All Episodes
Previous Next
Oct. 20, 2009 - Rush Limbaugh Program
37:17
October 20, 2009, Tuesday, Hour #2
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Greetings, my good friends.
Welcome back, Rush Limbaugh and the Excellence in Broadcasting Network, the most listened-to radio talk show in America.
The telephone number is 800-282-2882.
If you want to be on the program, the email address, lrushbaugh at EIBnet.com.
When we were last together discussing things a few moments ago, informed you of this new report from the Columbia School of Journalism, written by Len Downey, the former managing Grand Publisher of the Washington Post, that journalism needs to be saved.
And the only way it can be saved is by taking it out of the private sector realm where profit is necessary and making local news organizations, national news organizations, 501c3s, basically able to receive campaign donations, tax-exempt, non-profit, if you will.
Let philanthropists donate to them.
Let universities endow them and so forth.
This is just too important.
The news is just too important.
From the local level of the national, news is just too important.
The news business is in trouble.
And we're losing readers.
We're losing subscribers.
We're losing viewers.
The New York Times laying off 100 more newsroom types just in time for Santa Claus to give a bunch of coal down the chimblee this December.
And so we've got to save journalism.
Meanwhile, meanwhile, my friends, Fox News prospers.
Meanwhile, talk radio, conservative talk radio, prospers.
And about this Fox News business.
The White House is attacking Fox News and Roger Ailes and the various elements there at Fox News.
That they're not real journalists over there.
Just have a point of view, but they don't do real news at Fox News.
They just like talk radio.
They just have an agenda, but they don't do real news.
What I just read, Diane Sawyer is going to be the new anchor for the ABC World News tonight.
You know who her regularly scheduled substitute is going to be?
George Stephanopoulos.
A political hack, a member of the Clinton administration.
George Stephanopoulos, the regular fill-in substitute anchor on World News Tonight.
And they want to preach to us about who is a journalist and who isn't.
F. Chuck Todd.
I don't think he has any professional journalism training.
His wife is a Democrat operative.
I would say this, if George Stephanopoulos works real hard and he really gets good at what he does, maybe in 10 years or so, he might join Britt Hume's league.
If David Gregory does the same for 15 years, maybe 20 years, David Gregory, the host of Meet the Press, if Gregory works really hard for the next 15 or 20 years, he might approach the journalistic skills of Chris Wallace.
I remember when Britt Hume was at ABC and Chris Wallace was at NBC, they were both celebrated journalists.
They were real journalists, world-class journalists.
They were respected as members of the club, but now that Britt Hume and Chris Wallace offer their skills and talents to Fox News, it makes them unworthy.
Somehow they have cashed in their chips.
They are no longer celebrated journalists.
They're no longer good journalists.
They're no longer journalists, period.
Obama and his soft-spoken hit men and hit women from Anita Dunn to Rahm Emanuel to David Axelrod run around and rip Fox News and talk radio.
Wait until journalists everywhere, real journalists, professional journalists, report Obama's enemies list, feature it, detail it.
Unlike they did with Nixon's enemies list, which they despised and hated, they will be happy to report Obama's enemies list, and they will be happy to not be on it, and they will join the Obama administration in going after those who are on Obama's enemies list.
Where are you now, 60 Minutes?
Where are you now, Nightline?
Where are you now, 2020?
Where are you now, Jim Lahrer?
Just amazing.
These two guys, Britt Hume and Chris Wallace, celebrated journalists when they were at ABC and NBC, respectively.
Now look at them.
They're just chumps.
In the meantime, you remember the story yesterday we had about how Reuters, CNN, the Washington Post and New York Times fell for a hoax.
Yesterday, we thought that it was just an email hoax that they fell for.
The hoax was perpetrated by some group that, as a practice, perpetrates hoaxes on the media.
Is that the name of the group?
Yes, Men.
And they sent an email out claiming that they were the Chamber of Commerce, and they had done a 180, and the Chamber of Commerce was now ready to join Obama on cap and trade.
And it was false.
It was a total hoax.
They didn't check it.
They didn't backtrack it.
They didn't track it down.
They didn't source it.
They just accepted the email.
Folks, we learned today it's even worse.
They had a press conference.
The hoax group had a press conference.
Yesterday in Washington, the National Press Club, U.S. Chamber of Commerce Director of Communications Eric Walshlegel, interrupted a fake press conference being held by a man calling himself Hingo Sembra, purportedly with the chamber.
You'll also hear an unidentified reporter in this bit.
I'm with the U.S. Chamber of Commerce.
This is not an official U.S. Chamber of Commerce event.
So I don't know what pretenses you're here.
I know some of you in the press world, but this is a fraudulent press activity and a stunt.
Who are you, sir?
If you have any questions, you're welcome to direct them to me with the U.S. Chamber of Commerce.
This guy does not represent the U.S. Chamber of Commerce.
Can we finish?
No.
This is not an official chamber of commerce.
This is not.
I'm on deadlining.
Yeah, got it.
So they're misrepresenting the U.S. Chamber of Commerce.
Sir, if anyone has any questions and wants to talk to the real Chamber of Commerce, you can direct your questions to me.
Can I translate this for you here?
There's a fake press conference from somebody claiming to be from the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, and they're not.
The real Chamber of Commerce Communications Director shows up and says, this guy's not who he is.
He doesn't represent the Chamber.
I do.
The reporter said, shut up.
We out of deadline.
I need to finish asking this guy questions.
Unidentified reporters wanted to continue talking to the hoaxer.
Unidentified reporters wanted proof from the Chamber of Commerce guy that he was the real Chamber of Commerce guy.
This is amazing.
They're in the middle of being hoaxed, and they want to continue to fall for the hoax because the hoaxer is telling them what they want to hear.
The hoaxer is saying, I'm from the chamber, and we have supported, we have turned around, we're going to support cap and trade.
That's what the media wanted to hear in the press conference.
Real Chamber of Commerce guy goes, this is a fraud.
This guy is not speaking for the Chamber of Commerce.
If you want annoying about it, talk to me.
Oh, wait a minute.
Shut up.
I'm on a deadline here.
I want to finish my questions to the guy.
You want annoying about the chamber?
Once again, words escape me.
Words escape me.
Now, I know this is funny, and I know it's hilarious, but it has horrible portents.
In just a matter of a week, we have seen mainstream media accept total lies, total fabricated quotes made up about me.
Now we see mainstream media preferring to talk to a hoax leader of the Chamber of Commerce, a hoaxer, rather than talk to the real communications director of the Chamber of Commerce.
And this is in the midst of Lynn Downey saying, oh, we're in trouble here in a news business.
And the New York Times laying off 100 more people in the newsroom.
That's 200 people, by the way, in the last year.
Oh, we're in big trouble here in a news business.
We need to go non-profit.
We can't earn a profit.
I wonder why the hell that might be, Mr. Downey.
It's because your business is now populated with a bunch of idiot boob fools.
Oh, smokes, folks.
It's just mind-blowing.
And we're back, Rushland Boy, at 800-282-2882.
Email address, lrushbow at EIBnet.com.
And to the phones, we'll start in Louisville, Kentucky.
This is Mike.
Great to have you on the program, sir.
Hello.
Testing 123.
Anybody there?
Doesn't sound like he's there.
So where are we going to go next?
We're going to try.
We got phone problems here today, folks.
We've had to transfer to New York again because AT ⁇ T is about as incompetent as any.
We've ordered some phone lines about six months ago, and we're still not sure when we're going to get them.
The biggest incompetent bunch of boobs.
They can cancel my iPhone account all they want.
John in Buford, North Carolina.
Hello and welcome, sir.
Rush Mega Goldwater Barbecue Love and Dittos for my.
Thank you, sir, very much.
Great to have you here.
What's up?
Thank you for taking my call.
My question is about this Kinston case.
At what point is some municipality, I'm not picking on Kinston, I'm originally from Western Salem, so I have roots there.
But at what point are some people in these states where the know-it-all is on high are dictating from the federal level these dictates like we had today you were talking about earlier on the on the voting issue down there.
At what point is the municipality that's going to say to the federal government, thanks, but no thanks.
This is our electoral privilege.
We've taken the vote that we want, and we're just going to ignore what you have to say.
Thank you very much.
Well, to update you on the Kinston situation, the local people in Kinston have decided not to fight the federal ruling from the Department of Justice.
And so the way they voted is now inconsequential and irrelevant.
To review this story very quickly, I saw it first in the Washington Times today.
Kinston, North Carolina, it's a small community.
And in local elections, mayor, city council, they voted overwhelmingly to eliminate party labels next to candidates' names on the ballots.
They wanted everybody just to go nonpartisan.
And the makeup of the community there is 65% black.
Well, it's actually, it's two-thirds black and one-third white.
And the overwhelming majority said, okay, fine, we'll get rid of party affiliation.
We'll just have everybody go nonpartisan, no party ID on the ballot or when they campaign.
The Obama Justice Department said, no, no, no.
That violates the Voting Rights Act.
These people down there have to know who the Democrats are or they won't vote for them.
They said specifically that black people in Kinston, North Carolina won't know who the Democrats are, therefore they won't vote for them.
So the Obama Justice Department basically said the Constitution mandates that people vote for the Democrat Party.
This is now a requirement.
So the bottom line is that Kinston, North Carolina has now refused or said, well, we're not going to fight it.
65% African American district voted overwhelmingly in favor of Obama.
They passed a nonpartisan provision by two to one margin.
The Civil Rights Division decided it knew better, used an unconstitutional law, and dictated its terms.
So they essentially said to the people of Kinston, North Carolina, sorry, we don't think you're smart enough to know what you're doing.
We know that you will not vote Democrat unless the word Democrat appears.
We don't want you voting Republic.
That's not stated, but that's what this means.
And so it's questionable, when are these states going to stand up and oppose this?
I don't know.
They're getting too much federal money.
What do you call the bailout money has gone?
The states have gotten all the bailout money so far, plus the District of Columbia.
So the latest news is that Kinston will not fight this ruling.
They will not stand for their own sovereignty, if you will.
They are bowing to the Obama Justice Department.
Here's Mark in Salt Lake City.
Welcome to the EIB network, sir.
Hello.
Hi, Rush.
Am I the only one who's bothered by what's shaping up to be a betrayal of all these people in Pakistan and Afghanistan who sided with us and helped us to fight the Taliban when we asked them to?
Is this how this administration is reaching out to the Muslim world by stabbing them in the back?
Really, have we no shame?
I think that's probably why so many people in this part of the world don't like us.
They can't trust us.
They think we'll cut and run.
That's probably why one of the reasons the counterinsurgency worked in Iraq is because they started to figure out we were not going to cut and run.
But I'm sure people in Pakistan and a lot of them in Afghanistan, I mean, they can see this coming.
This click is coming, and this whole thing is going to start looking bad when they start thinking that we are going to cut and run.
And it's being telegraphed to them right now.
Obama doesn't care.
Obama doesn't care.
It's just shameful in terms of even more than with respect to just this administration.
Just as a nation, how people look at us around the world and how we look at ourselves when we can't be trusted.
And we ask these people.
No, no, no, no.
You're looking at this the way we used to look at the world, say, 10, 5, 3 years ago.
You have to understand that we are led by a man who believes the world hates us, who believes the world has hated us since our founding.
He believes Central America, Latin America, South American countries hate us, that European countries hate us, that the Muslims, and that they're all justified in hating us.
He thinks by cutting and running and pulling out, we are showing the world we are no longer a threat and that we will be willing to admit our guilt for whatever he considers our transgressions of the past to be.
Now, your point of view is America has always stood with those seeking their own freedom and liberty.
We have fought for them.
We have stood up for them.
We have stood by them.
In the process, they have trusted that we would be there when the going got tough.
Your point is one that's very valid.
I mean, don't misunderstand it.
Your point is very valid that the thing not being said here, if we cut and run out of Afghanistan, if we don't send the additional troops the commanders say we need, the locals, the natives in Pakistan and Afghanistan that have been helping us are going to be the first to be slaughtered.
And what I'm telling you is Obama doesn't care.
This is a political event for him.
He's got to figure out in his mind how he can politically salvage health care in the midst of all this.
What can he do that will disappoint his fringe base the least where Afghanistan's concern?
This is just, it's a sideshow.
It's a little distraction.
Obama doesn't really think we're threatened by anything over there.
He believes that the threat to the United States will be reduced if we just say, look, folks, you know, we're going home and we're going to mind our own business and we're sorry for having screwed you in the past.
Now, I'm going to see to it that we get screwed ourselves and we're going to live like the rest of you do.
And so you're going to love us again.
And that's the operating philosophy, foreign policy, Barack Obama, right there.
Your question is valid back when we had a president who believed in American exceptionalism.
Well, it's a shame because the threat, even if the threat is not even on, without regard to the threat, these are real people.
These are real people in Pakistan.
They're real people in Afghanistan.
These are real human beings.
If we're going to, you know, this just shows our true regard for them or lack of regard for them and our true contempt for them, actually, by just saying, well, never mind.
Here, let the Taliban overrun you and cut off your heads.
And, you know, we don't care.
You're less than human.
We don't care.
That's essentially what we're telling the world.
And they know it.
They're not stupid.
They can see this.
They know exactly how we feel about everybody else.
And this is, I think, a lot of the problems we have in a lot of many parts of the world, especially the Muslim world.
And it's shameful.
It's shameful.
That's all I got to say, Rush.
It's just shameful.
Well, in parts of the Muslim world, remember now the militant Islamists, it's religious fanaticism, too.
And there are a lot of factors here.
But your point is valid in that we have sought allies amongst people from all countries and populations.
And once we bring them in and make them allies, we engage in activities to support the causes in their countries they believe in.
Once we cut and run, you're right.
You know, we're finished.
Nobody's going to join us ever again in such excursions.
Doug in Tucson, you're next in the Russian Limbaugh program.
Hello, sir.
Rush, it's an absolute honor.
Thank you.
You betcha.
This whole bit about the news and why the news is losing money these days, it's not news, it's propaganda.
Outright government propaganda, and people just simply aren't going to pay for the lies, misrepresentation, and fraud.
Hey, let me ask you a question then.
Let's use the New York Times as an example.
The New York Times has 8 million people, about 7.9 million of them liberal.
How in the world can the New York Times journalism be disappointing the liberal mecca of this country?
I'm not, just a think piece.
I just want your thoughts on this.
Now, I can understand where you live in Tucson.
You're going to have a much greater cross-section of conservatives and liberals.
And so if the conservatives get fed up with the liberalism of the Tucson papers, bam, you're gone and so are a lot of other people.
But I don't know that people are not buying the New York Times because it's not liberal enough or because it's too liberal or because it's not anti-conservative enough.
I don't know.
You tell me.
I'll tell you easily.
It's a matter of slant.
Slant is the way our perspective is seeing things.
It is a matter of them being able to live to the propaganda they want to hear.
Have you ever read the letters?
Have you ever, wait a minute, have you ever read the letters to the editor of the New York Times?
Oh, yes, definitely.
Well, every damn one of them is far more radical, wacko, and leftist than the people who work there.
They love the slant of the New York Times.
Whatever it is, editorial page, front page, no difference anymore.
And yet, the New York Times is losing circulation.
And the New York Times is losing advertising revenue.
Also, this little pinch went out and spent a lot of New York Times money building a monument to himself, the New Times building, and they've got some debt problems there.
And they invested in the Boston Red Sox a little bit, and they bought the Boston Globe.
But I don't know that the Times is in trouble because of its content, because 99% of its market loves its content.
And there's got to be something else going on with the Times, bad business decisions, operating decisions, and so forth.
Back in just a second.
That's exactly what we do.
We make the complex understandable here from Time Magazine.
The White House reads a stealth stimulus.
White House senior advisor Valerie Jarrett was adamant on Sunday when asked if President Obama was considering a so-called second stimulus to deal with unemployment.
I think it's too soon.
Premature to say is the second stimulus needed.
But a moment later, she said the White House was already looking at tax credits and other measures to further stimulate the economy.
There are a range of suggestions being considered right now by the economic team, and we'll see what we come forward with, she added.
On its face, the two comments sounded like a contradiction.
But at the White House, there is no confusion.
More stimulus is coming.
It just won't be called stimulus.
Economic advisors, in concert with senior Democrats in the House and Senate, are planning additional piecemeal benefit extensions, tax breaks, and other spending that could eventually add to as much as $100 billion.
The fact is that this is a word game.
It isn't a discussion of the second stimulus, says Jennifer Psaki, a White House spokeswoman.
This needs to be an ongoing discussion between the president and his economic team about new ideas and ways to get people back to work.
Now, I've read this whole Time magazine story.
It says things like, well, the White House has so far declined to spell out its wishes.
You go through this whole story in Time magazine, and you will not read that the first stimulus didn't work.
You will not read that the first stimulus is a bomb.
You will not read that the first stimulus is an abject failure.
But get this, last night on Charlie Rose, he interviewed the New York Times chief mergers and acquisitions reporter, Andrew Ross Sorkin.
Charlie Rose said, how do they measure the stimulus's effectiveness, both the administration and of people who know about the application of this money?
I talked to a CEO last week who said, when you look at to the extent the economy has recovered, you can't ascribe any of it to the stimulus program.
You really should ascribe it to inventories which were low, which people now had to replenish, you know, the economy coming back just on its own.
The stimulus program has not been a genius creation to create jobs for the American people.
Not at the moment.
What?
This is, I mean, I'm sitting here watching two eggheads think that they're the smartest guys.
I remember Charlie Rose talking to Brokaw.
We don't really know who Obama is.
Oh, I don't know who he admires, Charlie.
I don't know who he's read, Tom.
We don't know really what he believes on that.
This is like a week before the election.
And now these two dunces are up there going, well, stimulus actor CEO told me the stimulus hadn't had any major effect on anything.
And Charlie Rose pipes, the stimulus program has not been a genius creation to create jobs for American people.
Not at the moment.
Yet there's a second one on the way, folks.
This ain't by accident.
Oh, and try this from CNNMoney.com.
Yet another housing bailout on the way.
Obama administration unveils plan to prop up state or local agencies that provide mortgages to first-time and lower-income homeowners.
I'm in the twilight zone.
We just have story after story after story about Obama's save the mortgage market bombed royally.
Just as federal officials seek to wind down many bailout programs, who says that they're seeking to wind down bailout programs?
The Obama administration announced yesterday yet another initiative to prop up the housing market.
Administration officials unveiled a plan to aid state and local housing finance agencies, which provide mortgages to first-time and lower-income homebuyers.
So, folks, you remember the subprime mortgage program?
This was a program in which it was determined that affordable housing meant making loans to people who couldn't qualify for them and wouldn't pay them back, but get them in houses anyway.
Use Acorn to pressure the banks and Bill Clinton and Barney Frank to pressure the banks to make these loans.
The banks had to do it because everybody's scared to death of the federal government.
Then they had to create a bunch of new kinds of securities that they sold as insurance for what they knew was worthless paper.
The securities were worthless because the whole thing at the beginning was worthless.
Ergo, we have a large percentage of our financial crisis today rooted in the subprime mortgage program.
And now we read the Obama administration is going to do another one.
They're going to come up with a new plan to provide mortgages to first-time and lower-income homebuyers while the foreclosure rate is skyrocketing.
We're going to add to it in six months down the road.
And we haven't even talked about what's yet to happen in commercial real estate.
That's the next thing ready to blow up, folks, because there's all kinds of unoccupied office space, so forth.
Loans are going to come due on those buildings that cannot be repaid because there's no rent being paid by tenants.
So, on top of the second stimulus that cannot be identified as a stimulus, and after the subprime mortgage crisis led us largely to where we are, we're going to do it all again.
The administration says, by the way, that the program comes at no cost to taxpayers.
The Treasury Department is ultimately responsible if an agency defaults on its debt payments.
It takes a lot to render me speechless.
I don't believe them at all, Snurdy.
The program comes at no cost to taxpayers.
$1.4 trillion deficit this year.
We're going to do another subprime program.
We're going to do a second stimulus.
Treasury Department's ultimately responsible if an agency defaults on its debt payments.
Where does the Treasury Department get its money?
Other than printing it, where does it get it?
Obama's stash.
That's right, Obama's stash.
He has some reserve funds.
It's Obama's stash.
The Treasury Department is ultimate.
And hey, the hits just keep on coming.
An environmental writer mainstreams an idea floating around the green fringe.
Save the earth by population control and give carbon credits to one-child families.
It's long been a mantra on the left that people are a plague on the earth, ravaging its surface for food and resources, polluting its atmosphere, and endangering its other species.
Now, we are endangering its very climate to the point of extinction.
Even the result of our breathing carbon dioxide has been declared by the EPA to be a dangerous pollutant.
Treaties like Kyoto and the upcoming sudden economic suicide pact to be forged in Copenhagen have focused on the instruments and byproducts of our civilization.
Now the focus is shifting increasingly to the people who built it.
New York Times environmental writer Andrew Revkin participated in an October 14th panel discussion on climate change with other media pundits titled Covering Climate, What's Population Got to Do With It.
Participating via webcam, the New York Times environmental writer volunteered that in allocating carbon credits as part of any cap and trade scheme, if you can measurably somehow divert fertility rate, say toward accelerating decline in a place with a high fertility rate, shouldn't there be a carbon value to that?
He went on to say that probably the single most concrete and substantive thing an American, young American can do to lower our carbon footprint is not turn off the lights or drive a Prius.
It's having fewer children.
More children equal more carbon dioxide emissions, the New York Times environmental writer blogged, wondering whether this means we'll soon see a market in baby avoidance carbon credits similar to efforts to sell CO2 credits for avoiding deforestation.
There is a country that has such a policy.
A one-child policy vigorously enforces it.
That's the CHICOMs.
And do we not have a White House communications director who considers mass murderer Mao Zetong her favorite philosopher?
This brave new world is not too far-fetched for science advisor John Holdren, who has advised taking population control to quite another level.
He has at various times advocated forced abortion and sterilization and views people as a burden, not as the ultimate resource on the planet, as the rest of us do.
This is an editorial here from the Investors Business Daily.
Cap and trade for babies.
It's coming, folks.
They're going to offer young couples carbon credits for only having one child.
The theory is that human beings are polluting and destroying the planet.
Now, Paul Ehrlich wrote about this back in the 70s, the population bomb, totally disproved, discredited.
This has been part of the militant environmental extreme for years.
And here now, the people who can make it a reality are running the country.
They are in the White House.
One child per family policy.
Now, this is still a fringe movement, but so at one time was the movement to get rid of SUVs.
But like everything else in the militant environmentalist wacko community, I believe this is going to happen someday.
Once they get these ideas, they don't give them up.
They've been working on this since 1976.
And now we've got Anita Dunn who sings the praises of the great philosopher Mao Zetong in the White House.
Ten years ago, I wouldn't have believed it, but I didn't think the government would tell me what kind of food I could and couldn't eat or what kind of car I could drive either.
Nor did I believe that we would ever someday have a pay czar taking salaries back from people he doesn't approve of.
But all these things have happened, and so now they're floating the idea, cap and trade for babies, a New York Times environmental writer, in a panel discussion about this.
Meanwhile, the SUVs are not happy about what's happening.
Have you heard about what happened to Staten Island with an SUV?
And I get this.
A 47-year-old Staten Island man was killed in great kills early on the morning of October 18th in what was described as a freak accident in which he was ejected from his SUV and then hit by it as it struck a tree.
The accident happened early Sunday in an area outside the Island Grill restaurant on Highland Boulevard.
Police responded to a call about a pedestrian struck and found Oleg Kantarovich unconscious with severe trauma to his torso.
He was pronounced dead at the scene.
Kantarovich apparently was trying to back away from a parking spot when his 2007 Audi sport utility vehicle accelerated, striking a tree.
Police said the driver was objected.
The truck then struck the driver as it collided with the tree.
They are investigating this.
Can you picture this?
You're backing out of a parking space.
The SUV doesn't want to back out.
The SUV is probably ticked off that you are using regular unleaded instead of premium.
The SUV has got a bad mood.
Its engine's knocking.
You're using cheap gasoline in it.
And you're trying to back out when the SUV doesn't want to back out.
So you back out anyway.
The thing throws you out.
And then after you're out, it puts itself somehow in drive and bamo, rams a tree with you right in the way.
Everybody's ticked off in our country these days.
Everybody.
The next soundbite will be number eight, Dingy Harry, saying the country has no place for people who want Obama to fail.
Huh?
Coming after us with both barrels.
All right, this is Juan in Huntsville, Alabama.
Hi, Juan.
Great to have you on the EIB network.
Hello.
Thanks for taking my call, Rush.
I just want to know, how many more mistakes is this government going to keep on continuing to make before they realize that the stimulus package is not working?
Because is it not, you know, correct me if I'm wrong, but is this not the third stimulus package?
Yeah.
The first one on the bush.
Well, there's been many more.
No, we've had, oh, we had a year ago, Bush and Pelosi got together with a stimulus, and everybody a check, except people like you and me, Juan.
And then we had the TARP bailout.
And then we had more bank bailouts.
We had stimulus, the Porculus bill.
What are we up to?
Four?
Oh, yeah, cash for clunkers.
We had that.
That didn't work.
So the point is that we've tried the governmental side of this, the public.
We know it doesn't work.
It's time to go to the private sector.
Therefore, Juan, your question, when are they going to realize that it's not worked?
It is working as far as Obama wants it to work.
This is exactly what he intended all along.
Never said so, but this is exactly what he intended.
Juan, you're a smart guy.
You're a smart guy.
Your question is, at what point are they going to wake up and realize it ain't working?
Correct.
Right?
That's basically it.
I mean, I don't know what, maybe it's, maybe I'm on the wrong planet, but it just seems to me that it's not working.
Why continue to go down that road?
I mean, it's all right.
Juan, we're not on the wrong planet.
I feel like I've been set up to a hail-bought comet.
I actually don't think I'm on Earth anymore.
This is not the Earth I knew, much less a country I knew.
You're asking the great question.
How when are these people going to realize?
You've got to conclude, Juan, they're smarter than you are.
They went to Harvard and Yale.
They got PhDs and all this worthless stuff.
And yet they keep throwing good money after bad.
You got to consider at some point, my man, that it's on purpose.
Richard Cohen today, Obama's identity crisis.
He went out, he watched an HBO documentary on the election of Barack Obama.
And he talks about what a great thing it is.
It's so wonderful.
Obama's portrayed as Mr. Perfect.
He never loses his temper.
He doesn't curse.
He doesn't follow a pretty woman with his eyes or sneak a smoke.
He does not dress sloppily.
He's always calm.
He's always good-natured.
He gets emotional only once when his grandmother, the typical white woman, died.
And I cried, writes Cohen, at the very end of the documentary, when African Americans at one of the final campaign events cried at the immense reality of his victory.
And then Cohen writes this, what's striking about this inside look at Obama is how being inside gets you nowhere.
It is virtually the same as being outside.
What's also striking about this movie is its lack of arc.
Obama's always golden, always going to win, always does.
His issue, if it can be called that, is himself.
He's something new, something young, something biracial, something black, but he's not something from a political or ideological constituency.
He is adored by his fans, not for something he's done, but for something he is.
And that is the weakness in Obama's presidency.
Richard Cohen is basically admitting that he and everybody else painted what he wanted to see on Obama's blank canvas.
Obama was all these wonderful, great things, post-partisan, post-racial, post-divisive.
America was going to be loved once again.
And now Richard Cohen, maybe I was duped because he still sees a blank canvas.
He sees nothing.
But it doesn't mean anything.
He'll be excoriated for this.
Get his mind right.
Next column.
He'll correct himself and we'll be back to where we were.
So a New York Times environmental writer floating the idea it's a good thing to limit couples in America to one child and give carbon credits for each child not had or some such thing think of all the carbon credits homosexuals will get out of this No wonder the New York Times is behind this movement.
▲
Export Selection