All Episodes
Previous Next
July 6, 2010 - Rush Limbaugh Program
35:46
July 6, 2010, Tuesday, Hour #3
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
You know, I'm watching a television in here and these people in the media are going nuts.
They're going insane over the fact it's 100 degrees in New York in July in the Northeast.
It's the first time it's hit 100 degrees in New York since 2001, they're saying.
So?
So what?
It's global warming rush, don't you know?
Yeah, I know what they're trying to do.
Great to have you back, folks.
Rush Limbaugh and the Excellence in Broadcasting Network and the Limbaugh Institute for Advanced Conservative Studies.
I remember when I moved to New York from Sacramento in 1988, my first day on the radio was the 4th of July.
It was a Monday.
And we had accidentally downed one of Saddam Hussein's passenger jets.
And Saddam Hussein had put you about a bunch of dummy passengers floating around a river as though they were dead.
Remember that?
Anyway, I had moved from Sacramento, where it's routinely in the summertime just 110 degrees, low humidity.
I had never, I didn't remember it ever being so hot.
Even when I grew up in the Midwest, St. Louis, Kansas City, I mean, they get the extremes of all four seasons.
It was so hot for six weeks.
When it rained, it felt like you were in a 110-degree water shower.
It was unusual.
I'd never anything like this.
This is not unusual.
It's not uncommon.
I mean, I used to play in a member-guest golf tournament at Wingfoot, which is in a Meronic up of Westchester County.
Certainly after 2000, 2001, in June, remember, it would break 100 degrees.
Not forecast.
Just all of a sudden happen.
So it's July.
It's going to hit 100 degrees.
And it's news.
Anyway, welcome back.
Great to have you.
Tiger Woods in Ireland, a charity golf tournament getting ready for the British Open.
He's in Adair, Ireland.
He's over there at the J.P. McManus Invitational Pro-Am, and he got some personal questions from the media for the first time.
And it didn't go well.
When asked whether his liaisons with other women had been worth it, since it cost him his marriage and endorsements, Woods replied, I think you're looking too deep into this.
There was a follow-up question.
Woods, it says here, responded with an icy thank you.
Oh, this is what everybody's been expecting to happen.
And it hasn't happened here in the U.S.
It did happen in Ireland.
Governor Brewer, Governor Jan Brewer, Arizona, and the Arizona Department of Economic Security set in motion a new anti-fraud unit effective July 1st.
The new DES trafficking detection unit will ensure that people obtaining food stamps are not using them illegally.
We have an obligation to taxpayers, said Governor Brewer.
These benefits can only be used by people who are eligible and need help.
The state of Arizona will not tolerate any abuse of government benefits.
The nutrition assistance program is a necessary part of the safety net, but these benefits must be used to purchase food.
Anything else is illegal.
The DES Department of Economic Security denied payments of almost $10 million in nutrition and cash assistance benefits to ineligible clients as a result of investigations conducted by their office.
Now, wait a second, both.
This is too sensible.
There has to be a catch here.
But there's no catch.
She's doing it.
It makes you wonder why this is not already the law.
You have to have a special law to make sure the benefits are used legally.
And I'll guarantee them to you, here comes the ACLU.
Here will come ACORN.
Here will come a bunch of leftist groups claiming this is racist and hate-oriented and who knows whatever else.
Probably targeting illegal immigrants as well.
Heartless.
No compassion.
You wait.
From thehill.com.
From a couple of days yesterday, anticipating a furor of voter criticism over the July 4th recess, Democrat lawmakers from the border region shot back at the White House last week challenging Obama's speech on immigration, in which he said the southern border is secure.
Arizona Democrat representatives Ann Kirkpatrick, Harry Mitchell, and Gabriel Giffords joined a growing Republican chorus in denouncing Obama for not pushing for more specific action in his Thursday speech on the nation's immigration and border security issues.
Democrats in these states are now starting to speak up against Obama on this immigration business.
Mitchell said illegal immigration affects our state more than it does any other.
More than half of all illegal crossings over the U.S.-Mexico border happen in Arizona.
The federal government has a responsibility to secure the border, fix our broken immigration system, but they haven't done so.
Arizona continues to shoulder the burden.
Arizona's trying to fix it, and the Obama Justice Department is going to sue them.
Congress adjourns or did adjourn for the 4th of July recess without having passed a bill to extend unemployment benefits to 1.3 million people who started losing them this month.
Democrats have been painting Republicans as unsympathetic to the long-term unemployed who will be unable to collect benefits.
Democrat leaders have rejected several offers by the Republicans to vote for the bill if at least some of it's paid for.
My concern is that the Democrats are more interested in having this issue to demagogue for political gamesmanship than they are in simply passing the benefits extension, said Republican Senator George Voinovich, who for about the second time, in my memory, is right.
He offered a deal that was rejected by Dingy Harry.
Democrat leaders are quick to attack Republicans for opposing the benefits, Pelosi calling their opposition just cruel and contrary to what our country is about.
Republicans, meanwhile, stood firm in their argument extending benefits should not add to the deficit.
Voinovich told Dingy Harry he would vote for extending benefits if at least half of it could be paid for with unused money from the stimulus package.
Only 48% of it's been spent.
Only 48% Democrats know.
Look at Voinovich's right.
They just want the issue.
Democrats refuse compromise to extend unemployment benefits is the headline.
That's the story.
But leave it up to the drive-bys and nobody will ever know that compromises were offered.
And the dirty little secret once again, the Republicans in the final analysis can't stop anything.
That depends on Scott Brown, but they really can't.
In Illinois, Illinois stops paying its bills, but can't stop digging a hole from the New York Times.
Even by the standards of this deficit-ridden state, Illinois' controller Daniel Hines faces an ugly balance sheet.
Precisely how ugly becomes clear when he beckons you into his orifice to examine his daily briefing memo.
He picks the papers off his desk.
He points to a figure in red, $5.01 billion.
This is what the state owes right now to schools, rehab centers, child care, the state university.
It's getting worse every day.
Mr. Hines shakes his head.
This is not some esoteric budget issue.
We are not paying bills for essential services.
This is obscene.
We don't have the money.
We're not paying the bills.
For the last few years, California stood more or less unchallenged as a symbol of the fiscal collapse of states during the recession, but now Illinois has shouldered to the fore as its dysfunctional political class refuses to pay the state's bills and refuses to take the painful steps, cuts and tax increases, to close a deficit of at least $12 billion, equal to nearly half of the state's budget.
So Illinois owes its schools.
Illinois owes its rehab centers.
It owes its university and child care obligations, total $5.01 billion.
No payment in sight because there's no money in sight.
And then there's the state employees' pension plan.
That's underfunded by 50%.
The state legislature left the Capitol last month for its summer break, and there was no budget settled upon.
Sort of like the U.S. Congress.
They're just going to deem one to pass.
Marginal state employees and contractors are being let go.
And if they are marginal, why were they hired in the first place?
And the reason for this, it's not mentioned.
It's not mentioned in the New York Times story, and of course it wouldn't be.
There is one main reason for all of this.
Let me spell it for you.
In all caps, U-N-I-O-N-S.
For those of you in Rio Linda, that spells unions.
They have been demanding higher pensions and coverage of toenail fungus.
Where this is all impossible to keep up, the dysfunctional political class gladly handed over the checkbook.
Kind of the old joke, the old joke about the blonde goes to her bank and the banker says, there's no money in your checking account.
You're overdrawn.
The blonde says, but there's still checks in my checkbook, so I'm going to write some.
That's where Illinois is.
And it's just one of many states.
There isn't any money.
Now, this gets, I mentioned this story earlier.
Chicago Sun-Times yesterday.
The headlines say, Blagojevich trial, but the former governor is not the only one who needs to explain himself.
If the latest farcical revelations from the Rod Blagojevich trial tell us anything, it's that the people of Illinois, that would be us, twice elected a narcissistic goof of a governor who was all show and no substance.
The man was an empty suit, albeit a $5,000 custom-made Oxford empty suit.
Blago and his wife blew $400,000 on clothes alone in the six years he was governor while he disparaged and largely ignored the actual business of governing.
It's a lesson we hope to remember.
And yeah, we hear it at Trib.
We endorsed Governor Blagoevich twice.
We got to remember this as we size up the current race for governor between the incumbent Pat Quinn and state Senator Bill Bradley.
Character counts before all else.
Real accomplishments count.
And all else, if there is anything else, comes third.
The most stunning revelation of the trial so far is not that he may be a crook, it's how utterly lacking he was in good sense and commitment to the public good.
We knew the guy liked to preen, but for all the jokes about his Elvis hair, we never much noticed the Bill Gates wardrobe.
He doesn't have Elvis hair.
The guy looks like a cabbage patch doll.
You remember the cabbage patch doll craze.
That's what Bogojevich looks like.
Elvis hair?
This is a man who complained one day that he had no money for his daughter's future college education and then threw away $858 on ties, neckties, in the next six days.
When the camera lights were on, Blago talked a terrific game about serving the people.
But when he thought no one important was listening, he talked only about himself, his needs, his wants, his future.
He couldn't get there fast enough.
This world is passing me by.
I'm stuck in this job as governor, he complained on the phone to an advisor.
I'm stuck.
The challenge now, of course, says the trib, is to see that this doesn't happen again.
In the race for governor, for the U.S. Senate, for any public office, no more craven, self-serving lightweights.
With four months left before the November elections, it's essential that the voters of Illinois demand freewheeling debates and study them closely and ignore those 30-second ads.
Check out their resumes.
Ignore the...
This is what you're supposed to do, Trib!
This is what you and the media are supposed to do.
And the people will do it.
This is what you're supposed to do.
This is the piece.
They're writing this about Blago.
And it could be word for word minus the neckties.
I don't know about that stuff.
Word for word about Obama.
Empty suit, narcissist, no experience, no achievements, no accomplishments, focused only on himself, stuck in a dead-end job as a community organizer, got to get the wife over there in a show-up job at the hospital.
Got to write a couple of books so I can how-pow around one of my people who have money.
The willful blindness.
I mean, it's hilarious.
They may be right about Blagojevich, but they are one day going to write the same thing about Obama.
Back after this.
Back to the phones we go on the Rush Limbaugh program.
Here is Julie in Houston.
Julie, welcome to the EIB Network.
Welcome.
Thank you, Rush, for taking my call.
I'm a first-time caller, so I hope I'm not nervous.
Congratulations on your wedding.
Thank you.
Thank you very much.
Listen, I agree with your assessment and the previous caller's assessment about Obama redirecting his direction to Afghanistan.
But the real problem, the real elephant in the room, if you will, is that monies are not flowing into the RNC and senatorial Republican national committees.
Even with this momentum, they're not flowing in there.
The Democrats right now are still ahead, and even with the 16% fall, for example, from Wall Street and New York and some of those areas.
Now, the Tea Parties are getting the money, but I'm concerned about the coordination.
There is really no overall coordination.
If you contrast this with Hallie Barber in 1994, he had everything coordinated.
He had everyone on board.
But you look at what's going on there.
You've got like the quasi-endorsement by the NRA of Harry Reed.
You've got the fact that this unemployment that you just mentioned, you know, they should be front and center with advertisements about this is the Republicans aren't holding us up.
People don't know.
They need to educate.
And it's an embarrassment.
And so there's no leadership.
And even though I don't blame Steele, Steele has a hard time trying to coordinate some of these disparate elements.
Wait a minute.
Why don't you blame Steele?
I mean, the whole point of the RNC is fundraising.
The RNC chairman's not a media star.
He's not a pundit.
He's supposed to be a fundraiser.
He doesn't speak to policy and so forth.
He's not technically or even in theory the leader of the party.
That's me.
Well, yes.
That was that aside, but you understand what I'm saying.
Yes, I understand what you're saying.
I can also explain it to you.
Yeah.
I can explain it.
The Republicans think they're going to sweep to victory if they don't do anything.
They think there's so much anger at Obama, the Democrats.
There's a Rasmussen pollout today.
60% of the American people still want the health care bill repealed.
However, only 41% think it will be.
Well, may I say one thing?
What about the Republicans in the House not signing on to the discharge petition?
What about those three senators not agreeing with repeal of the health care law?
I mean, this is something that they're against, and yet they're not willing to put their name on the paper.
Well, I think there's a talk about the House.
There's some different things going on there.
It's a discharge petition that we're trying to get together.
No, the strategy.
I mean, the House Republicans are trying to frame, they're trying to nationalize the election much as they did in 1994.
And by that, I mean, they're running in local congressional districts, not on local issues, but they're going to tell people in those districts, hey, if you elect this Democrat X, we're going to be forever exposed to a national security threat.
We're going to be forever broke because this guy spends money left and right.
That's the strategy here, at least on the House side, and maybe in the Senate as well.
But I don't know.
I'm concerned about the coordination.
It doesn't seem like there's a lot of coordination.
At this point, with all the momentum, you would have thought that we would have been way ahead with at least the fundraising.
And yes, the Tea Party people are going to be giving to special campaigns, but we need an overall coordination.
And I don't think anyone finds this important enough.
I do.
I'm very concerned about it.
I think we're going to get the House, but I don't think we're going to get the Senate.
And it's because of this lack of coordination.
If we had a Halley Barber, and believe me, you, I think things would be a little bit different.
Not that I'm, you know, well.
Well, Haley Barber, it's interesting.
Haley Barber is a lot of people are asking Haley Barber what he would do about Steele.
And Barber's not going to say.
Steele's term is up in January anyway.
And Haley Barber has his own plans and designs.
Now, there are numerous stories in the media today.
Russ Feingold is in trouble in Wisconsin.
Patty Murray is in trouble in the state of Washington, along with Boxer.
Nobody ever dreamed that this would happen.
We've got the talk here that the Republicans may actually take the House in two years after the most popular of the most, I mean, the Messiah, the Messiah had come.
We're going to be unified.
We're going to be all this.
And the Republicans might win this despite themselves.
What troubles me more than the fundraising coordinator, lack of it, is if they win this thing, they better have won it by telling people what they're going to do.
They better give themselves a mandate here.
Back after this.
The repeal health care number in polling, holding strong.
Rasmussen, 60% favor repeal of the health care law, just 41% see it as likely.
This is a national telephone survey.
36% oppose repeal.
And that figure includes 24% who strongly opposed it.
But only 36% opposed repeal.
This is something that the Republicans had better follow through on.
And I'm hearing, I don't know what to believe, what you hear scuttlebutt coming out of Washington.
Depends on who tells you.
Depends on the time of day and the week and so forth.
The latest scuttlebutt is that they're looking at other things, not repealing, because they really can't do it while Obama's still in office.
They got to wait until Obama gets out of office before they can repeal it.
The best thing they could do maybe is not vote to fund aspects of it, which they better do.
Look, I, folks, I'm looking.
I've been sitting in this chair for 21 years, and for 21 years, people have been calling, asking me why don't the Republicans do X?
And I do not have an answer.
I do not have conclusive evidence to support any answer I give you.
I can only speculate and theorize as you do.
Now, granted, my speculation and theorization would be a little bit more informed than the average person.
But, all right, what's the question?
Ask me the question.
I get so frustrated with this.
I really got, I'm not the Republican.
I don't know what they're doing.
I couldn't tell you why they're going to do what they're doing.
I can only guess at that is they're scared to death of anything negative being said about them in Washington, which I totally can't relate to.
You know, I love grief.
They fear it.
If you fear grief and you're in politics, you're dead.
If you fear criticism, if you fear being criticized by the people you want to be liked by, you're dead.
I don't care if it's politics or anything else in your life.
If you want to be loved by the wrong people, then you're going to do two things.
You're either going to, you're going to, you're going to bastardize yourself to be loved by them, and then you're going to be twice as miserable as you were, or you're going to ignore it and be who you are.
In which case, you're going to be happy.
But I just, I don't know why they're sitting there thinking they're going to win this regardless what they do.
Why make waves on agenda items and policy?
And you've got Boehner.
He's got an idea.
Eric Cantor has an idea.
One of the things, you know, Obama's out there saying, look, you people, you're going to make some hard choices coming up next year.
And you people have been whining and moaning about the deficits.
I'm going to call you bluff.
Well, as we told you last week, this is a trick waiting to happen.
Here's the Obama quote.
Next year, when I start presenting some very difficult choices to the country, I hope some of these folks who are hollering about deficits and debt step up because I'm calling their bluff.
That's after the 2010 election.
When I start presenting, why are you waiting?
Why are you waiting two years to start these very difficult choices?
Why are you spending trillions of dollars before you start?
Well, we know why.
All of this is just a pretext for tax increases.
So the Republicans are out there talking about deficits, spending, and we've got to stop it.
And they're walking right into a trap.
Okay.
Well, the money's been spent.
We need tax increases now.
And what Obama's counting on is that the Republicans, in order to stay true to their concerns about spending and debt, will agree to tax increases to reduce the spending in the debt.
And some Republicans, particularly Senate, might fall for the trap.
The Republicans, instead of talking about deficits and spending, need to start talking about growth.
They need to start talking about private sector economic growth.
And that's how to blunt this trick that Obama has laid here.
I'm going to call their bluff.
And when I start presenting some very difficult choices to the country, the difficult choices are supposed to be made by the chief executive, and that's you, Mr. President.
You are the leader of the regime.
I hope some of these folks are hollering about deficits and debt speak up.
He's been hollering about deficits and debt as though he had nothing to do with them, as though he inherited them.
So the answer to all this is not to get caught up in deficits and spending.
Everybody already knows that's out of whack.
The antidote to this is growth.
And therefore, tax increases will not do it.
We cannot tax increase ourselves into prosperity.
It never happens.
It would have happened by now in the last year and a half if it was going to happen.
These tax increases that are coming next year are going to cause more economic melays and it's going to be a disaster.
It's going to make it right now look like a panacea if these tax increases do hit.
And by the way, they're going to hit.
What do you think the purpose of this deficit reduction commission is?
They report in December after the elections, and they're going to report a VAT tax and increase tax rates on the rich and all kinds of stuff because that's the only option we have because we can't cut spending.
It's just, it's already spent.
It's already there in the budget.
So the answer to this has to be growth.
The way to blunt what Obama's trick is, no, Mr. President, you can talk about deficits, spending all you want.
You own it.
You own the deficit.
You have spent all the money.
We didn't vote for any of it.
We couldn't stop any of it.
Mr. President, we are interested in growth.
We want policies that will grow the private sector, in which case we must stop doing everything you're doing.
But they're afraid to say that.
Don't ask me.
For 21 years, I've offered my answers.
I've given you my theories as to why don't they do this?
Why don't they do that?
And you've heard every one of them a thousand times.
What's the question?
Do I think the Republicans left in office know why they were thrown him in in 2006 and 2008?
Okay, Snerdley wants to know if I think the Republicans who are remaining know why their colleagues were thrown out.
Now, you obviously, Snerdley, think they were thrown out because of spending and becoming like Democrats in that regard and so forth.
And there is credence to that.
But they also were thrown out because of Mark Foley.
If Mark Foley hadn't happened, I'm not sure that Pelosi's bunch would have won.
There was clear anger at the Republicans by Republican voters, but the Foley thing, that tipped it.
I mean, that took it from spending to corruption and ethics.
And Foley, it was emails.
Just like George Allen's gone because of Macaca.
Now, while all this is going on, you've got Bill Clinton and Barack Obama defending a Klansman.
He had to be a Klansman to get elected.
So in one sense, if you're Republicans, what the hell am I supposed to do?
If I defend a Klansman, I'm dead.
If I don't demand steel quit, I'm dead.
Meanwhile, these guys are out defending a Klansman.
He had to do it to get elected.
So I'm not sure that the number one reason the Republicans lost in 06 was spending.
I will admit, said this before too, that they went to Washington and they forgot why they were sent.
They failed to govern as they had campaigned.
But the Foley thing, had that not happened, I'm still not convinced that Pelosi's gang would have won.
And that was a coordinated and timed event with the mainstream media.
They had that information.
They had those emails, and that's all they were, by the way.
There was never any contact between Foley and these pages.
It was just emails.
And they had that, and they timed it, just like they had the George Bush DWI in 2000 timed.
You know, the famous October surprise, which everybody waits for.
You look at Kagan, the Elena Kagan hearings.
People say, how come the Republicans aren't giving any grief?
How come the Republicans tried?
But the Republican attitude is, hey, they won.
He gets to pick his nominees.
That's the way we look at it.
Now, we would say, well, for crying out loud, they don't.
And the aggressor sets the rules of the game.
They're not going to let us get our nominees just because we win the election.
Why are you going to let them have theirs?
Well, we're more civil.
Right.
All while being accused of having no civility.
Anyway, let me take a brief time out here.
We'll come back.
More of your phone calls on the other side right after this.
Now, let me remind everybody about 2006.
And for everybody who thinks the Republicans lost because of spending and because they failed to govern as they had campaigned, which is true, they did that.
Here's a list of the scandals that were all coordinated between the Democrat Party and the media in that year.
Jack Abramoff and the Indian lobbying scandal.
Then you had Mark Foley and the email the pages scandal.
Then you had Delay.
And there are still no charges against Delay.
The Republicans, in order to curry favor with the Democrats, is if any of our leaders are ever indicted, we'll step down.
Charlie Wrangell's still up there.
These guys, William Jefferson.
This culture of corruption has its own Wikipedia entry.
And you go back and look at this stuff now four years ago, and it looks laughable.
The Valerie Plame affair, that was going on.
The Duke Cunningham scandal.
The Jerry Lewis, a congressman from California, a lobbying firm controversy.
The Bush administration paying columnists like Armstrong Williams.
The culture of corruption.
All of that was going on.
You can't take that out of the mix as to why the Republicans lost in 2006.
And the Democrats and Obama in a year and a half have managed to top any of those.
Any of those scandals pale in comparison to what's already happened ethically, culturally, whatever, corruption-wise in this administration.
What was Delay's crime against?
Anybody tell me what did DeLay do?
What did he do?
You know, he might have gone on a golf trip with a lobbyist.
What did he do?
The Democrats made this recession that we are in.
You want to talk about a culture of corruption?
The big lie of the culture of corruption is just as big as the big lie about the recession of 2008.
There was not a recession.
They claimed it started in 2007.
You go back and look when they claimed the recession started.
Check the unemployment rate, 4.8%.
I don't care.
Even in 2008, nothing was as bad as it is now.
Nothing.
And the reason it's as bad as it is now is because the people who got elected to fix it have made it worse.
Scandal?
The Obama administration itself is a scandal with what it has done to the private sector economy of this country.
And people are obsessed with Michael Steele today at all weekend.
It's the old double standard that I was talking about earlier.
Anyway, let me give a couple phone calls in here before we have to split for the day.
Dani in Banger, Maine, great to have you on the EIB network, sir.
Hello.
Hey, Rush, it's great to talk to you.
Thank you.
I've been a long time listener since high school.
You're one of the biggest readers.
I'm a conservative, so make a ditto to you.
My main purpose of calling was that Kennedy's tax cuts were actually passed by Johnson, and also that they were justified using John Mayor Keynes' philosophy.
The goal was to increase the deficit using tax cuts, and they were not to be taxed to the rich because you can go back and read this in congressional testimony.
The rich would waste them, quote unquote, using.
No, no.
Your memory differs from mine.
I have played the Kennedy sound bikes.
Now, I don't know what Congress said when they passed these things.
You may be right about that.
But when Kennedy at the Economic Club of New York pushed these tax cuts, the whole theme was economic growth.
The whole theme was putting more money in the private sector.
The whole theme was letting people keep more of their money.
Now, I think the tax cut that was initially finally passed was just 10% or 20%.
Top marginal rate, yes, it was 91% to 71%.
That's what it was.
And then Johnson tried to book 10% of that back.
Now, it did pass.
It was an homage to Kennedy because he was assassinated.
But to say that Johnson was in there as a tax cutter, I can't go along with that.
Now, they might have tried in Congress to portray all this as Keynesian, but Kennedy didn't.
And that's the key.
Here's Rob in Montgomery, Alabama.
Great to have you on the program, sir.
One minute.
Yes, sir.
How are you doing today, sir?
Very well.
Yeah, just real quick.
This is about the first article, the first thing you mentioned earlier about NASA and their new objectives.
And just want to say, when you look at the NASA mission statement, it doesn't mention anything about extending a helping hand out to Islam.
It's strictly improve life here, extend life there, find life beyond.
And even their four core directorates have nothing to do with working towards building any kind of camaraderie or anything between other countries by reaching out to Islam, Muslim countries.
That's right.
That's precisely why it's wrong.
Obama's the new chief executive, and that's all of America's wrong.
The original mission state of America is wrong.
That's the Constitution, and that's under assault, too.
Not just the initial mission statement of NASA.
And he's going to run around and say that NASA's purpose now is to spread science and math understanding to Muslim countries and to recognize their contributions to math and science.
Then you can imagine what this bunch thinks of the Constitution.
Now, a bunch of liberal economists are going to dispute this, but we did not go into a recession until the fourth quarter of 2008.
After the Democrats and after the media got what they wanted, they had been stumping for a recession for three years.
And after they controlled Congress and they finally got their way, that's when you look at the unemployment numbers when Obama was elected.
That's when he started losing 700,000 people a month.
That month he was elected, not the month he took office.
And Kennedy, Kennedy said, a rising tide lifts all boats.
He was not talking about Keynesian economics.
A Keynesian economic theory, as we know, sinks every boat, except the leader of the regime's boat.
▲
Export Selection