoric and he's off the hook.
When will he be judged on his results instead of his rhetoric?
And also, regarding Nancy Pelosi, I feel that her carbon footprint is so big that she should be known as Bigfoot instead of men of speaker.
Look, this is the question everybody's asking at one point will Obama own all this?
Well, try never.
Right now, we just got the budget news today, $1.8 trillion budget deficit, four times the record high.
And who are they blaming?
Blaming Bush.
Bush made him do it.
Bush so wrecked this economy, so wrecked this country.
That these drastic steps are necessary.
Obama, he has to do this.
I think the effort is going to be made by this administration that whatever negative economic circumstances there are will always be passed on to Bush.
Whatever is good, they'll claim credit for it.
If unemployment starts to come back, if the GDP starts going up, they'll claim the credit for it.
As long as you have a compliant, sycophantic, slavish drive-by media willing to sing the public song and lyrics written by the White House, then you're going to have a majority of the American people buying whatever they're being told.
So, yeah, the effort should be made by Republicans to attach all this stuff to Obama.
He owns it.
And the Republicans, only way they can do that is to contrast conservatism with what's going on now.
Biggest mistake Republicans could make is to follow Colin Powell's advice.
The biggest mistake they could make is to move to the center because there is no center.
The centrists move and float.
Moderates, the same thing.
Centrism is a left-wing code word.
Like bipartisanship is a left-wing code word.
Centrism just means agreeing with Democrats.
It's moving in their direction.
It's all it is.
If the Republicans do not contrast themselves, that's why I was praising Dick Cheney in the first hour of the program.
What motivates Dick Cheney?
Love of country, national interest.
He doesn't need this abuse.
He's the lone voice.
But if we're going to moderate and try to make ourselves look like we're on the same page as Obama, well, he's going to get all the credit for all the good.
We're going to get all the blame for all the bad.
And there's going to be no reason to ever vote for Republicans.
I don't care what the wizards of SMART say about rebranding or repositioning the Republican Party.
But if you try to make it look like Democrat Party light, then you're never going to have, you're never going to be able to peg Obama and tie Obama to the disaster that his economic policy is going to be.
Hey, Dick Morris even gets it right here.
He's got a piece in the New York Post today.
Well, actually a couple days ago, I guess it was on Saturday.
General Colin Powell is wrong to say the Republican Party must move to the center.
Now is not the time to try for triangulation, writes Dick Morris.
He says this is a time for the party to stand firm on its principles until this nation again comes around to the GOP's way of thinking.
This process will be driven by the consequences of Obama's program.
The challenge brought by Obama is no longer just theoretical.
He means to pass the ultimate leftist agenda.
He has the votes to do so.
Nobody can stop him.
As a result, our nation will be unrecognizable well before the 2010 elections.
Business will march to a beat drummed in Washington.
The top producers will be hounded by confiscatory taxation.
A majority will pay nothing or receive government welfare.
Our health care system will be destroyed.
Illegal immigrants will be well on their way to citizenship.
Obama's brave new world will be the subject of the 2010 elections.
Dick Morris says that he and his group, his wife, believe that Congress will be swept from power as a result, that the Republicans can make significant gains in Congress in 2010 if they do the right things.
And moderating and moving toward the center will not result in winning back significant seats in Congress.
You're going to have to add inflation to all of this, the recession.
All of this debt is going to lead, and printing in money will lead to inflation.
High unemployment will continue.
Voters will recognize the damage to their health care as bureaucrats weigh in to prevent them from getting the care they need.
And that's on the agenda today, downsizing health care, reducing costs.
How's he going to do that unless he shrinks the system?
Morris writes this.
All America will be watching the Obama fallout.
Republicans must be seen as a clear alternative.
Now, I'm talking about this because Morris is echoing sentiments that I have been promoting all the past two or three weeks.
It's a golden opportunity for the Republican Party to contrast itself with this mad, insane liberalism.
Republicans must be seen as a clear alternative, a strong voice for reversal of the harm the president will have inflicted if they are to benefit from this catastrophe.
If the GOP is seen as a moderate force, a party just looking to split the difference, voters will cynically conclude there's no distinction between the parties.
There's a season for a triangulation, a season for confrontation.
When America faces a new challenge, such as what the financial crisis now poses, we look to the left and the right for new answers.
We want to debate the rage.
Those who seek to paper over are ignored.
Such was the fate of the first President Bush in 92 and John McCain last year.
They didn't try to paper over the differences.
They didn't want the full-fledged take on the liberalism that was being proposed.
Once the debate has raged and the alternatives have been fleshed out, voters want a consensus, a synthesis on how to move in a new direction.
They want to extract the best from each alternative and combine them.
That's what Morris defines as triangulation.
But that comes later.
That's what he advised Clinton to do in his second term.
That is not what's happening now.
It shouldn't happen.
The process, polarization, debate, synthesis, action is how America's always moved ahead.
We aren't Japan.
We use the debate to see the options.
And we are not Italy or France.
We come to conclusions.
We act on them, eventually leaving the debate far behind.
But now another great debate's been born thanks to Obama.
The thesis is Democrat socialism.
The antithesis is free market capitalism.
What are we going to have?
If there's nobody out there explaining free market capitalism, promoting it and suggesting it, campaigning on it, then there's no alternative.
And there's no reason for people to vote Republican.
Now, I'm sorry, wizards of SMART in the circle of brains that inside the conservative movement have said, well, the American people want to call them Powell.
They want bigger government.
No.
Even if they do, it's not what we stand for.
Your kids want more ice cream.
Do you let them have it whenever they want it?
Yeah, I'm sure some of you do.
Your kid wants a brand new car when he's 16.
Do you give it to him?
The American people want a bigger government.
Is it good for him?
No.
Stand for an alternative.
If you don't, there's no reason to vote for Republicans.
They have to be an alternative.
They can't be the same as Democrats.
And by the way, I will point out once again, say what you want about what the Democrat Party has become and how insane and irrational it is.
When they got shellaked in 2000 and when they got shellacked in 2008, when they got shellacked in 1994 in the House races, they didn't say to themselves, well, we got to become more like Republicans.
They went through the motions of trying to say they had to attract values voters.
What did they actually do?
They moved prov to left.
They moved so far left, they wanted a contrast.
And then as they moved left, they used their buddies in the media to help destroy the reputations and credibilities of those who had won these elections.
They didn't try to become like us.
They did just the exact opposite.
So our wizards of smart say, well, we must become more like them because that's what the American people want.
It's easy to do, but you'll never win anything.
And it's certainly not leadership.
Here's an annual story, only this time it's true.
Grim job outlook for college seniors.
We get that report every year, every year, but this time it's true.
The White House has even announced today that there will be no job growth this year.
Unemployment will not start a positive uptick, show a positive uptick until next year.
It's all because of George Bush.
I mean, the poor Obama people, they inherited this mess and they had to spend all this money.
And wait till you hear, though, the next story.
All the stimulus money on roads and bridges, it's being spent where it is least needed.
Yep, I got the details coming up.
▲
Export Selection