All Episodes
Previous Next
Jan. 26, 2010 - Rush Limbaugh Program
35:50
January 26, 2010, Tuesday, Hour #3
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Yes, America's Anchorman is away and this is your undocumented Anchorman filling in.
Rush will be back tomorrow live from Las Vegas, Nevada, where he's been busy judging the Miss America pageant.
And I don't know how it's going out there, but I'm sure he'll fill you in on how the preliminaries have gone tomorrow.
You can also go to rushlimbore.com and get all the details.
I think it's going to be going out this Saturday night.
So I'm here from the studios of WNTK in New London, New Hampshire today.
So go Miss New Hampshire.
A neighbor of mine, who's a big honcho in the New Hampshire Trappers Association, always presents the winner of Miss New Hampshire with a premium New Hampshire animal pelt.
I'm not sure what particular pelt it is, but it doesn't matter.
You can shoot pretty much anything in this state.
But he always presents the winner of Miss New Hampshire with this pelt, so I don't know whether she'll be wearing it in the eye.
It's a long time since I've seen a fur bikini, so maybe that'll show up in the swimsuit round.
No, no, I don't want a flannel bikini, like a nice little fur-trimmed bikini.
Like Rackhu Welsh in whatever that movie was, you know, where she was running around.
Yeah, whatever it was, 8 billion years BC, where she was running around from the dinosaurs.
I mean, that's what kind of country it is.
Obama promises to turn things around, and I still can't walk out on the street and see anybody running around in a fur-trimmed bikini.
Anyway, we have, so Rush will be back to fill you in on all that tomorrow.
I'm still getting mail about roundabouts, by the way.
This isn't just an insignificant issue, incidentally.
I notice, I've become very sensitive to street signage.
I noticed driving down here, for example, that they now have little markers every fifth of a mile, every 0.2 of a mile on the interstate to tell you that you're only one-fifth of a mile from the last sign telling you you were one-fifth of a mile from the sign before.
And the signage thing is a big government, it's not just a big government make work project.
It's the delusion of make government.
It's by saying, look, if we put signs everywhere, you're safer.
You're safer.
We'd be a lot safer without most of these signs if we had to drive along trying to figure out for ourselves what's going on.
The sign I mentioned, the sign I really can't stand, is the sign that warns you that there's a stop sign coming up.
They have a sign saying in 50 yards time, there'll be a stop sign.
Well, why don't they have 50 hours before the sign saying there's a stop sign coming up, a sign saying there's a sign saying there's a stop sign coming up?
The minute you get into this, there is no end to it.
And so I'm still getting all this mail from people on the transportation issues.
Still getting mail, by the way, on Scott, we talked about pickups with a lady from Texas yesterday about pickups.
And a guy wrote to me and said, well, one reason why people are buying pickups now is because since big governments started mandating this and that for the cars, the cars can't do anything now.
He's saying when he used to go to his local beach, the parking lot was full of cars because the car could tow the boat.
Now, if you try, if you get your little Honda Civic and you hook the car up to it, hook the boat up to it and you drive off, you'll wrench off the trunk of your car and you'll be going down the road unaware that you've left your rear axle and the boat back in the yard of your house.
And so he's saying, and he's saying, you know, you can't pull anything in a, that's why people want to buy trucks rather than Priuses, which I don't know actually whether that's true.
My assistant, who's sitting across the desk, so I'll spare her blushes and not mention her husband by name, but he got the global warming fever and he traded in his truck for a Prius.
And this guy gets this thing anyway.
Can be seven miles deep in the woods on the other side of a roaring freshette of a brook where the bridge is washed out, and you'll see my assistant's husband's little Prius sticking there.
How the hell did that get there?
And it will have some dead buck parked sticking out the trunk with the head hanging off one side and the cute little white-tailed butt hanging out the other side.
And he's trying to jab the trunk of his Prius down on this dead buck.
You see it all, you see, you'll be going down a town, he'll be driving in his little Prius, he'll have like a 1,200-pound moose in there with a fantastic rack sticking out one side and the little hooves out the other.
The whole thing right and low, the bumper grinding along the road, making a huge noise.
So it's not true that you have to, that you can't be environmentally responsible.
You can still buy a Prius and kill as many animals as you did before in an environmentally friendly vehicle.
It does rapidly.
The trunk fills up with blood very quickly, I should warn you.
But other than that, there are no downsides to it.
So if you're skilled enough, you should be able, you should be, all his friends mock him, by the way, for going hunting in a Prius.
By the way, another thing I want to just go back to from yesterday, I was defending Rush over Abe Foxman's comments.
And I got emails from people saying, oh, well, Abe Fox, you shouldn't be so hard on Abe Foxman.
Yes, I should.
He represents a very important organization.
And he has an inability to prioritize.
Look at what are the threats to Jews in the world today.
Radical Islam, where you're taught that Jews are filthy and unclean.
They're lower than pigs and dogs, and you should kill them.
The attack on Bombay, the attack on Bombay, which if you read the New York Times, you would have thought it was some territorial dispute between India and Pakistan.
Those guys who attacked Bombay deliberately sought out the one rabbi in town and killed him and his wife.
So it's the idea that that's a territorial dispute, land for peace or whatever, is nonsense.
It's a psychosis in that particular demographic.
So you've got radical Islam.
Then you've got the educated left, where it's become more and more acceptable, routinely acceptable, to cross the line from criticism of Israel into downright denial of Israel's right to exist into downright anti-Semitism.
And then you've got Rush.
And then you've got Rush.
How stupid do you have to be when you've got Islam, the left, and Rush, and you're leading a Jewish organization to think that Rush is the one you need to be sending press releases about.
This guy's an idiot.
And I stand by every word I said.
And, you know, Rush got into this because he was talking about Norman Podhoritz's book, Why Are Jews Liberal?
Norman Podhoritz wrote this book, came out a couple of weeks ago, Why Are Jews Liberal?
And the whole stupid Abraham Foxman response to Rush's comments demonstrates Norman Podhoritz, the point of Norman Podhoritz's book.
Abe Foxman is his own worst enemy because he's not identifying.
I mean, I can understand what's in it for him.
He gets whatever it is.
I think it's 700 grand plus benefits to be the head of this anti-defamation league.
So it worked out swell for him.
But it's not doing the half-witted inability to prioritize is not doing anything for Jews who are in greater peril around the world today than they have been since the end of the Second World War.
And his stupidity absolutely makes the point of Norman Podhoritz's book, Why Are Jews Liberal?
Now, Obama, the loneliest populist in town.
He's complaining he's lonely.
He's complaining that he can't walk into a diner or a barber's or a barber's shop like he used to.
He's been reduced to hosting, which Kardashian girl is it?
Kim or the other one?
I can't remember.
I can't remember which.
What's the other one called?
Chloe, Chloe Kardashian.
I don't know.
I'm not up on my Kardashians.
He's been reduced to hosting Chloe Kardashian at the White House.
But he can't go into a barbershop and he can't go into a diner.
And so he's instead doing this populist routine, man of the people.
Interesting piece in the New York Times.
First sentence.
Who is Barack Obama?
Thank you, thank you, New York Times.
Wouldn't it have been great if you'd asked that question two years ago?
That was the question you should have been asking then.
But in fact, the guy asking it today is Bob Herbert.
Now, Bob Herbert is a doctrineaire left-wing columnist.
He's not one of these witty and amusing and insightful left-wing columnists like that crazy guy, Savaging Obama, that I read out yesterday.
He's like the dullest left-wing columnist in town.
He's the most doctrinaire, most boring left-wing columnist in town.
He sees racism under every stone.
If any guy, if any pasty-faced white bloke had written who is Barack Obama, Bob Herbert would be the first one to say, this is racism.
You didn't ask those questions back when it was George W. Bush, when it was the old whitebread presidents.
He goes, who is Barack Obama?
Mr. Obama is in danger of being perceived as someone whose rhetoric, however skillful, cannot always be trusted.
It's very interesting to me that.
What is he saying to him?
He's saying that Barack Obama cannot be trusted.
This is a classic doctrinaire, left-wing, partisan columnist saying he cannot trust Barack Obama.
Mr. Obama will deliver his State of the Union address Wednesday night.
The word is that he will offer some small bore assistance to the middle class.
But more important than the content of the speech will be whether the president really means what he says.
Americans want to know what he stands for, where his line in the sand is, what he'll really fight for, and where he wants to lead this nation.
They want to know who their president really is.
He's tiptoeing up, he's just tiptoeing up to the line of calling Barack Obama a phony, of calling him a $3 bill, of calling him when he says, oh, the rhetoric is skillful, but we don't know whether we can trust it.
You know, that's the point when you praise rhetoric, which in presidential terms is meaningless anyway, because it's all written by somebody else and it's just a question of whether the guy can deliver it.
And I always found with George W. Bush, by the way, that he was actually, that his speeches were, often his speeches were well written.
He was certainly clear on what he was saying.
He didn't always deliver it well.
With Barack Obama, you have a peddler of slick generalities.
And for the left to finally be asking this question, for the New York Times to be asking this question, this man is president.
This man is president because you never asked that question two years ago.
You guys who say we're all going to miss you when you're gone, the New York Times, which is now half-owned by some Mexican and is having to remortgage its fantastic building on whatever it is, 43rd Street, 44th Street, whichever one it is, is now saying, oh, who is Barack Obama?
You keep saying that when you finally go bankrupt, we'll all miss you guys when you're gone.
Well, the reason we won't miss you is because you didn't do your due diligence when you were selling us this guy as your candidate two, two and a half, three years ago.
So thanks, thank you.
Thank you, Bob Herbert, for finally getting around to the question you guys should have been asking way back in the 2008 election campaign.
Mark Stein in for Rush, lots more straight ahead.
Mark Stein in for Rush.
Hey, let's go to Gene in Harvard.
Don't worry, it's not that Harvard.
It's not the Harvard weather all hot for Scott Brown.
Harvard, Illinois.
Gene, great to have you with us.
Great to have you on the show.
Hi, Mark.
Thanks for taking my call.
My pleasure.
When Bill Clinton was president, he used to encourage us before the State of the Union show to tape a piece of paper saying, this man is a convicted liar, or something to that effect on our TV show, so that we wouldn't be sucked in by his lies.
Right.
Now, last year, when Obama was speaking to a joint session of Congress, he said something, and Congressman Wilson shouted out, you lie.
And, you know, he got beset on because of what he'd said.
And my suggestion is not to shout out, you lie, but for everyone to just start laughing will be loud.
If the Republicans, I told my congressman on this this morning and I'll left the message.
If they all started laughing, because you're allowed to tell jokes.
Yeah, yeah, no.
You know, people laughed when something funny said.
Oh, no, no, no.
That would be if the entire Republican caucus sitting there just went and a real kind of TV sitcom laughter track laugh where they just go, ah, on and on.
And it's such a big laugh that Obama stops and he can't continue.
I think it would take him off teleprompter.
I don't think he has the temperament to endure laughter.
No, no.
And I think that would give the American people a much better view of who he is when they see how he responds to laughter.
That is an ingenious suggestion, Gene, a brilliant suggestion.
And I'll tell you something.
I know how it works.
I think this was the night before the primary, the 2008 primary, in Manchester, New Hampshire.
And at the Radisson in whatever it is, Ballroom A, Bill Clinton was talking to all these bust-in union workers and telling them why they should vote for Hillary.
And in Ballroom B, I was there with my pals from National Review, Jonah Goldberg and Rob Blong.
And we were doing a little kind of political cabaret act to cheer up depressed conservatives.
And the waves of laughter sweeping through from our ballroom into Bill Clinton's ballroom totally threw him off his rhythm.
So that every time Bill Clinton did one of his like, you know, it's about the future of all our children, there'd be these howls of laughter coming through from the other side of the partition.
And it completely disrupted his rhythm and threw him off his game.
And I think that would be, as you say, that would absolutely, it's not like if you lie, if you say you lie to Obama, he can look there as the, he can stand there looking like the aggrieved party more in sorrow than in anger and take the high road and be aloof.
If you just laugh at him, which is what the world is doing, you don't think Vladimir Putin's laughing at him, you don't think Muk Mukh Medinajad's laughing at him, you don't think Kim Jong-il's laughing at him, if you just do what the rest of the world does and laugh at him, that would really send a message.
So when he promises to cut spending, you laugh.
That is the best suggestion of the day, Gene, and I hope your congressman and every other congressman takes you up on that.
That's a terrific suggestion.
Who is your congressman, by the way, there in Harvard?
Mark Zulo.
And is he good?
He's wonderful.
Okay, he's got a good laugh, has he?
I don't know if he has a good laugh.
I've met him.
I don't know what his laugh's like, but he's right there with all the good Republicans.
Oh, okay.
Well, I hope that gets some momentum because, you know, this is ridiculous.
We're not actually proposing to freeze spending here.
This is like saying, look, I've got, this is like a, I think it was Mike Dukakis when George Bush Sr. announced that he was going to have a flexible freeze, spending freeze, what he called a flexible freeze in the 1988 campaign.
And Mike Dukakis, in the only funny line he's ever said, called it something like a partial slurpee, which it is.
I mean, what you're saying is, I'm going to take this brick of ice cream and I'm going to freeze this 1.3 ounces in the corner, and the rest of the brick will just carry on melting and running all over the floor as before.
And I'm going to make no attempt to stop that.
But this little bit will be preserved.
It is ridiculous.
It is laughable.
And we should laugh at it.
It's, as I said, right at the top of the show, it's like girls thinking they can get a little bit pregnant.
And that's what this little bit, this so-called freeze of whatever it is, savings of $250 billion over 10 years, while the other $9 trillion just sprawls and expands, and we're still paying interest on the debt.
And those will turn out to be low-ball figures, but all that spending will still be unconstrained.
It's a joke.
And the best response to a pitiful joke is to stand there and mock and laugh and hoot and clutch your sides and fall in the aisle.
It'll be the take-home moment.
I hope your congressman and all the others take you up on that, Gene.
Thank you for your call.
It's been great to have you on the show with us.
They're all turning against him now.
I love this line.
Eugene Robinson.
Washington Post.
You know, we're talking about Bob Herbert in the New York Times.
Who is Barack Obama?
He's asking the question: these are the smart guys, by the way.
They're not idiots like you.
They're not knuckle-dragging morons.
These are the smart guys.
The knuckle-dragging morons were saying, oh, who is Barack Obama three years ago?
But the smart guys are just kind of catching up now.
So like the Washington Post, Eugene Robinson.
Here's the headline.
Obama can't create change with words alone.
Oh, really?
Why didn't you tell us that two years ago?
What has he ever done except words?
He's a words man.
What has he built?
What has he made?
What's his legislative record?
He's got his name on no significant legislation.
He voted president.
All he has are words.
As Hillary Clinton said all those years ago when she was touting her experience of this and her experience of that.
I mean, putting aside that, that's bunk for the most part.
And she said, oh, what are Barack Obama's qualifications to be president?
Oh, he gave a good speech.
Well, for a start, the speech wasn't that good.
And if you take away Barack Obama's speeches, there ain't anything left.
Why is Eugene Robinson in the Washington Post only catching up to this three years late?
Mark Stein, in for Rush, 1-800-282-2882.
Lots more straight ahead on the EIB network.
And don't forget, Rush returns to the Golden EIB microphone tomorrow, live from Las Vegas.
Great to be with you.
Rush back tomorrow.
Those Oregon taxes, by the way, I mentioned earlier, where they're going to levy these taxes on the rich, families with more, so-called rich, families with more than $250,000, individual incomes of $125,000, and corporations.
The interesting thing about that, by the way, is those taxes are retroactive to last year.
So again, it's a job killer.
It's a job killer.
Why would you want to make an investment?
Why would you want to hire somebody?
Why wouldn't you want to grow your business when the legislature next year might pass some new tax bill and not just do that, but might backdate the taxes to 2009?
So you're going to need some extra cash to pay taxes you thought you'd settled 18 months earlier.
It's a job killer.
That's what all this stuff has in common because it encourages people to say, I'm just going to try and this is crazy stuff.
You don't know what the rules are anymore.
And that's essentially the environment the Obama administration operate in.
It's the Bernie-Frank thing.
We'll make up the rules as we go along and backdate them if necessary.
So it's like walking out onto a tennis court and the guy says, oh, by the way, I won the first set already.
And you go, oh, hang on, what are you doing?
And he goes, well, I always lower the net when I'm serving.
And then we raise it seven foot in the air when it's your serve.
If you don't know what the rules are beforehand, you just sit tight, think, well, maybe this is just a bad period in American history.
And if one day I'll wake up and it will all have been a bad dream.
And then I can start hiring people and growing my business again.
But this stuff is all a job killer.
That's what it all has in common.
You know, we were talking earlier at the beginning of the show, all these people going on TV now, all these people like the editor of People and Valerie Jarrett, who's the senior White House advisor, and saying, oh, well, the president's problem is he's so lonely because he'd really just like to go out.
His Majesty would like to go out and be able to take a walk in the royal park and greet his humble subjects and sit with them and enjoy the simple pleasures that you common folk enjoy.
But unfortunately, he's in the bubble and he can't do it.
So his majesty cannot get out of the palace.
The interesting thing is that, unlike a lot of what Valerie Jarrett says, there is a huge grade of truth to this because as we've seen, politically speaking, the president is getting lonelier and lonelier.
When we had those columnists we were talking about yesterday who said, that's it, I'm done with this guy.
He's the most inept president of my lifetime.
These are the left-wing guys, by the way.
Now Bob Herbert says, who is Barack Obama?
I don't want to sit next to him in a barbershop or a dine.
I don't know who this guy is.
And the third piece of this puzzle is that all those smart, reach-across-the-aisle, bipartisan types are now beginning to turn on him too.
Christopher Buckley, who's a colleague of mine, who was a colleague of mine at National Review, he's William F. Buckley's son.
William F. Buckley, you know, was a great friend of Rush.
Rush admired Bill Buckley immensely, and Bill admired Rush immensely too.
But Christopher Buckley, his son, a couple of months before the last election, declared that he was going to vote for Barack Obama.
He endorsed Barack Obama.
He's now written a piece today called The Audacity of Oops.
It's out there on the internet.
The audacity of oops.
Scathing, mocking, scathing and mocking Barack Obama's first year on every front, on the economic front, on the healthcare front, and on the national security front.
A speech mocking this man, a sort of fake State of the Union speech mocking this man.
I don't want to pile on to Christopher.
But, you know, what you should say, some point in this, is, I was, yes, folks, this guy sold us a bill of goods, but I was succored too.
I was duped.
I was taken in by this.
We're happy to have you come home.
Recross the aisle.
It's getting cold and chilly over there.
There's all kinds of moderate types over on this side now.
There's Scott Brown waiting to embrace you.
Come back home, Christopher.
But you first have to recognize that you were succored last year.
You were succored in 2008.
If you look at what he said, Christopher Buckley and David Brooks, they praised Obama's temperament, temperament.
I don't know what temperament means in this context.
I think it's like when you read Tiger Beat and the Tiger Beat columnists going on about the Jonas brothers' hair.
Temperament for bipartisan, moderate Republican, soft conservative colonists, temperament is the equivalent of the Jonas Brothers hair.
And so Christopher Buckley's going on, and David Brooks, all these guys going on about Obama's temperament, which has now got him into all the trouble.
That's the problem with the temperament is he stands there, he's calm, cool, and collected, and that's it.
What that means when something goes badly wrong, like with the Panty Bomber, is that he or the Fort Hood massacre, where he stands there and he gives no impression that 14 people have been hideously murdered, slaughtered, or that 300 people have avoided a narrow death over the skies of Detroit.
That's what his cool, so much for his cool temperament then.
But in the day-to-day sense, all the cool temperament means is that he just lets Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi and Barney Frank make all the running.
So that he doesn't, he's got no, you know, why does he take a lead on healthcare?
Why does he say what he wants in the bill?
Why did he mortgage his administration's reputation to Barney Frank and Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid?
That's because of his cool temperament.
Too cool to get in the game.
Let's go to Dan in Lebanon, Missouri.
Dan, you're live on the Rush Limbaugh show.
Great to have you with us.
Yeah, it's good to talk to you.
Good to talk to you too.
To go along with what you were saying earlier about who they, the leftists don't know who they have in the office of the White House, there's no wonder that they don't know because they haven't been asking him any questions.
And I'd like to just make an observation of the statement that he made today, President Obama, that he would be willing to freeze the domestic spending in the budget for the next three years.
If you recall, I mean, as they bring this forth, he's brought forth as a very open-minded, a willing, a fair participant in this as he brings this forward, which I think is quite bold.
But then if you remember a few years back when President Bush did this, do you remember what they called him?
Right.
Draconian.
Right.
He was draconian.
Right.
And he didn't feel the people's pain as he was not calling for any cuts.
They were just going to hold everything in a steady line item.
But it was draconian.
It was like Count Dracula running around letting the blood of the people at nighttime taking from them.
And it was anything but that.
But that's just an observation.
I'd like to know what your thoughts are.
No, no, you're right.
That's a very good way, the vampiric analogy, by the way, because they'll be reduced to that.
They've really taken as much as they can take in daylight.
So they're going to find ways metaphorically to sneak into your home while you sleep and sink their teeth into your neck and suck it out of you that way.
Because the problem with the United States, as in many other countries, well, actually, that's not true.
At least in Scandinavia, they're willing to tax you to the hilt to pay for all the big government goodies.
Here what they're doing is they're saying, well, we're going to, we're not quite ready to be honest about this.
We're not putting an honest figure on the cost of the program.
We're not putting an honest figure on what you're going to have to pay in taxes by it.
We're deluding you into thinking that you can somehow have it all.
You can have monstrous big government bulked up with entitlements, but that somehow you'll still be free to live your life the way you used to.
And that isn't true.
At some point, you've got to decide on this.
But the idea, too, by the way, as you say, that when Bush tried to cut any, not actually cut, but just hold the growth.
Hold the remorseless growth of big government, which grows while you sleep.
It's there.
It's like the little new London roundabout, and you wake up the next day and it's this huge thing that squats all over the town like a dead toad.
That's how government grows remorselessly in the dark of night.
So they say, oh, this little rinky-dink-nothing program, don't worry about it.
It's just $2 billion.
And then a generation later, it's half a trillion dollars.
That's always how it goes with government, which is why you shouldn't waste time worrying about the deficit.
You've got to cut the programs.
And whenever Bush tried to do it, he was told it's draconian, it's draconian.
I find it so interesting that Obama proposes the same thing, and his caricature is so much different than President Bush's was.
Because he supposedly cares for you.
I mean, this idea for a start, when you get the government to do anything, it's going to be more wasteful than any other way of doing it.
Because there's no economies of scale with government.
It's not like when Pepsi-Cola buys mom and pop coke of Nowheresville Junction and they reduce the cost of that bottle of Coca-Cola because of economies of scale.
There's no economies of scale with government.
The bigger government gets, the more expensive it gets.
It's the opposite of the private sector in that sense.
That's why it's important to have government done at town level, at county level, at state level, but a very, very minimal amount done at national level and certainly none done, which is what this stupid Copenhagen thing was going to be, at the international level.
Because you can guess what your tax rate's going to be once the United Nations has revenue-raising powers.
That way, all bets are off.
1-800-282-2882-Mark Stein in for rush more to come.
Mark Stein in for rush.
I'm getting tons of mail, by the way, over this Oregon backdating, which gets worse the more you look at it.
Just had an email here from a small business owner in Eugene, Oregon, who says that not only are the taxes retroactive to 2009, but they're on gross receipts, not net profit.
In other words, if your business didn't make a profit in 2009, you'll still be required to pay this retroactive tax on your gross.
And equally, the personal tax increase is also retroactive.
And if you meet the criteria, you'll be required to pay it from the beginning of 2009.
Free societies, by the way, do not go in for retroactive taxation.
Everybody who made it to December 31st, 2009, has the right at that point to know, have a sense of what their tax liability, personal or corporate, should have been for the year 2009.
It is disgusting and disgraceful, and free citizens should not put up with this.
If George III had tried this kind of wacky stuff in 1776, you guys wouldn't have just held a revolution.
You'd have sailed to London and strung him up outside Buckingham Palace.
You're Americans.
You shouldn't put up with being told, well, I've spoken to my accountant.
I think I'm all square on my 2009 taxes.
And then the government tells you, no, we're going back to square one again, and this is taxation not on profits, but on gross receipts.
It's disgusting.
And free societies do not do this stuff.
Let's go to Jeff in Hastings, Nebraska.
Jeff, you're live on the Rush Limbaugh Show.
Hey, Mark, greetings from the land of Senator Tippy Toe.
That's right.
It's not working out too well for him, though, is it?
He's tippy-toed this far, but I think he stepped on the landmine this time.
Yeah, yeah, that's true.
That's the remains of his foot hanging all over the wall, unfortunately for him.
Hey, this spending freeze that the president's talking about doesn't actually.
He's promising to start the spending freeze next year.
That's right.
And it's like an alcoholic saying, well, I'll quit drinking, or a drunken sailor saying, I won't go on a binge next time on shore leave.
No, no.
Plus, they've already inflated the discretionary spending by 9% to 12% the last two years.
If they did follow through, it would be whatever that is.
Yeah.
Well, To pursue your drunken sailor analogy, it's like saying, I'm going to quit drinking next year, but in the 18 months running up to when I'm going to quit drinking, I'm going to triple my, I'm going to triple the number of pints of beer I intake between now and then.
As you say, this is absurd.
And Jean was right when she said we should just laugh at it.
I mean, no serious man could stand up and propose this in public.
His speech writers are going to have to find some form of words for this that is not inherently ridiculous.
And I don't know whether they're that good at it.
I don't think so.
Hey, thanks, Mark.
My pleasure, Jeff.
Great to have you with us.
Let's go to Colleen in Prairieville, Louisiana.
I love the name, Colleen.
Why, thank you, Mark.
It is such a privilege and an honor to speak with you.
I so enjoy your commentary and everything you write, and you're just a joy, a gift from God.
Oh, I've always wanted to meet a Colleen who said that kind of thing to me.
I'm getting all trembly now.
What's the view from Prairieville, Colleen?
Well, I'll tell you, Mark, I have a problem.
The president has endorsed the Saints.
He's rooting for the Saints.
I'm beside myself.
It's like the kiss of death.
You know, we've been waiting for this forever, and he's going to go and sign on with the Saints.
I know the White House monitors, you know, conservative talk, and I'd like to appeal to their sense of decency.
Please get the president to throw his support to Indy.
And if possible, go there personally and take photos with the team.
Yeah, that's right.
Do the full works.
Go in there and give his Chicago Olympics speech one more time.
Yeah, because look what happened to Coakley and Corzine and that other dweeb.
So please, people at the White House, get him to back Indy 100%.
Well, I've just heard from the Oval Office that he is willing to fly in and appear with the Saints and re-deliver his Martha Coakley speech for you down in Prairieville before.
Oh, God.
Just a quick road trip to Indy.
That's all I'm asking, White House.
Okay, okay.
Come on, come on.
He only gave 411 speeches in his first year.
Let's make the 412th the one that actually delivers your team Super Bowl victory by getting Barack Obama to go and put his arms around the other guys.
You're right.
It's the magic touch.
He's got the magic touch.
It's the whole Chicago Olympics pitch all over again.
Let's see what it does for him.
Let's see what it does for the Saints.
And I hope, by the way, I hope, Colleen, that it doesn't, that it doesn't all, his magic touch doesn't prove disastrous for you.
Good luck with the Super Bowl.
Mark Stein, Infra Rush, more straight ahead on the EIB network.
Mark Stein, in for rush at the EIB network.
It's been great to be here at Ice Station EIB, WNTK, in New London, New Hampshire.
It's been terrific to be able to do the show from my home state and not have to fly down to New York and hang out with all those decadent, effete metropolitan types like HR down in the big city.
It's stressful for me because I normally got the full beard.
Like when I'm here in New Hampshire, I got like the full Mullah Omar and I always have to trim it into this sort of assistant choreographer on the casual foal look when I fly down and do the show from New York.
So it's been a terrific fun for me to be able to do it here from the great state of New Hampshire.
I would like to thank all the guys at WNTK.
I would like to thank Matt and Dave and Bob, who owns the station and has been very kindly hosting us.
This was one of the first 50 Rush affiliates, by the way, and they're still sticking with this show 20 years later.
By the way, tomorrow, Rush will be back live from Las Vegas, where he's been hosting the Miss America pageant.
And I believe they've booked him for when Obama delivers the State of the Union.
Rush is going to stand in the aisle of the Senate and sing, There he is, President America.
But we'll see whether we can hold him to that.
Rush back tomorrow live at the Golden EIB microphone.
Thanks for listening.
▲
Export Selection