All Episodes
Previous Next
Jan. 20, 2010 - Rush Limbaugh Program
36:41
January 20, 2010, Wednesday, Hour #3
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Hey Mike, we get up to uh Soundbites again when we get there.
We're gonna start at uh number 14, and we're gonna go in order there.
Yeah.
All right, greetings and welcome back, folks, the fastest three hours in media.
It is hosted by me.
Rush Limboy, and I am doing what I was born to do.
And so are you.
I was born to host you.
We're born to listen.
We'll get to your telephone calls in this hour as well.
Telephone number 800-282-2882, the email address.
Lrushbaugh at EIBNet.com.
I want to talk about the uh the shift in independence for just a second in Massachusetts, massive shift.
79% of unaffiliated voters, 73% went to uh went to Scott Brown last night.
Uh and a lot of people ask me, and they have for years, why so many Jewish people are liberals?
They don't people don't understand it.
Uh and it it's a it's a it's I can't answer it.
I mean, I I've come up with uh a number of different answers.
My my best theory is that liberals, no matter who they are, are liberals first.
And anything else they are is second.
Uh but Norman Pedoritz has written a book about it, uh, and and he's Jewish, and he's uh he's a conservative Jewish guy, and he's uh run commentary magazine and their website.
He's just brilliant.
Uh it's a good fortune that I've uh been able to meet him.
And the reason I thought of it is because uh Scott Brown had a lot of a lot of success with independence, and that's that's what Jewish liberals like to call themselves when they're asked.
They really they call themselves independents before they'll refer to themselves as uh as liberals.
So if if Jewish people who voted 78% for Obama, which is far higher than any other group except uh African Americans, if Jewish people gave Obama 78% of their vote, what if they're experiencing buyer's remorse like all these people in in Massachusetts did?
Do you realize how important this could be?
I don't think there's buyer's remorse yet in the black community.
That's still pretty strong.
But what remember now uh Jewish people, Jewish liberals call themselves independents, and 78% of them voted for Obama.
What if they are experiencing buyer's remorse and could be persuaded to desert Obama and the Democrats in general?
If it if it if it's possible, if that's happening behind the scenes, we don't see it, it suggests that Scott Brown's victory could be even more indicative of an even bigger change in the political temper of the country than has so far been recognized.
And I think it's something worth considering.
Now, if you have often wondered, just out of you know, a legitimately curious political sense, if if you have asked yourself why are so many Jewish people liberal, went when it seemed so much of what liberals do would be anathema to Jewish people, particularly abortion.
Uh but any number of things.
Taxes, tax increase.
Look at uh you know something, folks?
There are a lot of people, when you say banker, people think Jewish.
People who have uh prejudice, uh people who have uh uh you know the best way that's a little prejudice about them.
To some people, banker is code word for Jewish, and guess who Obama's assaulting?
He's assaulting bankers.
He's assaulting money people.
And a lot of those people on Wall Street are Jewish.
So I wonder if there's if there's starting to be some buyer's remorse there.
Anyway, if you've if you haveten asked that question, if you've been puzzled by so many Jewish people, vote liberal and vote democrat, you uh give Norman's uh book a shot.
It's called Why Jews Are Liberals.
And he's Jewish, and he would know.
And it's uh look, it's a good read.
And Norman is a is a uh there's no other way to say it.
He's a he's a profound intellectual, but he's not an egghead elitist.
And he's written this book with an effort to have anybody that reads it understand exactly what he is talking about.
Now, two pieces that I want to analyze here about the uh election last night, both by people that work at Newsweek.
The first one is Howard Feynman.
The Democrats who deserve blame for their loss in Massachusetts.
That's the title of his piece here.
Here's how it here's how it begins.
Blame is more fun than praise.
Yeah, Scott Brown was a seemingly anodyne.
That's anything that relieves pain, anodyne.
Handsome, smiling, and at least superficially reasonable Republican.
Now I'm gonna pause there and ask, can somebody tell me what a reasonable Republican is?
Is that kind of like a light-skinned Negro?
Is that what is that what a reasonable Republican is?
Like a white Well, thank you, Mr. Snerdley, because I I just thought of that on the fly, showing everybody how fast my jet stream brain is working today.
Superficially reasonable Republican, superficially reasonable Republican, who was in the right place at the right time, appearing out of nowhere in the midst of a nagging recession at a time of continued voter alienation with the powers that be who happen to be Democrats.
Congratulations to him.
But I've been listening all day on the phone and in emails to people distributing blame on the Democrat side.
The circular firing squad is blasting away.
Here is my, writes Howard Feynman, neutral assessment of who among the Democrats deserves to be criticized for the Boston massacre.
Here they are in approximate descending order of blameworthiness.
Number one, Martha Coakley, for the obvious reasons.
Number two, uh, he says it is wooden, oblivious, haughty, inept, ill-prepared.
She won the nomination because she was a woman.
And not because of the Washington scene or the party establishment.
Now wait a second.
Mr. Feynman here is saying she won the nomination because she was a woman.
There are two babes that have written a piece for Politico today that said she lost because she's a woman.
These Democrats, these liberals, do you understand everything is identity politics with them?
None of it is substance.
Or very little of it.
I kid you not, two babes in a political today say Martha Cochley lost because Boston, because Massachusetts is a bunch of bigots.
A bunch of union guys, she she got these these women cite three anecdotal stories.
Some union guy that they say they overheard say, I ain't voting for no broad.
Hey, uh, folks, she was elected in that state to the attorney general job.
These Democrats, I I'm I'm actually happy to encourage them to continue to miss all of this.
They keep looking at their usual what's the word I'm looking for.
They put everybody in groups.
They identify people by skin color, sexual orientation, gender, age.
It's just amazing to watch this.
And even Mr. Feynman, she won the nomination because she was a woman.
But two liberal babes of politico say she lost the election because she was a woman.
Those two don't go together with me.
Barack Obama next in blameworthiness.
No, this wasn't a referendum on him or his presidency.
Really?
How can the how in the world can anybody assert that unless they're just hoping that that's the case?
When you've got a Republican in Massachusetts promising to be the 41st vote to block the signature issue of Obama.
How in the world you can then say it wasn't a referendum on Obama or his presidency.
I don't know.
But then Mr. Feynman says, nor is it a flat-out rejection of the health care bill per se.
No, Mr. Snerdley, don't get frustrated.
We urge them to continue thinking this way.
We want them to continue thinking this way.
Feynman writes, people still like Obama, and they still wish him well.
But his twin decision to put all his chips on health care and to let Congress take the lead, those two things together made him seem unfocused on what people really care about, which is the economy and jobs.
He's not unfocused on that, Mr. Feynman.
He took them on.
Economy and jobs, he did the stimulus to slush fund And TARP.
Well, the previous administration did TARP, but Obama doubled down on it.
Jobs have been saved, I thought.
The economy is uh is in recovery, uh, I thought.
I thought Obama focused.
Let's hope to hell he doesn't focus any more attention on it.
He's done enough damage as it is.
Then uh Emmanuel, David Axelrod, Jim Messina, Padrick Gasperd come up next.
Organizing for America, the Obama campaign uh website, this is number six in blameworthiness.
The Obama campaign left over a 13 million email list of supporters, and the organization that came out of it, organizing for America was supposed to use it to promote the president's agenda, but it has been a non-factor in policymaking or off-year elections to date, and the president's agenda may suffer for it.
Well, now, wouldn't wouldn't it possibly be explained by the fact that there is no energy for Obama among some of those 13 million people whose names are on the list?
Last I heard, Obama spends a lot of time trying to mobilize them.
He did during the Tea Party days.
But he had instead resort to getting his union thugs out there.
Progressive blogs.
I'm sure I missed some of the early posts, but I didn't hear much of a fire storm early on about what an evil dude Brown is.
That's how Orthodox and the orthodox orthodoxy on the left are now orthodoxy on the left, but whatever dirt there is only was dug up in the last days or so it seemed to the mainstream junkies.
He's blaming you bloggers on the left for not digging up enough dirt on Brown early enough.
And the Massachusetts congressional delegation comes in at number eight in blameworthiness out of j there wasn't any dirt, that's the whole point, but they didn't get in gear soon enough.
Anyway, first Feynman.
Out of jealousy or obliviousness, this group of thirteen, all Democrats sounded no alarm bells.
They didn't pay much attention until it was way too late.
They were all in the state last weekend, again, too late to do much good.
So that's the rundown, at least for now.
It'll surely get uglier and more specific, and that's what we're here for.
Now we move on to Jonathan Alter.
The message Democrats should hear from Massachusetts, Colonel Govern effectively, passing health care reform won't hurt them, but losing their courage will.
By Jonathan Alder.
Is this a wake-up call for President Obama?
Oh yes.
Does he need to show that he's listening more?
Sure.
But should this election kill health care?
Don't be ridiculous.
Who elected Massachusetts to decide for the rest of the country whether we move forward on the bill?
Mr. Alter.
Mr. Alter, can I can I turn that question around?
Who elected one congressional district to corrupt Fannie Mae, Freddie Mack, and authorize the subprime mortgage crisis?
I speak of the Barney Frank district.
Mr. Alter, let me ask another question.
Who elected a speaker of the House that led the whole body into virtually ignoring the will of a majority of the American people?
Who elected Massachusetts to decide for the rest of the country whether we move forward on the bill?
I could ask that about any elected official in Congress, state, uh senator, or congressman.
I didn't vote for Nancy Pelosi.
She's got so damn much influence over my taxes.
I didn't vote for Charlie Wrangle, did oh.
Most people didn't.
To say that this should wreck Obama health care policy is like saying that when Democrats took over Congress after a landslide victory in 2006, they should have killed the Bush administration's Iraq war.
Beyond the candidate's personal qualities, the angry mood, health care did play a role in Massachusetts.
That's because this was a special election in more ways than one.
Massachusetts is the only state with universal coverage.
Polsters know that the main reason expanding health care insurance coverage has been so tough for the better part of a century is that people who are covered don't care about people who aren't.
So now Mr. Alter is saying if you've got health insurance, You don't care if anybody else has it.
And he's saying that about all of Massachusetts.
He said this vote yesterday, Massachusetts being selfish.
They've already got their health insurance.
Mandatory law.
They don't they don't want to pay for anybody else's.
That's how he's interpreting it.
Now, I have uh, ladies and gentlemen, I have uh I've heard and read all of these excuses, and angry white people, the standard, the template.
I don't know what page that is in the playbook, but it's in there.
It's been there for 30 years.
Uh the Massachusetts has health care, so they voted not to let everyone else have it.
Excuse.
I've heard that.
This pretty well describes the country.
And as most people in America, the vast majority, in fact, have health coverage and they like it.
And that's why they don't like this bill.
And they don't like the prospect of going to jail if they don't have it.
So rather than excuse why they lost in Massachusetts, Democrats should properly see it as a reason.
But of course they won't because they can't really believe they're on the wrong side of the issue.
Of course, voters are in a really angry mood in Massachusetts, too.
They must have been to vote for Brown because, you know, only angry white people vote Republican.
All the happy, optimistic, hopey changey people vote for Democrats, right?
I mean, there's not one shred of anger on the left, is there?
Oh no.
Maybe Mr. Alter and the uh rest of the drive-by is ought to investigate why they're in an angry mood.
Although I think most of what I'm hearing today is uproariously happiness.
People are really charged up and happy, but there's a reason people are mad.
They're not being listened to and their country's being destroyed.
Damn well ought to be mad.
Sit here and watch your private sector be destroyed.
Maybe if they investigated why people are angry, they might reveal some original take on this story, but no sense trying to look for facts.
Um Mr. Alter and Mr. Feynman are as predictable as a sunrise.
I gotta go to a break, but I uh went back to the altar piece, and there's a paragraph here that I'll share with you when we come back from the break.
Don't go away.
We'll be right back.
Okay, here we go, ladies and gentlemen.
This is what Jonathan Alter wrote in this paragraph I pulled here.
By beyond the candidates' personal qualities and the angry mood, health care did play a role in Massachusetts.
That's because this was a special election in more ways than one.
Massachusetts is the only state with universal coverage.
Polsters know the main reason expanding health insurance coverage has been so tough for the better part of a century is that people who are covered don't care much about people who aren't.
In the Bay State, more than 95% of residents are now covered.
They got theirs, and they don't give a lot of thought to the 30 million Americans with the misfortune to live elsewhere who would be covered by past.
So you people in Massachusetts quarter liberal media is selfish.
You have no compassion.
You got yours.
You don't care if anybody else gets their insurance.
The dirty little secret here is, folks, the Senate bill.
This is such a sham.
If I can learn this, why is it that the drive-by's cannot?
The Senate bill, after ten years, leaves twenty-one million, thirty-one million Americans uninsured.
To the audio sound bites we go.
State controlled media advising the White House, tell a Democrats to pass health care or they'll lose.
This is the mantra of the day.
Look at you're gonna get hammered anyway.
You may as well pass this thing.
That's the message coming out of the White House.
Democrat pundits are all advising their pal Ram Emanuel to tell Democrats they'll lose if they don't pass it.
Democrats have got to decide whether they're more likely to lose their seat.
Will they lose their job if they don't pass health insurance reform, or are they more likely to lose their job if they do.
If you don't do this, you will lose.
Now he's got to threaten them with that.
Health care must be passed unless the Democrats want to commit suicide.
They're going to have to pass something.
We gotta be tougher.
Democrats haven't been tough enough.
Failure would make it even worse in November.
This is the time to hit the gas if you don't want to be thought of as failures.
This is Vegas, baby.
Double down.
They're gonna go for this nuclear option.
They're gonna say this is it.
We're doing everything and you bet they're going to the wire, baby.
That's last night when the emotions were fresh and raw after the shock and awe and the surprise of Scott Brown's victory.
And these these pundits are literally advising him to just take a full-fledged dive off the cliff.
When you got Jim Webb and Claire McCaskill, and Barney Franklin, whoa, whoa, whoa, we need to break then.
Bill Delahunt, we need to, we need to stop what we're doing right now.
But they're just urging them, urging them to just go commit suicide.
And of course, we hope that they do.
Anthony Wiener in New York last night, CNN, he's not buying it.
He doesn't like this.
Here's what he said.
They're talking as if like what our deal is, what our negotiations are at the White House.
Yeah, and then the last line is pigs fly out of my ass or something like that.
You know, I mean, it's just it's just we've got to recognize we have an entirely different scenario.
When you have large numbers of citizens in the United States of America who believe this is going in the wrong direction, there's a limit to which you can keep saying that okay, they just don't get it.
If we just pass a bill, they'll get it.
I don't know.
I mean, I think that that we we should maybe internalize that that we're not doing things entirely correctly.
So he's not buying what the pundits are saying.
He says, Yeah, this is gonna help us like pigs flying out of my ass.
He actually said that on CNN and Laura O'Donnell.
Lawrence O'Donnell, sorry, last night, PMS NBC was asked this question.
How's this gonna end?
How is it going to end?
Every scenario people come up with, I can sit here and tell you why it won't work.
But I don't know.
Maybe this is the time they land the plane on the Hudson.
I just have never seen anyone, any process that could get beyond what's happening tonight.
Losing that 60th vote, as far as every maneuver I know, loses you the bill.
Loses you the bill.
I I guarantee you, it's easy for these pundits to tell these elected Democrats, hey, yeah, you better pass it.
You better pass it.
You're in deep trouble if you don't.
But the people whose jobs require being elected are looking at this in an entirely different way, folks.
They're looking at maybe if we don't sign this, we're safer.
The American people don't want it, and you pass it anyway.
Where does that leave you with the American people?
Rush Limboa with talent on loan from God.
Ladies and gentlemen, if you want to know what the conventional wisdom is in Washington, D.C., you listen to one guy.
There is one go-to guy for the conventional wisdom.
If you want to know what everybody is really thinking in Washington, whether they're saying it or not, you go to David Rodham Gurgen.
He is the personification of Washington conventional wisdom.
And last night on CNN's coverage of the Massachusetts massacre, the Wolf Blitzer spoke with David Rodham Gurgen.
And Wolf Blitzer said, We've talked before about how it's taken them so long, the Democrats without any Republicans to try to get some health care reform passed.
The longer and longer it went on, the more difficult it would become.
We're probably seeing the obituary written tonight for universal access on health care.
And it's been a dream of Democrats now for 70 plus years.
This vote is going to be a vote heard around the world because it's going to have enormous implications.
I think health care is very unlikely to pass in its current form.
Cap and trade on energy environment.
I think that now has extremely difficult to get that done in this Congress.
Immigration reform, I think it's probably dead this year.
Regulatory reform is going to be very watered down.
Oh.
Folks, he just said that the entire Obama agenda.
Well, not the entire Obama agenda.
He's going to nationalize banks, gonna nationalize, he has nationalized Fannie Mae Freddie Mac, he's nationalized car companies.
Uh and he's nationalized the school loan program.
If you want the student loan, you've got to go to government to get it now, where there's no competition, by the way, for interest rates.
Um David Rodham Gurgen in a crisis.
I mean, these are the four biggies.
Health care reform done.
Immigration reform done.
Cap and trade done.
Regulatory reform done.
Just thought you want to hear.
That's that's that's David Rodham Gurgen.
Here's Vic in uh Binghampton, New York.
Nice to have you on the program.
Hello, sir.
Hello, sir.
Very uh much of a pleasure to finally get through and talk to you, a long time listener, uh Megadiddles.
I'm glad you're doing real well.
Thank you very much, sir.
Um, I'm calling uh, I guess joining the passion on the theme for today, which is uh after watching the uh victory speech last night, and you know, uh hesitantly turning to MSNBC to watch uh I'm still astonished by the spin.
I'm just I know you've touched on it today, but it's just absolutely astonishing to me.
I can't folks figure out these folks are just playing in denial or if there's a um a deeper, more heinous uh uh deal in the works.
I mean it's unbelievable.
They they they couldn't even admit to uh the very platform that that he ran on.
Uh the the folks, you know, people in America, myself.
I mean, uh let me jump in and help out.
You are trying to accomplish the impossible.
You are applying rational thought to entirely irrational behavior and thought.
There's no way you're going to understand this.
There's no way a reasonable person will understand anything on MSNBC.
Well, I can appreciate that.
I mean, the the basically uh it's fun to try to analyze it.
It's fun to try to figure it out.
Uh it's fun to come up with all the possibilities, but you'll never know for sure.
But unless you unless you join the ranks of the irrational.
And then I'm not going to do.
Do you think do you think doctors understand the insane people?
Are they just trying to treat them?
Yeah, just trying to treat them out of the way.
Okay.
I would hope they have a little bit of an understanding, but yeah, I understand.
Yeah.
Um, anybody insane been cured.
I don't believe so.
It doesn't happen.
So I mean it's it's it's an exercise uh in futility if you're trying to be serious about it.
Making make it an entertainment project.
Tune in to laugh.
But if you if you're gonna tune in and watch this stuff and get all hot and bothered and lathered up, big mistake.
Well, I appreciate that, but it still astonishes me.
I mean, the folks who uh voted for the the current administration and then they see the folks turn on them like uh you've talked so diligently about uh we're gonna reach across the aisle and have this on C span and uh uh uh have everyone involved, and then they go lock themselves in the back room like cockroaches in the dark.
It's been just uh pathetic, and I think folks like myself uh are just furious about that.
Well, one thing you've got to understand, I can I can help out a little bit here.
If you're gonna watch these people at MSNBC and to a slightly, ever so slightly lesser extent at CNN, particularly on their analyst stuff.
You gotta understand one thing.
They are more oriented, they're more animated, they are more focused on defeating and uh uh cure criticizing uh impugning conservatives than they are advancing their own agenda.
They really are.
That that's the they will they will they will pass a rotten piece of legislation just to keep us from stopping it.
More than they think it's good.
That's why you're hearing all these pundits say, You've got to you gotta pass the bill.
You gotta pass it.
What's hung said is we can't let them win.
You gotta pass this bill.
It's gonna be worse for you if you don't.
You gotta pass this bill.
What that means is we can't let the Republicans win.
We can't let the conservatives win.
Not when we have these majorities.
That's that's what animates them.
Look, we're bigger enemy to these people than Al Qaeda.
But but yet they turn on the Republicans to say we don't have uh you know free market solutions for some of the same problems which are presented all the time on this program in Hannity.
It's unbelievable to me.
Well, look at look at uh look at look at Chile.
You uh have you seen have you seen what's happened in Chile?
They have had a huge turn to the right.
We may all be moving there someday, folks, instead of instead of New Zealand.
No, no, no, no.
I kid you I'll find the story here in the stack.
I may not Yeah, here it is.
Let me just uh here it is.
Uh this is uh from the investors' business daily.
Uh Chile's shift to the right is a bellwether.
There's nothing like success to breed a taste for it.
Chile's dramatic shift from left to right in Sunday's election is that of an already prospering country preparing to soar.
Word of this will spread far in the region.
Um one more paragraph here.
Instead of blaming the gringos and waging class warfare on uh on Che Guavera t-shirts, they balanced their budget, they respected private property.
Instead of squandering a 19 billion dollar state windfall from soaring copper prices, they managed it.
They continued Pinochet's free market privatization of pensions without reflexively opposing its origins and signed free trade pacts with any nation that wanted to.
Here's the result.
Poverty in Chile has been cut by two-thirds, 45 to 15 percent.
Per capita income is up from 14 up 1400 in uh 1986 to 15,000 in 2009.
This built a tax base to do what it valued, expand social services.
So, I mean, Chile is uh is is rebounding, and they're doing so by moving right.
The evidence is uh is all over the place, including in this country.
They don't want to see it because they want the power of statism.
They want the power of control over people's lives.
They're not interested.
Believe me, they're not interested in a roaring economy.
If they were, they wouldn't be doing what they're doing with the swash funds.
It's just that simple.
Yeah, it's amazing.
Can I add one more quick point?
Absolutely.
Uh absolutely just want to say as an individual, uh, first Republican uh legitimate that has uh inspired me.
I mean, this gentleman is the first one that has ran that was not ashamed, he was unapologetic about his uh his belief system.
I mean, most of the folks we've had in our leadership positions have either uh, as you've mentioned many times, tried to uh uh kind of walk the middle line or reach cross line or what have you.
This gentleman finally, he came out and said yes, I support exactly right.
He was not afraid to say what he believed, and he learned how to articulate it in a persuasive, confident way.
He wasn't worried about what the people in the salons of Georgetown and on the upper west side would think of him.
He wasn't worried what they would think of him in the back bay.
He just, here's who I am, with no embarrassment or uh self-consciousness about it at all.
I mean, there's so many lessons to learn here, so many lessons, lessons that are taught daily on this program.
Thanks for the call out there.
I appreciate it, Vic.
Listen to this.
Tina Brown of the Daily Beast in the tank for Obama, in the tank for Clinton, in the tank, Democrat in a tank.
She was on the BBC's hard talk, and the presenter, Stephen Sacker, said, Do you not feel that Obama has been a disappointment to some in the Democrat Party?
Great disappointment to a lot of people.
The hype on Obama was entirely unrealistic.
I mean, in some ways, people projected onto Obama a kind of messianic, he's gonna come in and change the world.
It was almost new age.
And as a matter of fact, I mean, when Obama was running, I never did drink that Kool-Aid.
I I always saw him as somebody who was somewhat professorial, you know, somewhat inexperienced, but with an amazing oratorial gift and an ability to mobilize the moment.
He has only uh in the Senate for a couple of years.
He has not really had a huge amount of experience at that.
And I think that some of that is showing now.
Whoa, I don't remember her saying any of this.
I I thought she was in the tank on the messianic stuff.
Yeah, yes, you heard me right.
Uh, the host, Stephen Sacker on a show called Hard Talk.
Uh Tina Brown on there.
Uh yes, it's been a great disappointment to uh well people.
The hype was entirely unrealistic.
Oh, really?
Now it's all these people are jumping ship now.
All these people are are hidden for the tall grass.
I never did drink the Kool-Aid.
I I always saw him as somebody who was somewhat professorial, somewhat inexperienced.
Really?
And you still endorsed him and you couldn't wait for him to win?
You know, I don't believe this.
I I I don't believe there wasn't one person on the Democrat side who was not saying, We've never seen like this before.
We've never had a candidate like this before.
Why?
This is gonna be post-racial, postpartisan.
This all this is wonderful.
We're gonna get rid of every sin, and we're gonna swage all our I don't remember anybody on the Democrat side saying, wait a minute.
He's not a messiah.
Wait a minute, he's not experienced, wait a minute, he's professorial, wait- I don't remember any of that.
Because if it had happened, my friends, we would have um we would have trumpeted it all over the EIB network, and it didn't happen.
Got a couple of audio sound bites here for you, ladies and gentlemen, from President Obama, and they're just delicious.
They are from this morning.
They are for air tonight and tomorrow on ABC's Good Morning America.
George Stephanopoulos interviewed President Obama during the interview, Obama said this about the Massachusetts Senate race.
Here's my assessment of not just the vote in Massachusetts, But the mood around the country.
The same thing that swept Scott Brown in office swept me into office.
People are angry and they're frustrated.
Not just because of what's happened in the last year or two years, but what's happened over the last eight years.
Is he delusional?
Does he really believe this?
He can't possibly believe this.
To not know that the anger is solely directed at him and his party.
He thinks that he thinks the anger that they drummed up against George W. Bush is the same anger that elected Scott Brown.
If he believes this, folks, if he believes this, his ego is more out of control than even I, and I know egos had imagined.
If he really believes this and is not delusional, if he thinks the same anger at George W. Bush is the anger that existed in Massachusetts, that just that MSNBC, get a show ready for this guy.
MSNBC proves what happens when you de-institutionalize the mentally disturbed.
And then, from the same interview, Stopinopoulos says, What happens now?
Embrace yourselves for this.
What happens now with health care, Mr. President?
Here's one thing I know.
Uh, and I'll I just want to make sure that this is off the table.
The Senate certainly shouldn't try to jam anything through until Scott Brown is seated.
People in Massachusetts spoke.
Uh he's got to be part of that process.
Wait a second.
It doesn't go with what you just said about all the anger out there that elected Scott Brown.
I mean, because when you were elected, the anger was they wanted health care, damn it.
They wanted it, they wanted it, they wanted it, because they thought it was going to be cheap and plentiful, and everybody's gonna have it.
Now they realize that's not what it's gonna be.
Why, there are stories in the paper this morning.
I read one of them, the headlines to you, Obama doubled down.
We gotta get this done.
And now he says it's off the table.
The Senate certainly shouldn't try to jam anything through until he's seated.
Now, I need to say something about this.
Something that is actually remarkable.
It finally hit me.
This given assumption, the absolute certitude with which the 41st vote for the Republican gravely damages the Democrats and Halt's health care.
Do you realize how universal and automatic that is?
We are just being told that it's automatic.
Okay, that's that's the end of health care.
We got 41 votes.
But that 41st vote would only matter if it was understood, if it was known that the rest of the Republicans are reliably categorically together.
In saying that we we need amazingly enough, we need to give the Senate Republicans credit.
They have held.
This this election would mean nothing if Olympia Snow or Susan Collins were behaving as usual.
This election wouldn't have been diddly squat.
He might not have even won it if the Senate Republicans had not held together on this.
This is crucial.
Because for hanging tough hanging together, that 41st vote mattered.
That's only the foundation upon which the Scott Brown vote in the Senate has any meaning, by the way, folks, is that all 40 Republicans are hanging tough.
And everybody knows.
I say this somewhat sarcastically.
Everybody knows that the Senate Republicans are a formidable block.
I mean, they we have defections in the Senate Republican membership all the time.
McCain, that's right, Limbo, shipping across the aisle.
I show how it's done.
But they're all holding firm.
Every one of them.
And that makes the 41st vote the tipping point.
So if Obama's out there saying, hey, it's off the table.
And don't, by the way, don't think they haven't been trying to get snow.
Read Reed gave a really snarky comment about her the other day.
He said, I knew I wasted my time with her back in the fall.
So they're holding together.
If they didn't, and if they weren't, this vote, Scott Brown election, wouldn't mean anything.
If just one of them had defected.
Think about that.
We'll be back in a second.
Folks, you don't have to say it.
I I I know that uh you you know that the last point I made about Senate Republicans holding others a brilliant point, and an observation you haven't heard anywhere else.
And it Well, it is true, Snerdley.
By the way, uh, we have now, for all intents and purposes, completed the uh full installation of the H. D. Ditto Cam.
Now it is archived every day.
The is the morning update archived in um in HD, Brian?
Not yet, but the the whole show uh on on uh on Ditto Cam is archived in in HD now as of yesterday afternoon, and the uh podcast update will probably some c get that done in HD sooner rather than later.
We'll see you tomorrow, folks.
▲
Export Selection