All Episodes
Previous Next
Nov. 2, 2010 - Rush Limbaugh Program
37:38
November 2, 2010, Tuesday, Hour #2
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
And welcome back.
It's Rush Limbaugh.
This, the Excellence in Broadcasting Network and a Limbaugh Institute for advanced conservative studies.
The learning never stops.
That's why there are no graduates and there are no degrees from the Limbaugh Institute.
It's the largest free education institution known to exist in the free or oppressed worlds.
And for you doubting Thomas's, here it is from the UK Independent, the UK Independent, very liberal rag.
I mean, this is a very liberal newspaper.
And in this article, I mean, they refer to Sharon Angle as an extreme right-winger.
They talk about Dingy Harry as a centrist.
Just to give you an idea, the crowd went wild when Michelle Obama swept into a half-screw old gymnasium in Las Vegas yesterday morning with little Harry Reed trailing in her wake and a local mariachi band in full-dress uniform entertaining the crowd.
Now, to be fair, everyone compared to Michelle is little.
Everybody standing side by side with Michelle will look little.
But Dingy Harry's little anyway on his own.
Behind the flag waving and the anthem singing and the sunny optimism of a typical American election rally, there was a palpable sense of unease.
Two years ago, at the height of Obama mania, the first lady was a sort of a rock star.
With the following wind, she could fill an outdoor stadium.
Today, her stock has fallen.
A few hundred people did turn out to hear her speech, but there were swaths of seats left empty at the back and plenty standing room around the edge.
Ticker tape was conspicuous by its absence.
Mrs. Obama's message on the eve of a midterm election that'll define the last two years of her husband's first term wasn't so much, yes, we can, as hopefully we might.
This is from the UK Independent.
A liberal paper.
A number of people, because I am the perceived expert, have sent me questions today.
Rush, what's your prediction?
How many House seats?
How many Senate seats?
Is it still 60 in the House and 9 in the Senate, or maybe is it 62?
Do you really believe that it could be as high as 70?
In fact, let me find a story here.
John Podoritz has at commentary, the blog, The Generic Shock.
So Gallup's final read on the 2010 elections features a generic advantage for Republicans of 15%, 55 to 40.
Now, stick with me on this, folks, because, as I say, a lot of people are starting to get a crisis of confidence today, wondering if all of this talk about a massive sweep can really be true.
So many people have asked me if all of this is a giant con job.
If all of it is totally put up, people have asked me, Rush, is it possible that every poll is a lie?
Is it possible that every pundit's assumption and prediction of a huge Republican sweep is a lie?
People believe that the Democrats and the media have the power of a massive conspiracy to create this image of a massive Republican sweep.
And at the end of the day, Democrats hold the House and the Senate.
And the headlines tomorrow are, what an upset.
Obama, pull him out of the fire.
People really have some fear this is going to happen.
That would be a major conspiracy.
They would have to be co-opting Scott Rasmussen.
They would have to be co-opting a number of Republican pundits to go along with this.
But the very idea people believe that this is possible is a testament to just what people think the Democrat Party and the media complex is capable of and how dishonest and cheating they are.
Quite illustrative, a teachable moment.
Anyway, here, the generic shock, John Pedoritz, talking about the final generic advantage.
In fact, I think Gallup today, their actual final is 19.
Republicans up 19 in the generic ballot, depending on turnout.
That's been making people shake their heads in astonishment all day.
Never before on election day have Republicans even led on the generic ballot.
The question Gallup asks is whether the person polled will vote for a Republican or Democrat.
No names of candidates.
That's what is meant by generic.
In 1994, the best midterm for Republicans in our time, the final Gallup tally had the two parties tied in the generic ballot.
Now it's Republicans plus 15.
People say, can that be?
Can that really be true?
This is why people are saying something is happening here that has never happened before.
The poll of polls at Real Clear Politics, which averages out all the reputable surveys, has the Republican advantage tonight at 8.7 points, which means even if you think Gallup is screwy, there's still no way to avoid the conclusion Democrats are in for a horrific day today.
But wait, but wait, there's more.
The Gallup number is 5540, assuming a voter turnout of 45% nationally.
It is assumed that the higher the turnout, the better the number is for Democrats, owing to the Democrat edge in the number of registered voters.
That's the conventional wisdom.
People have been asking me about that too, because they've been hearing that a high turnout means Republicans sweeping because of the enthusiasm gap.
And I've been saying, I don't know.
I know you think I'm the expert, but I don't know.
The 19% is the enthusiasm, Gallup.
I'm sorry, not the generic ballot.
19% is the enthusiasm poll by Gallup.
It's not a record 2006 was for Democrats.
Anyway, I don't know this turnout stuff.
I'm not clairvoyant, and I also know that the people come up with these theories routinely lie for a living.
You know, so the conventional wisdom is that there are more registered Democrats than Republicans.
Maybe, but we know that there are also more self-identified conservatives than there are liberals.
I don't know what the registered Democrat versus registered Republican advantage is right now.
I don't know if it's plus two, plus three, plus four, but Pedoritz makes the point here, is that the higher the turnout, the better the number is for Democrats owing to the Democrats' edge in the number of registered voters.
45%, except that the midterm in which more voters participated than any other in the past 28 years was 1994.
And in that year, turnout was 41.1%.
Now, Gallup is polling at 45% turnout.
The midterm with more voters participating in any other in the past 28 years was 1994, and that turnout was 41%.
This year, a voting expert named Michael McDonald thinks the number could be a record-breaking 41.3%.
Not 45, but 41.3.
It was 41.1% in 94.
63 million registered Democrats, 47 million registered Republicans, 32 million registered independents.
That's, what's the source on that, Snurley?
Where did you, USA Today.
Well, that's USA Today.
But that's the number that serves to give life to the theory that the higher the turnout, the better it is for Democrats.
So anyway, highest turnout 28 years, 41.1% 1994.
Voting expert Michael McDonald thinks the number could be a record-breaking 41.3%.
In other words, 59% will not vote.
Now keep that in mind when we're talking about high turnout, massive turnout.
If you have been led to believe that your polling place is going to be crowded and you're not going to be able to get in to vote, you're going to standing in line.
That's not the case here.
We're talking about midterm turnout, not presidential year turnout.
We're still talking about record turnout well below 50% of registered voters.
Think this through then.
An amazing number for turnout would be around 41%.
Gallup is using a model predicting 45% turnout.
That is a differential of 10 percentage points.
In other words, Gallup might be wildly overstating the size of today's electorate and turnout.
And what does that mean?
It means that the Republican advantage of 15 points might be low.
It might be very low.
That the actual Republican advantage might be closer to 20 points in the generic ballot because the turnout will be less.
See, it follows mathematically, more registered Democrats than Republicans saw less turnout.
Statistically, fewer Democrats turnout.
When that happens, Democrats, of course, are in trouble.
Now, the low-end prediction by Gallup of the number of House seats the Democrats will lose at a 45% turnout is 80 seats.
The best the Democrats can hope for, according to Gallup, is a loss of 55.
That, according to Gallup, is the best the Democrats can hope for.
But what if?
What if the turnout model is off significantly, as appears likely?
Could the Democrats actually be on track to lose 90 seats or more?
Could the best they can hope for be a loss of 70?
Sean Trende, the impressive number cruncher at Reidal Clear Politics, says the Gallup number translates into a Democrat loss of 98 seats and a 41.3% turnout, not 45.
Now, the problem with these percentage guesses is that the Republican advantage is not evenly distributed across the country.
It might be close to 30% in the Southwest, but only a point or two in the Northeast.
Republicans can't win many more than 90 seats because they don't even have a sufficient number of candidates to do so.
But, and Mr. Pedorit says this is a big but numbers this large, should they hold, presage doom.
Presage for those of you in Riolin to predict doom for Democrats in the Senate.
A wave this large is unlikely to tilt any close race into Democrat hands.
Why are they spending so much time and money in Delaware?
Why?
Why are they spending so much time and why is Biden going to Vermont?
That's like the Soviets going to Moscow.
Why?
A wave this large is unlikely to tilt any close race into Democrat hands, and it might mean a shocking Republican victory in a Senate race no one has even paid attention to, such as Oregon or Vermont.
And Biden was in Vermont yesterday, and he only drew 200 people.
Meanwhile, the story that has barely been told over the last 20 years is this.
American elections have become the greatest public dramas I can think of.
This is Pedoritz writing.
Clinton Perot Bush, 92.
Republican Revolution, 94.
The 36 Days of the Florida Recount, 2000.
The Bush-Kerry seesaw 2004.
And what was the Bush-Kerry seesaw?
The Bush-Kerry seesaw was exit polls versus actual polls.
The Democrat surge in 2006, the year of Obama guest starring the surprise rookie Phenom Sarah Palin 2008.
Now this.
Anybody who thinks he knows what 2012 is going to look like is living in a fantasy world.
Reality is much too twisty for us to have any sense where all this will go after tonight.
And despite all this, how many of you really believe, even after this on-the-spot analysis with Gallup numbers and turnout, how many of you believe 70 seats?
How many of you believe 90 seats in the House?
How many of you believe such a wave that Christine O'Donnell wins Delaware?
That we win the Senate in Vermont, that we win a Senate seat in Oregon, that Patty Murray goes down in Washington, that Dino Rossi wins there, that we win the Obama seat in Illinois.
Well, I know the Illinois seat's very, very possible, but if this wave has predicted occurs, if this many more Republicans show up than Democrats, and all this talk about the Democrats holding the Senate could be academic.
Now, if you're asking me, I don't know.
try to keep you know i live in literalville and i don't know because the votes haven't been counted okay rush okay well what do your instincts tell you People want to know.
My instincts tell me huge.
My instincts tell me if the Democrats and the media are running around talking about 94, but it won't be that bad because they were shocked in 94, but they're not shocked at what's going to happen now.
I think they will be shocked.
I think they will be shocked.
We will wait and see.
Dick Morris, back on September 27th, had a column at dickmorris.com, the goal, 100 House seats.
And he, I'm not going to read a whole column here to you.
He makes the case that it's entirely possible.
Morris believes that there are going to be races won tonight that people aren't even talking about, just like they're not talking about the Arizona governor's race because it's in the bag.
And the media doesn't want to talk about that, that there will be other races that are going to shock people, like Barney Frank losing.
Morris thinks that things like this are entirely possible tonight.
I simply wait and see.
Now, there's an article about Gallup being damn good at predicting midterm elections.
It's at gallup.com.
Election polls, accuracy, record, midterm, congressional elections.
We'll get it up there for you to see at rushlimbaugh.com.
It's a chart.
I tell you about a chart here on the radio, but I'll just tell you this, to sum up the article.
At this link, since 1950, Gallup has never been off by more than 1% on the final Republican-Democrat tally in midterm elections.
They've never been off by more than 1%.
So all this is possible.
We can make it happen.
We can run up the score.
And we will get to your phones here in just a second.
Wall Street Journal, just the first couple of paragraphs here in one of their lead editorials.
I don't know who wrote this, but my guess would be Paul Gugot.
He is the editor of the editorial page.
Gidget, for those of you in Riolinda and Port St. Lucie.
For the good government liberals who want to regulate political speech, today's election must be horrifying.
Not only has a gusher of campaign spending made far more congressional seats competitive, but the patron political saint of campaign finance reform, Russ Feingold, may be run right out of the Senate by voters in Wisconsin, the birthplace of progressive politics.
Be sure to confiscate all sharp objects around common cause in MSNBC tonight, as well as certain editorial boards after 10 o'clock.
As for the rest of us, we can celebrate what with any luck is the death of a campaign finance reform and the revival of more robust political competition.
35 years after it began, in the wake of Watergate, the liberal crusade to limit campaign spending has proven once again to be a hopeless failure.
Wall Street Journal lead editorial.
All right, Englewood, Florida.
Tom, you're up first as we go to the phones.
Welcome to the Russian Limbaugh program.
Hey, thank you very much for your description of Americans' exceptionalism.
That's one of the best I have ever heard.
Thank you, sir.
My statement was I was watching Fox News this morning, and Ed Rittendell was on there, you know, giving his ideas of what's going to happen and what's not going to happen.
What did he say, that the American voters are going to steal the election?
No, he said that, well, it's time for us now to all get our heads together and solve these problems.
You know, they wouldn't talk to us as conservatives two years ago, but now they want to all compromise, you know.
Yeah, you know, this is that's see, when you see stuff like this, this is not part of any conspiracy.
This is desperation time.
When Fast Eddie Rindell says, all right, it's time for us to put our heads together and I'll solve these problems.
A, we're admitting Obama hasn't solved anything.
And B, Eddie Rindell says, look, we're going to be non-factors, but please include us.
Please include us.
Let's put our heads together.
But Tom here's right.
For two years, I mean, look at, it was Obama who told Boehner and the Republicans, don't listen to Rush Limbaugh.
That's not how things get done in Washington.
Republicans couldn't stop anything.
Obama could have had Republican support on health care for just a couple of minor little things.
He didn't want it.
He didn't want it.
So now we're supposed to put our heads together and solve the problems.
Compromise.
Somebody tell me where we compromise with the people who are destroying our economy.
Where do you compromise with that?
Only destroy half of it?
I'm reminded that I did compromise or offer compromise with Obama.
Remember my Wall Street Journal, op-ed, in which I suggested compromise with Obama on the stimulus package.
Coco, go back and find that and re-link to it.
Well, I wrote it.
You can put out the text if you want.
It ran in a Wall Street Journal.
You can put it on my website for certain.
But this was in 2009, and I suggested, all right, look, you want compromise?
Give me 43% of your $1 trillion stimulus, or 47%, whatever percentage McCain got.
You take the rest and do, you do with it what you want.
I'll do with mine what I want.
And then at the end of a year, we'll compare.
I did offer compromise.
The compromise, though, included my principles and my core beliefs and my philosophy and my ideology, not his.
I didn't incorporate any of his into mine.
I said, well, you do what you want to do, and I'll do mine side by side.
Of course it was rejected.
It might, Coco, get that and print it out to me here in my printer.
It might serve the audience.
Well, since we've reviewed the CPAC speech today, it might do well to review and reread that op-ed that I wrote for the Wall Street Journal.
Yesterday afternoon on MSNBC's Andrea Mitchell reports, Andrea Mitchell, NBC News in Washington, Chris Matthews was the guest.
And during a discussion about the 2010 midterm elections, Andrea Mitchell said, When you think it went off track, whether or not the health care negotiations went on too long, letting the Tea Party control the nylon in the summer of 2009, my personal pick was getting involved in the Skip Gates deal.
Where did it all go wrong?
When he was a campaigner, he did nothing but talk about what a great country it is, what an exceptional country it is, because a guy like me can make it here.
And only in a country like this can I have made it.
He was very patriotic, very inclusive, and he was also very interactive in an interesting way.
Ever since he's been president, he's been elitist, and he's come with his teleprompter, and he's given his speech.
He hasn't listened.
He's talked to at us rather with us.
Or at least that's what he's projected.
No, he actually does bring the teleprompter with him.
I think he is guilty of that elitist charge.
Chris Matthews, now, Andrea Mitchell, NBC News in Washington, attempted the same Obama's bacon.
By disagreeing with Matthews' comment.
But Matthews and his sisters, no, no, no.
Let's go back.
Matthews said, when he was a campaigner, he did nothing but talk about what a great country this was.
Did he?
He talked about how great he was, and he talked about how great he was for accomplishing what he had accomplished in this, which was nothing.
But he was apologizing for America, was he not?
He was running around.
He was doing international speeches.
I'd have to go back and look at transcripts.
I don't remember Obama talking about what a great country it was.
If I had heard that, I would not have concluded he was opposed to American exceptionalism.
He did not talk about an exceptional country.
He did talk, we're guilty of global warming, destroying the climate.
He's going to lower the sea levels.
We're going to put all the rot gut back in Garrett.
We're going to correct all the racism, sexism, bigotry, homophobia.
We're going to fix all that.
We're the ones who've been waiting for it, all that kind of stuff.
And Matthew says he's very patriotic, very inclusive, very interactive in an interesting way.
Ever since he's been president, he's been elitist.
Come with his teleprompter.
And there's more to this.
Andrea Mitchell then said, you don't think he even interacted at any of the townholes?
If you're going to spend a $1.6 trillion deficit in one year, you better explain to the American people why you did it.
He never explained economics the way he was taught it.
We were all taught in graduate school, you have to run a big deficit during a grand recession.
How about explaining that?
Everybody didn't go to grad school.
How about explaining what you're doing in terms of health care and how that's going to help us become a better economy in the long run?
Economically, it will give us something that we can base our lives on, guaranteed health care.
He never sold it as an economic tool, a catalyst to greater growth down the road.
Middle-aged people are losing their jobs, and this guy's out doing his pet projects.
And they wonder why he isn't their president, why he's only his own president.
I wonder why he doesn't say this stuff on his own show.
Why does he go on Henry Mitchell, NBC News Washington show, and say this stuff on her show?
But he doesn't say it on his own show.
He never explained economics the way he was taught it.
He probably can't.
He doesn't dare.
He doesn't dare explain anything he believes as he was taught.
He wouldn't get elected dog catcher.
And that's the truth.
We were all taught in graduate school you have to run a big deficit during a grand recession.
Keynesian?
Yeah, you were all maleducated.
You were all ill-educated.
You were all taught something that's not true.
When did Obama ever campaign without a teleprompter?
How about explaining what you're doing in terms of health care and how it's going to help?
Because Chris, he's not doing health care the way you think he's doing it and why you think he's doing it.
He's doing it for control, Chris.
He's doing it to grow government.
He's not doing it to give health care to everybody.
He's not doing it to guarantee coverage to everybody.
He's doing it to break the bank of the country.
He's doing it to wipe out private sector insurance businesses.
That's what he's doing.
And that's why he can't tell people what he's doing.
He did, Chris.
He did tell us in 2003, 2004.
If you go back and listen to his interviews, he did talk about, when he's talking to his union buddies, he did tell us how he was going to get to single payer, how he was going to eliminate the insurance companies.
And it was going to take 15 years to do it.
You just couldn't do it overnight with the snap of your fingers.
You see, this is what amazes me.
We know more about Obama than his believers do.
We know more about Obama than his most fervent supporters do.
We know more about Obama than those who love him know about it.
We know more about Obama than those who want him to run for re-election.
All these experts, why are they explaining things?
He can't.
Chris, if he were honest, he wouldn't have been elected.
No liberal would.
October 27th, 1964, a televised campaign address for the presidential campaign of Barry Goldwater.
Two years ago, just two years ago, people on our own side told us the era of Reagan was over, that we had to set it aside and move on.
This idea that government is beholden to the people, that it has no other source of power except the sovereign people, is still the newest and the most unique idea in all the long history of man's relation to man.
This is the issue of this election.
Whether we believe in our capacity for self-government or whether we abandon the American Revolution and confess that a little intellectual elite in a far distant capital can plan our lives for us better than we can plan them ourselves.
You and I are told increasingly we have to choose between a left or right.
Well, I'd like to suggest there is no such thing as a left or right.
There's only an up or down.
Man's own age dream.
The ultimate in individual freedom consistent with law and order.
Or down to the ant heap of totalitarianism.
Rinaldus Magnus.
October 27th, 1964.
He continued, remember, just two years ago, we were all told to forget this man.
You and I have a rendezvous with destiny.
We'll preserve for our children this, the last best hope of man on earth, or we'll sentence them to take the last step into a thousand years of darkness.
And this is what instinctively people know.
That's why there are Tea Parties without leaders.
That is why there is a Tea Party movement without a singular titular head.
The people of this country know full well of their rendezvous with destiny.
They know what's at stake for their children and grandchildren.
They know that it is at stake in this election.
And let us not forget, in his books, which we read, Charlie Rose and Tom Brokaw didn't.
We did.
In his books, Obama told us his goal in life was and is to roll back the Reagan Revolution.
Same thing as Brian Gumbel.
Brian Gumbel, when he was on Today Show, his mission, roll back the Reagan Revolution.
Yeah, well, he used to host the Today Show.
I mean, I don't care what it was, when Brian Gumbel hosted the Today Show, everything wrong in America was Reagan's fault.
And we had supposed conservatives who were eager to help Obama roll back Reaganism.
You want names?
David Brooks, David From.
There's, I mean, I could keep going.
David Brooks, David from, what do you say?
What are you shouting at me, certainly?
Well, it is true Newt did say that the era we need to move beyond the era of Reagan.
Newt did say it.
That is true.
Brief time out, my friends.
L. Rushbaugh, the EIB network, back after this.
And we're back, Rush Limbaugh having more fun than a human being should be allowed to have.
We go to Indianapolis.
Jeff, I'm glad you called.
Welcome to the EIB Network.
Yes, thank you, Mr. Limbaugh.
Now, I wanted the liberals out there to have this to yourself for a long time.
I started back in 1992 listening to you from WLS, Big 89, in Chicago.
Now, I'm in Indianapolis, and I listen to you on WIBC 93.1 NFM in Indianapolis.
Now, what this is called is ironic because I was the first caller you took on Election Day in 1994.
You are the first caller I took on Election Day 1994, the very first caller.
Yes, I am.
On Election Day or the day after?
Election Day.
All right, okay.
Well, you're the second caller, Election Day 2010.
Yes.
And also, I'm the one who is very aware of all the things that the conservatives listen to.
Now, that's kind of strange that the two-party members are running around here talking about Obama, the Socialist, Obama, the Communist.
I bet you half of them even read the Communist Manifesto or Gas Capricorn.
I read both of them, and I also read The Road to Surfdom by Hayek.
I also read some of Mr. Friedman stuff, too.
I know where it comes from.
You read The Road to Surfdom by who?
Frederick von Hayek.
Friedrich von Hayek.
Friedrich Austrian prize winner, yeah.
I'm impressed if you got through that because that's a tough slog in spots.
Yeah, if I have it on my computer, I downloaded it.
Well, that's why I'm impressed by Mr. Friedman.
So you're calling to congratulate me then?
No, what I'm saying is, it's a lot of distortion going on, and you're a part of it.
What?
What am I distorting out there, Jeff?
Well, Colonel, you're actually getting people to think that Obama is the second coming of socialism or communism.
I can't see it.
Well, then you're blind.
No, I'm not blind.
I'm not blind.
Well, then you're wearing shades that are too dark.
I'm not blind.
I can see very clearly.
Okay, well, if you don't like communism socialism, he's a Marxist.
He's a stabbing.
He's a totalitarian.
He wishes, you know who he really, you know, Jeff, you know who he really wishes he could be?
He, he, I.
I think Obama regrets that he wasn't born soon enough to be alive in the 60s.
I think he really identifies with people back then.
If he could be anybody, it would be Castro.
Oh, come on.
I think if Obama could be anybody, either Castro or maybe Shaguavira, one of those.
No, no, no, no, never.
I mean, even, look, John McCain even called him a socialist.
Yeah, it's easy to put that label on somebody.
You guys are good at that.
Well, yeah, but that's, you know, McCain doesn't do that.
I mean, this is my point.
McCain would call himself a bad name first.
Yeah, anything to try to win an election, of course.
You try to be a mongrel and stuff like that.
That's good.
So you read Obama for somebody.
A lot of people are going to be scared at that work.
But a lot of people don't even understand what socialism or communism really is.
All right, so what's the point of all this?
The point of all this is, even when the Republicans take over the House of Representatives, you guys are going to be in for a rude awakening.
You don't think the Republicans are going to win control of the House?
They may, but if they do, your fire is going to be in for a rude awakening, especially the Tea Party members who actually think the Republicans are actually going to do something about cutting spending.
The first thing they're going to do is raise the debt for the election.
Oh, I get it.
I get it.
And I write.
You think, you think that the Tea Party and me and Obama, we're going to be disappointed no matter what happens today.
You're going to be disappointed.
Yes, you are.
You're going to be disappointed in someone.
Because the first thing they're going to have to do is raise that debt to keep funding those wars in Afghanistan because they don't want to choose out Afghanistan.
Obama does, but the people on your side don't.
Somebody's going to have to pay for that.
Jeff, I have to tell you something.
I have to agree with you on one thing.
We are going to be disappointed tomorrow.
Obama is still going to be president.
There'll be a lot of people very sad about that.
We know that today and tomorrow are just first steps to fixing things and people like you.
Get your mind right.
Get you to join the virtuous side of things.
If I were to ask you the difference between socialism and what Obama is doing, you wouldn't have an answer.
You'd have to say, well, I'm fearmongering and so forth.
Jeff, it's worth fearmongering.
It's worth being afraid.
It's worth being frightened of where the Democrat Party is taking this country.
It makes total sense to be frightened.
It makes total sense to be angry.
It's common sense.
Anything else?
And I would have to question the mindset of the American people.
Mike in Tampa, Florida, you are next on the Rush Limbaugh program.
Hi.
Hey, Rush, how are you?
Very good.
That guy must have been Chris Matthews' college roommate.
What a hoop.
But I tell you, I just wanted to, if I could, bring everyone's focus.
I'm very much going to enjoy the election tonight, but bring everyone's focus tomorrow and highlight or shine a light on a man who's going to follow Obama tomorrow and is doing more damage to this country.
And that's Ben Bernanke.
This man, and just to connect the dots for everybody, and I have a solution for us, but he is stealing from us.
He is stealing from the producers.
He is stealing from the savers.
And he is trying to push us into a market that is a sham and trying to encourage us to take undue risk.
For all of us who have our IRAs and our 401ks, I suggest that we become 401k or IRA vigilantes.
Don't.
We don't have to fight.
We don't have to follow them.
Don't do it.
And if these banks don't want to pay us a fair interest on the money that we have earned, the money that we have saved, I encourage folks, go to the bank, rent one of their safety deposit boxes, and put it in a safety deposit box.
All right.
I understand.
This is the 401k discussion that we had yesterday.
But I can't let you sit here and tell people to go cause a run on the bank.
You know, I'm just, I can't do that.
We had a reasonable discussion about the 401k yesterday and what the plans are for it.
But having runs on banks is not a solution.
I got to go.
Quick time out.
Back after this.
You know, the real question here, everybody, this guy calls him Indianapolis.
We're going to be really disappointed tomorrow.
What's going to happen tomorrow?
The real question is what's going to happen tonight on CNN and MSNBC as the election returns come in.
The real question is what will the liberals do tomorrow?
▲
Export Selection