All Episodes
Previous Next
Feb. 16, 2010 - Rush Limbaugh Program
36:36
February 16, 2010, Tuesday, Hour #1
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Welcome to today's edition of the Rush 24-7 podcast.
Well, it's Tuesday after a holiday, which means all the non-essential people are back to work today.
Great to have you with us, ladies and gentlemen, as we head on down the highway of truth, Rush Limbaugh and the EIB Network, and the Limbaugh Institute for Advanced Conservative Studies.
You know, I never thought I'd be doing this, but I'm doing it.
I'm actually watching the Winter Olympics.
And I haven't watched the Winter Olympics in many, many moons.
Are you guys watching the Winter Olympics?
Boy, I tell you what, the Chikom figure skating team is amazing.
Those two Chikoms are, their husband and wife, they're 36 and 31 years old.
They are amazing.
And they have unseated the Russians who for 12 Olympics or 12 years, whatever it is, have won all the gold.
And I never heard of moguling until these Olympics.
I've never heard of, I've never skiemed.
I don't even know what moguling.
And I don't know why the mogul people wear all that baggy clothing when every other skier wears some form-fitting, aerodynamically fitted suit.
A lot of things I don't know.
I'm watching this stuff.
I didn't think I'd be watching this stuff.
Somehow I'm watching it.
It turned out I'm done channel surfing around and I was actually watching this stuff.
Anyway, great to have you here, ladies and gentlemen.
We got lots to do on the program today.
We start off with a conflict today.
The Los Angeles Times and practically every other news agency is reporting that the second in command of the Afghan Taliban was captured in Pakistan last week.
They didn't announce it until today.
Supposedly captured during a raid secretly carried out by Pakistani and U.S. intelligence operatives, according to officials from the U.S. and Pakistan.
The thing that bothers me about this is that these guys always told us that none of this matters until we get bin Laden.
None of it matters.
We get Bin Laden and Mullah Omar.
And every time we catch, I don't know how there's a number two Taliban guy left.
We must have captured three or four number two guys during the Bush-Cheney years.
And I guess they keep putting up new two guys, number two guys.
And we also don't know if this guy's name, by the way, is Mullah Abdul Ghani Baradar or Baradar.
And it says here, it deals a serious blow to the Taliban.
Also represents a potential turning point for the government of Pakistan.
But the Taliban's denying that the number two guy has been captured.
So who do we believe?
The U.S. and Pakistan or the Taliban?
It's a toss-up.
The jury's still out.
We just don't know.
And we don't know if he's been mirandized.
Stories do not say whether or not Mullah Abdul Ghani Baradar has been mirandized, although Obama has said he will not waterboard the guy in advance in order to make sure the Taliban doesn't get too mad at us for capturing their number two guy.
It'd be okay that we've captured the guy if we don't waterboard him.
But if we waterboard him after capturing him, they're really going to be mad, I suppose, in the thinking of the Obama administration.
From a eager-to-help associated press, and we had a forerunner of this story yesterday facing criticism that President Obama isn't connecting with the American people.
The White House is infused.
It's bad.
Folks, the left is so ticked off at Evan Bay, you cannot believe how mad they are at him.
Jonathan Cape Hart, calling it a brain drain of the Senate, continues.
If this is a brain drain of the Senate, then I say more of it.
The more Democrats we lose, the more brains we lose.
Fine and dandy.
I'll get rid of those brains every time it happens.
I'll cheer it.
And we got John Podesta, who was former Chief of Staff for Clinton, saying an Obama administration is a mess.
The Republicans are going to clean up in November, may take the Senate back.
Charlie Cook, a noted nonpartisan pollster and political scientist analyst, analyst said the same thing.
Remember, folks, let's go back just one year.
This time, last year, it was settled political science that the era of Ronaldus Magnus was over.
Last year, at this time, it was settled political science that the Republican Party would never be in power again, at least for 40 decades.
I was the head of a failed party.
Conservatives were a dying breed.
Obama was golden.
The Democrats had all the votes and the power to do whatever they wanted, whenever they wanted, forever.
And yet, just like global warming, we have to always be reminded that the ultimate definition of science is that it is never, ever settled.
It is always changing.
New factors come into play constantly, and it needs endless examination, as it is endlessly never settled.
And it needs a highly trained specialist like me to continue to analyze it for it.
But one year ago, everybody in this country thought I was the one whacked out.
Everybody, even people on our side, thought I had lost it.
I was the only one suggesting that what was going to happen has happened.
I was the only one suggesting the era of Reagan was not over.
That conservatism is timeless, as is the Constitution.
And now, here it is, a year later, and we get this story from an eager-to-help AP.
Facing criticism that Obama isn't connecting with the American people, the White House is infusing its communication strategy with some of the ironclad discipline and outside-the-box thinking that made the Obama presidential campaign famous and successful.
Sensitive about talk, the president was sometimes overexposed during his first year in office.
The administration now is more discriminating about how and when the president deals with the media, like as in never, and about whom he talks to when he does.
He went out there today, went out there somewhere.
We got the tape ramping up the whole notion of nuclear power.
8 point some odd billion in loans.
Now, this is going to be fascinating to watch because the entire entertainment industry, the Hollywood left, do you realize why we don't have any nuclear power in this country the last 30 years?
One movie, The China Syndrome, starring Jane Fonda and Michael Douglas.
It was Michael Douglas, wasn't it?
And yeah, and Jack Lemon was in there in this movie.
That's the reason that we do not have any new nuclear power plants in the last 30 years.
Now, what everybody seems to forget here, you can't build new nuclear power plants and take them online without someplace to put the waste.
And Obama's closed it.
The waste repository was Yucca Mountain in Nevada, and Obama has closed it.
Nobody is talking about there's no place he can do all he wants.
He can extend loans, and he can get the process going, but wait till the regulations and the red tape to get the this is simple pandering because his own party does not want this.
His own entertainment donors don't want this.
They don't want nuclear power.
They're not just going to roll over and say, oh, our guy wants it.
Okay, cool.
We'll support it.
But without some place to put the waste, it's all academic.
Mona Charon wrote about this at National Review Online four or five weeks ago.
It's my superior memory that allows me to remember this.
Here are some of the things that the Obama administration is going to do.
More direct, rapid response to criticism.
Through blog postings on the White House website by a small cast of Obama aides and unsolicited emails from Press Secretary Gibbs blasted the White House vast press list.
The administration seeks to more quickly and widely counter perceived misinformation.
Gibbs has finally resorted to Twitter.
More events at which the president speaks directly to the public without the filter of the media.
More?
How can there be any more?
400 some odd last year.
Carefully choreographed interactions with the media.
Instead of holding news conferences, which can cover many topics and put reporters in competition with the president for the spotlight, the Obama team is trying to place a premium on its media interactions.
I could go on reading the rest of the story, but isn't Mr. Obama just adjusting the ways in which he hopes to continue to dupe the dumb man?
I mean, the whole Obama administration is a giant dupe and has been caught on to.
He's no longer duping anybody, so they've got to find a new way to dupe people.
That's what this is.
They still can't be honest about what they're doing.
They don't dare.
So we'll keep a sharp eye on this, folks.
We are not fooled.
However, at CNN, they are breathless in anticipation.
Rick Sanchez yesterday afternoon talking with the political correspondent Jessica Yellen.
Did the White House suddenly say, look, enough is enough.
We're not going to sit back and take Dick Cheney going on Fox News and Rush Limbaugh and all the right-wing places and arguing about everything that we do.
We're going to take him on, and the man to do that is Joe Biden.
Is this a strategy?
The White House has ramped up its communications message, and it's become much more aggressive on many fronts, and this is one of them.
In general, taking on Cheney in an election year is a win for Democrats because he's so unpopular with the Democratic base.
And we all know part of the problem in politics is having an enemy is what helps you raise money, which you need to succeed.
Well, bring it on.
I mean, they've been doing it to Cheney the whole year.
They've been going after me the whole year.
And where are they?
Their base is livid with them right now.
Nobody's happy with Obama.
Look at this.
This is New York Times CBS poll.
Just 6% of Americans believe Obama's $787 billion slush stimulus fund created jobs.
Just 6%.
And these are the people that probably, well, never mind.
Now, in December, the Obama administration announced they had saved or created 1.1 million jobs.
In January, the Obama administration announced that they had saved or created 2 million jobs.
But the American people are not buying this.
Just 6%.
Does this not give you faith and hope in your countrymen, folks?
I mean, they know that there are no jobs being created because they're out of work and they can't find any.
And they keep hearing about all these millions of jobs created or saved.
And they say, where?
Just 6%.
That's, this is, this is Obama's failed stimulus.
I mean, the word failure is all over this administration.
Oh, yeah, certainly you're right.
This will deserve a rapid response.
We'll probably hear from the White House on this by the end of the day.
That Limbaugh is out there quoting a New York Times poll.
Just 6% of Americans believe Obama's stimulus plan created jobs.
It is a failed stimulus.
That's the whole way to describe that.
That's the term we should use every time it's mentioned.
George Lackoff would be proud of me.
George Lackoff Rhymeswith would be proud of me.
Obama's failed stimulus.
And they're going to compound it here with a second failed stimulus.
What all this adds up to, folks, is that Obama is admitting he cannot manage the presidency.
Obama's admitting that he's failed.
He's back on campaign trail.
He's back in campaign mode.
He cannot govern.
He cannot manage the presidency.
The president has admitted and his administration has admitted he has failed.
He's got to go back to what worked, the permanent campaign.
The problem, that isn't going to work, though, because the permanent campaign is up against the hard dose of reality that the American people see each and every day.
Before we go to the break, apparently, folks, I am the gift that keeps on giving.
Yesterday morning, ESPN's Mike and Mike in the morning, the co-host Mike Golick spoke with the fill-in co-host Eric Casilius about Donovan McNabb again.
What year did this happen?
What year was my ill-fated six months or six weeks on ESP?
Was it 2003?
2003?
Eight years ago, 2003, 2007, whatever it was, look at this.
Still being discussed.
And Golick says to Eric Casilius, I'm just stunned that people would say, okay, we're done with McNabb.
Let the Kevin Cobb area begin.
My position on McNabb has been, I think his career, he has been underrated in the city of Philadelphia and probably a little overrated outside the city of Philadelphia.
He's benefited from having public feuds with two people that are very polarizing and unliked in certain situations.
One, Rush Lynn Baugh, two, Terrell Owens.
Those are polarizing people.
But I look and say, one Super Bowl appearance, never won a Super Bowl, has not been great in championship games.
There's a sense in Philadelphia, my friends who are Eagle fans, that we are never going to win the Super Bowl with five as our quarterback.
And as far as I know, Casilius is still working at ESP.
More power to him.
But apparently, I.L. Rushboard, the gift that keeps on giving.
The latest now is that McNabb benefited from all this so-called controversy.
Be right back after this, my friends.
Well, I continue to be amused here, ladies and gentlemen, watching a left freak out over the resignation of Evan Bay of Indiana from the Senate, Lee Siegel, one of the lead columnists at the Daily Beast.
He's a senior columnist out there.
Evan Bayh's shameful retreat.
The perennial Veep shortlister bashed Congress in announcing his retirement.
What if he'd taken responsibility for it?
What a terrible mediocrity this man Bayh is.
He leaves the Senate he served in a loftily spewing contempt for its members' selfishness and spinelessness, even as he demonstrates those precise qualities in his decision to turn tail and run.
Evan Bayh seems to have a very different reason for cutting and running than the specter of ignominious defeat.
The times demand leaders, fighters, principal tacticians, and creative conceptualizers.
Bayh's response, in that case, I'm out of here.
At a press conference held a few hours later, he said the people's business isn't getting done.
In other words, Bayh's reason for leaving politics sounded exactly like the contemporary voter's reason for disdaining it.
Congress stinks.
The government's dysfunctional.
Yet there's a difference between Bay and the average voter.
Bayh's a professional politician.
A nature of politics is fighting uphill battles.
So when Evan Bayh, a golden boy who virtually inherited his Senate seat from his dad, Birch, has never lost an election, considered presidential material, presents as the reason for his withdrawal from the Senate the polarized environment and intractable loggerhead of current politics.
You wonder just what kind of politician he's ever been.
They are livid.
We have some Birch, sorry, Evan Bay.
Sound bites.
We have three of them.
He was on Mess NBC today.
And question.
The New York Post speculating going to run for president, Democrat primary against Obama.
Can you be Sherman Escaday, rule that out, and say under no circumstances will you run for president in 2012?
General Sherman was a wimp when it came to making declarative statements.
Yes, I will go beyond General Sherman.
You know, I've tried that before, as you know, and fortunately, I'm back on my medication now and not thinking about it.
So you'll absolutely rule out there are no circumstances under which you'll run for president as a Democrat or an independent in 2012.
None whatsoever.
Back on CNN this morning, John Roberts said, you said that you love public service, but you don't like Congress.
Well, what's your assessment?
Is Congress in its current iteration broken?
We've got a lot of good people in Congress, but they're trapped in a dysfunctional system.
We need some real reform here because, as I said in your clip, the public's business is just not getting done.
And at a time of desperate need for our country, so we've got to vote out the ideologues who are unwilling to accept half a loaf rather than none, and we've got to vote out the partisans who care more about their political fortunes than the country.
Well, what the hell are you doing by cutting and running?
Let me tell you something, though, folks, and this is essential that everybody understand.
He says the public's business is just not getting done.
Oh, contrary.
The public's business is getting done.
The public, by wide margins, wants no part of the Obama agenda.
The public, by wide margins, now that they see it, don't want any part of the Democrat Party agenda.
And so they are stopping it in whatever way they can.
The Democrats, I continue to marvel at this guy talking about gridlock and the lack of bipartisanship.
Senator, your party had 60 seats and you still have 59.
The only gridlock is on your side of the aisle.
Ideologues?
We need to get rid of the ideologues.
We don't want half of the Obama agenda, Senator.
The people of this country do not want one-tenth of the Obama agenda.
That's what this is all about.
The dirty little secret is the people's business is getting done.
And it is remarkable to see.
It is heartwarming to see.
Here's Bayh ripping on Obama's porculus plan.
Maggie, I would tell you, but I don't know.
I'm going to, what we call in Indiana in basketball, I'm going to play until the final second ticks off the clock and then think about what's next.
If I could create one job in the private sector by helping to grow a business, that would be one more than Congress has created in the last six months.
If I could, is the White House going to have a rapid response to this?
Retiring Democrat Senator Evan Bayh says not one job has been created in the last six months, and he's going to try to go create a job, just one, in the private sector.
How are they going to respond to this at the new rapid response team in the office of Robert Gibbs?
Rush Limbaugh, your highly trained broadcast specialist, serving humanity here behind the golden EIB microphone at the Limbaugh Institute for Advanced Conservative Studies.
We've got a great question here on the phones.
It is from Patricia in Barstow, California.
I'm glad you called Patricia.
What is the question?
Well, Rush, we all know that government spending can't pull us out of a recession, but we say everyone knows that World War II pulled us out of the Great Depression.
But government, didn't government spending on all the resources we needed to prosecute the war, was that what did it?
Or was it something else?
No, I'll tell you why this is a great question because it points out something very important.
It allows me to point something out very important.
The New Deal, which Obama is trying to recreate here on an even grander scale, had no impact whatsoever on ending the Great Depression.
In fact, some people say that before we even get to World War II now, Patricia, some people say that the spending of the New Deal seemed to lower unemployment when FDR put a ton of people on the public relief and public jobs roll.
However, you need to ask the question, should we count people receiving welfare checks as employed, even if they are licking a stamp now, if that's all they're doing, or if they're mailing things out from a CVA office?
And even at that, even with all of his spending, unemployment was at 14%, Patricia, when the New Deal Part 2 took effect, and the true downward trajectory was realized when the war started.
Now, why is that?
And that's your question, right?
Yes.
Okay.
What did FDR spend his money on?
And what is Obama spending federal money on right now?
Well, you would make work jobs that don't actually produce anything, don't create jobs.
It's not even doing that.
There hasn't been a job created because of what Obama did.
Evan Bayh just admitted it.
There hasn't been one job created in the last six months by the government.
Not one.
There hasn't been a job created in the private sector.
Right.
There hasn't been a job in the private sector created, but they've created jobs in the public sector.
No, what they're doing is saving jobs at the state level.
Most of the stimulus money has gone to protect union employees at the state level and at the city level and has been used to help the states delay the day of reckoning on their bankruptcy because of their deficits.
Now, in World War II, federal spending was in the private sector and it was building things.
It was building the armaments of war.
It was building ammunition.
It was building guns, airplanes, boats.
The country was on a full-fledged war footing and products were being produced.
There was actual merchandise being made.
People were being paid for making things.
There was genuine productivity.
The gross domestic product was ratcheted up because we were at war.
The GDP is not affected by the kind of spending that FDR did in the New Deal or by what Obama's doing because we're not building anything.
We're not making anything.
We're not producing anything.
We're simply giving money to selected union Democrat officials and state governors to forestall their day of reckoning.
So war spending like we were engaging in is a, to the extent that we did in World War II, unique circumstance.
We cannot pretend that we're at war every time we get into a recession and start funding the way we did in World War II.
The government cannot create jobs in the private sector during the normal ebb and flow of daily life in America.
And FDR proved it with his New Deal one and two, and Obama's proving it now.
There's no goods being produced.
The GDP is not growing.
GDP equals CIG, and the way to understand this.
Right.
Well, you've heard me explain that.
Right.
There is no consumption going on.
That's C. There is no investment going on, but there is massive growth of government going on.
So all of this spending is doing nothing but propping up a bunch of Democrat Party union allies and governors in various states around the country for a little while.
They can't do it forever.
Chris Christie, we're going to get to his speech, state of the state speech.
This guy, I hope he's got a great security detail because he told him what for.
His state is on the verge of utter bankruptcy if he doesn't do some serious cost cutting and program cutting, and he announced that he's going to do it.
And he's going to do it with executive order because he's working with the Democrat legislature.
He's going to cut as much as he can on his own.
But does that answer help you, or do you still have some lingering confusion?
How could I explain it better?
Well, Rush, so just to make sure I understand you, by that logic, theoretically, if the government spent money on producing things, say even actually building infrastructure, then the government could incentive, cause recovery in the private sector.
But the facts are that by the nature of government, government doesn't do that except in extraordinary circumstances like World War II.
Exactly.
They were forced to.
But whereas, yes, because the nation's security was at stake.
The problem is we're living under a bunch of false premise.
The infrastructure in this country is not falling apart.
We had one bridge collapse in Minneapolis, and the infrastructure is falling apart.
The things that are falling apart in this country are the things run by liberal Democrats, the school system.
And I'm not talking about the buildings.
I'm talking about the actual thing that goes on in the buildings.
Our education system is nothing but corruption.
Any effort to privatize education with vouchers, even to benefit minority kids, is cut by Obama because the fealty is totally to unions.
We don't have a glaring infrastructure repair need, as evidenced by the fact that no infrastructure rebuilding is going on.
I mean, all of this is a giant myth.
Everything about this stimulus bill was premised on totally false things, that the country's falling apart here.
We got shovel-ready projects to get going here.
None of it.
It's all make work.
And the make work stuff is obviously, by definition, not necessary.
So it's just busybodies running around, and there's not even that much going on.
This is just a transfer of wealth from producers to non-producers.
It's just simply the redistribution of wealth disguised as rebuilding the infrastructure and rebuilding our schools and so forth.
Let me tell you what I just, there's a story I think in the Washington Post today.
The D.C. mayor has asked residents to get out there and shovel the roads themselves.
Get out there and shovel the sidewalks themselves.
The city can't handle it.
Now, how much do you think the people live there are paying in taxes for just this kind of thing?
25% of the snow plows are broken down and unusable.
And now the mayor's asking people to get out there and shovel.
Now, I'm not against people getting out and shoveling sidewalks and so forth, but people are paying exorbitant taxes all over the country for this kind of thing to happen.
Now, where's the money going if the snowplows are not operating?
And if there aren't sufficient personnel to handle these kind of weather circumstances, where's the money going?
I'll tell you where it's going.
It's going to protected people that raise money and donate money to Democrats and vote for them in great numbers and get other people out to vote for them.
There's nothing of any true economic benefit at all from any of this $1 trillion slush fund that Obama set up.
But there was tremendous economic benefit when we funded.
And by the way, the difference in World War II was we still had private sector companies building the airplanes.
And this was the defense budget.
This is something constitutionally required.
This was not the government overstepping its bounds.
This was FDR moving in and defending and protecting the country in the Constitution, which is a constitutional obligation under the oath of office that he swore.
There's literally no comparison.
The closest comparison we have is to New Deal 1 and New Deal 2 with what Obama's doing.
Even at the beginning of New Deal 2, we still had 14% unemployment in this country 10 years after the Great Depression.
I'm aware of that.
Well, I don't care.
I'm not trying to insult you with this.
I'm just trying to be clear in my answer because it's a great, great question, because there are a lot of people who do think that there have been times in the past where government spending has, in fact, revived an economy.
And those are emergency circumstances.
It's something that can't last in perpetuity.
And remember, it didn't.
We didn't conclude after World War II that the best way to run the private sector was for the government to run it and to keep deciding what gets funded and what doesn't, because politics was playing no role here.
The necessity of building the armaments and machines of war to defend and protect the country and everybody in this country being on the same page with a minor, minor percentage exception, all joined the effort, Rosie the Riveter and all of that.
I will go out on the limb.
I'll go out on the limb and say the evidence throughout American history is clear.
There is not one instance where anybody can find for me that this kind of spending, New Deal kind of spending, Obama stimulus kind of spending expands the American private sector, which is what produces wealth in this country.
Obama doesn't even understand that.
And if he does understand it, he resents it and is trying to see to it that the private sector is de-emphasized.
What's going on as a result of this man and his administration is hideous.
Glad you called.
I really am.
Quick timeout.
We'll be back with more after this.
Hammerback Rushland bought the EIB network and the fastest three hours in media.
That was really a great question from Patricia out there in Barstow, California.
I want to add a couple of things to this related to government spending versus private sector economic activity.
When the government spends, we see the evidence of it right now with Obama.
What is the objective?
What's Obama's spending objective?
Snerdley, take a wild guess.
What is Obama's spending objective right now?
It is to cripple.
It is to cripple the U.S.
Well, his stated purpose is to end the business cycle so there's no ups and downs, to take risk out of it.
I believe his real purpose is to destroy it and replace it with the government, being the sole place anybody turns to for anything.
But more specifically, if that's a little bit hard for you to get your arms around, more specifically, when the Obama government spends, the objective is to make sure that their party members, union members particularly, make sure they keep their high wages, that they don't lose any ground in their pension or their health care benefits, no matter what the economic circumstances are in their businesses or in their states.
There is nothing market-driven about Obama's spending.
And that is the key.
Every decision that Obama is making on spending is political.
And when it's political, it is for his and his party's benefit.
Health care is not about you.
Health care is not about improving health care.
It's about improving the Democrat Party and helping the Democrat Party.
There are no rational business decisions being made because there's nobody in the Obama administration who's ever been in business in the private sector.
Not one, not one of the czars, not one of his cabinet secretaries has ever met a payroll.
They are all academicians, theoreticians.
In World War II specifically, we were making things that were needed.
We were making things that were desperately needed to defend and protect the country.
The New Deal wasn't about that.
There was nothing desperately needed that the New Deal was tackling.
The New Deal was just like Obama's spending.
It was to enrich Roosevelt and the Democrat Party.
Is Obama's spending making anything anybody wants?
No, no, nobody wants windmills.
The windmills that we have spent money on are leaking fluid and they become refuse and waste in places like Hawaii.
Shovel-ready projects.
We were supposed to get shovel-ready projects last year.
We didn't get any of those.
We're not getting anything anybody wants.
We're not even getting jobs with this slush fund.
Now, when the Nazis and when the Japanese were overrunning the world, there were a lot of people that wanted tanks.
There were a lot of people that wanted airplanes.
There were a lot of people that wanted guns.
There were a lot of people that wanted bombs.
There were a lot of people that needed tanks.
There were a lot of people that needed airplanes.
There were a lot of people that needed bombs.
And there were a lot of people that needed guns.
And there were a lot of people that needed petroleum.
Need.
Market-oriented need versus public sector spending, which is purely a political calculation.
You know, you're being lied to so profusely.
You're being told the purpose of this spending is to create jobs.
And here goes old Evan Bayh letting the cat out of the bag, saying there hadn't been one government job created by Congress in the last six months.
Make it the last 13.
It's just silly.
It's just, I can understand people making the comparison.
And we do have, we do have a lot of people in love with the notion of government as a protector, as a benefactor, as an equalizer, and so forth.
But it depends on who's in charge of it.
And the people in charge of government right now have only one interest, and that's themselves and their party and their power.
And for them to acquire power, folks, we all have to lose a little liberty.
For them to acquire power, we have to lose a little freedom or a lot, depending on how successful they are.
They're not about helping us.
They're about helping them.
I defy anybody to point me into one direction of any Obama agenda item.
And you tell me where it's helping the country or helping individuals other than public employee union people and Democrat governors.
You tell me where it's helping the private sector of this country.
Rich in White Plains, New York.
You're up.
Hello, sir.
Great to have you here.
Well, how are you doing, Rush?
I can't believe I'm talking to you.
You are the man.
Thank you very much, sir.
I appreciate that.
Many women have told me that as well.
Rush, in light of Evan Bayh's most recent comments about extreme partisanship causing him to leave, he makes the same assertion the liberals do, that there are as many right-wing extremists as there are left, and the so-called extreme right-wing is as radical as the left.
So, I mean, aside from the scant few neo-Nazi skinheads or what's left of the remnants of the KKK, can we please define what a right-wing extremist is?
I mean, is it those of us who don't want to see the unborn killed or want the right to own a hunting rifle or don't want half our salary going to the government because I can't stand what the liberals are doing trying to perpetuate this idea, you know, this, well, you know, we do it, they do it, you know, the right wing is as guilty as the left wing.
You know, that's a bunch of crap, right?
Well, it is.
But the whole notion that they're right-wing extremists is a moving target, depending on who's popular in the country at the time.
Right now, the right-wing extremists are Sarah Palin, me, and the Tea Party people.
Those are the right-wing extremists.
Well, you know, but Rush, and what do the right-wing, so-called right-wing extremists represent?
I mean, that's just, that's just a problem.
No, no, no, no.
Look, I'm not saying we're extremists.
I'm saying that's what they call us to try to discredit us.
They will not debate us in the arena of ideas on the very subjects that you mentioned because they will lose.
So they're trying to discredit those of us who espouse those views by calling it extremists and wackos and all this.
I'm going to illustrate this with a guy from the Southern Poverty Law Center.
We come back in the next hour.
Sit tight.
Well, there was something interesting happened in Arizona yesterday.
J.D. Hayworth announced his candidacy for the Senate seat held by John McCain, made some statements out there.
McCain fired back, or his spokesman did, that J.D. Hayworth was lying about a lot of stuff, which is fine.
It's typical primary politics.
But what struck me was that here's McCain's campaign going after a conservative Republican 25 times as hard as he ever went after Obama, who was destroying the country.
▲
Export Selection