All Episodes
Previous Next
Nov. 9, 2010 - Rush Limbaugh Program
36:38
November 9, 2010, Tuesday, Hour #1
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Welcome to today's edition of the Rush 24-7 podcast.
Well, the Gallup poll says Obama's approval numbers have jumped.
What is it?
Four points.
43 to 47.
What was it?
Last week is 43% approval today, 47%.
Don't worry about it, folks.
It always happens.
Obama leaves the country, and the approval numbers go up.
The further away he is from Washington, the happier people are.
Great to have you here, L. Rushball behind the Golden EIB microphone at the distinguished and prestigious Limbaugh Institute for Advanced Conservative Studies one hour from now.
We'll be talking for a half hour to former President Bush.
Decision Points is his new book, and this is the first radio interview that the president is conducting.
Also, the lookout for the price of gasoline.
It's three dollars a gallon in uh in places out there.
The spike is uh is being fueled according to triple A and two Michigan economists by a weak American dollar that causes the prices of commodities like food, metals, and gas to increase because the dollar, the American currency, has less power to buy items from abroad.
And what's causing this?
QE2.
The printing of money is devaluing the U.S. dollar.
This is being brought about by ourselves.
To the extent that you can say the Federal Reserve is part of the U.S. government.
Well, you can't, but uh Obama doesn't disagree with what is happening here, so we're devaluing the dollar.
Uh American currency has less power to buy items from abroad, especially stuff that we import, like oil, more than 60%.
So here we are, right into the Christmas season.
Thanksgiving and Christmas over the river and through the woods to grandmother's house we used to go.
Now three bucks a gallon for gas and climbing and food too.
And this presages uh or presages, depending on your choice of pronunciation, the expiration of the Bush tax cuts.
That might happen at the uh at the end of the year.
All right, little berry is back in Indonesia, and they're all happy over it.
They call Little Barry's back.
Little Barry Sotero is back, and they're all happy over there in Indonesia.
In fact, uh he was in in what someplace in India, he was uh introduced by somebody from Kenya, and the woman said, Here's a fellow Kenyan, Mr. President.
I'm of course everybody looked the other way.
Well, what do you mean fellow Kenyan?
We don't want to hear this.
Uh and now little Barry's back, but before he left India.
We have the story from the Times of India.
Obama acknowledges decline of U.S. dominance.
Every time he leaves the country, he makes a statement like this.
The previous time he was talking about the uh the fact that the American consumer is no longer going to lead the U.S. economy.
Uh the or the world economy, it just isn't gonna happen.
Here is how the story from the times of India begins.
Implicitly acknowledging.
Implicitly acknowledging the decline of American dominance, implicitly denying that's no the th that's not an accidental choice of words.
Implicitly acknowledging, not regretfully, not by happenstance, not all shucks, but rather in a triumphant way.
Obama's crowing about this.
Implicitly acknowledging the decline of American dominance, Barack Obama on Sunday said the U.S. was no longer in a position to meet the rest of the world economically on our terms.
This is by design, implicitly acknowledging, not saying this is temporary, saying, hey, this is just an accident of the fate here, but we're gonna fix this.
Not that it's it's it's this is not just happenstance.
This is by design, implicitly acknowledged.
Look it up.
Implicitly acknowledge it with fanfare, triumphantly.
Finally, finally, the decline of American dominance has been made a reality, and I'm the guy who did it, and I'm happy to be telling you about it here in India.
That's what implicitly acknowledging means.
Speaking at a at a town hall meeting in Mumbai, Little Barry said, I do think that one of the challenges that we're going to face in the U.S. at a time when we are still recovering from the financial crisis is how do we respond to some of the challenges of globalization?
The fact of the matter is that for most of my lifetime, and I'll turn 50 next year, Little Barry said, the U.S. was such an enormously dominant economic power.
We were such a large market.
Our industry, our technology, our manufacturing was so significant that we always met the rest of the world economically on our terms.
And now because of the incredible rise of India and China and Brazil and other countries.
The U.S. remains a largest economy and the largest market, but there is real competition.
This will keep America on its toes.
America is going to have to compete.
There is going to be a tug of war within the U.S. between those who see globalization as a threat and those who accept that we live in an open, integrated world which has challenges and opportunities.
Dare I translate this for you?
Do I need to translate that for you, ladies and gentlemen?
We've had it our way for far too long.
The U.S. has been unfairly at the top of the heap for far too long.
And we've done it by stealing the world's resources, by taking from the people of the world and making them poor.
Our own selfishness and greed has propelled us to an artificial position of dominance.
But those days are over now, and I'm happy to see to it as I implicitly acknowledge the decline of American dominance.
Because of the incredible rise of India and China and Brazil, we do remain the largest economy, the largest market, but there's real competition.
That means not for long.
The U.S. leader disagreed with on his globalization business, tug of war within the U.S. between those who see globalization as a threat and those who accept that we live in an open, integrated world.
Bye-bye borders.
Hello, world currency.
Hello, I want to run the United Nations.
Hello, open borders.
The U.S. leader disagreed with those who saw globalization as unmitigated evil.
But while acknowledging that the chindia, that's a combination of Chicoms and India factor, had made the world flatter, he said protectionist impulses in the U.S. will get stronger if people don't see trade bringing in gains for them.
Now, ladies and gentlemen, this is this is a slap at people who uh he thinks what to start a trade war with China.
And the usual suspects when a Democrat president starts talking about people who want to start a trade war with China are the pet Buchanans of the world, the anti-Nafta types, the flat earthers, uh the uh the uh people that believe in global conspiracy.
But let me tell you who's who's let me say who's behind the trade war, China.
Who's thirdly?
It is his base led by Chuck Yu Schumer.
It is the unions, it is the it's Chuck Schumer is leading the war on China.
The war on trade with China, and they're trying to pass this off as some kind of Neanderthal Republican or conservative-led movement.
If the American people feel that trade is just a one-way street where everybody is selling to the enormous U.S. market, but we can never sell what we make anywhere else, then the people of the U.S. will start thinking that this is a bad deal for us, and it could end up leading to a more protectionist instinct in both parties, not just among Democrats.
So he admits it, but also Republicans.
So we have to guard against that.
Now, if you go to Obama's second autobiography, how many people have two autobiographies?
If you go to Obama's Little Barry's second one, it's called The Audacity of Hope, Thoughts on Reclaiming the American Dream, it is largely about the threat of globalization to the U.S. economy and the American worker.
All through that book, Obama uses the bogeyman of globalization to argue for the need for all of his social justice programs, such as health care reform and other income redistribution schemes long before he had the U.S. recession to blame.
Obama, who just lost control of the House of Representatives of the Republicans, unabashedly said the objective of his visit was to find jobs for his voters.
What?
He's in India to find jobs for his voters.
What about the people that didn't vote for him?
This is probably well fra Oh, look at that.
Folks, there is a battle shaping up in the House of Representatives.
Who's going to be number two in leadership there?
This is for the moment acknowledging that Pelosi's going to hold on to number one.
There's a battle between Stemmy Hoyer, i.e.
rich white guy, and James Kleiburn, poor black guy.
He's had a former head of the Congressional Black Caucus.
Clyburn wants to be number two in the House of Representatives, and Hoyer wants to be number two.
And the McClatchy Washington Bureau story here.
This is a racial overtones haunt the battle for House Democrats number two post.
The battle over who will be the number two leader of weakened House Democrats in the next Congress took on racial overtones yesterday, as majority leader Stenny Horner, who is white, and majority whip Jim Clyburn, who is black, battled for supporters.
Representative Barbara Lee of California, who is black.
Notice it's the Democrats who always talk this way.
Barbara Lee chairs the 41-member Congressional Black Caucus told colleagues in the letter that it's important to keep an African American on the party's House leadership team.
Representative Bobby Rush, an Illinois African American, sent a separate letter back in Clyburn for the Post.
30 House Democrats, none of them black, sent colleagues their own letters soliciting support for Hoyer, who served in Congress for three decades, i.e.
30 years.
The 30 Hoyer supporters include seven Hispanic members, among them Representatives Linda Sanchez, Joe Baca, Dennis Cordosa, Lucille Roboyle uh Robo uh Roybal, Alard of California, and Sylvestre Reyes of Texas.
You may find the politics of race dictates a lot of what happens here, said Michael Frain, an analyst at Heritage.
So do you think is going to win this?
Kleburn is the whip now, and he's done a great job.
He's done a good job.
Within the the context of the Democrats in the House, he's done a good job.
But Hoyer is the established rich white guy.
Who do you think is going to win this battle, folks?
Who's going to the back of the bus here?
Again, you want to make any bets on who's going to win this battle?
Forty-one members of Congressional Black Caucus, the rest aren't.
You know what happens to black people who want positions of power in the Democrat Party.
They send Andrew Cuomo or Bill Clinton around to tell them to scram.
We'll see what happens.
My money is on uh since we're talking Democrats here, the rich white guy Stenny Hoyer.
So anyway, uh this this the whole thing, Obama is joyfully overseas talking about the decline of the U.S. economy.
Happily presiding over it, implicitly acknowledging the decline Of American dominance.
It's what he's all about.
He's happy.
He's made it happen, and he gets to go around the world and signal to everybody that it's happened.
We'll be back.
We'll continue right after this.
Don't go away.
You know, you could say, uh, Mr. Snerdley, that Stenny Hoyer standing in the way of history.
Stenny Hoyer standing in the way of history.
A black guy, James Cleburn wants to actually, I think he would be the he's only the second African American whip in the uh in the U.S. Congress.
But Hoyer keeping the man down.
Oh, you're keeping down the man.
We gotta make note of this.
There's a historical opportunity here for the Democrats.
In fact, Clyburn at one point was even talking about wanting Pelosi's job.
You knew that wasn't gonna happen.
And now they're rallying the troops to keep uh Clyburn from getting uh from getting Stenny Hoyer's gig, the number two gig.
You know, folks, this Times of India article, uh, listen to the way it ends.
This is this is how it ends.
In the context of his efforts to revive the U.S. economy, the president clearly sees, as he wrote in an article, India and China as key drivers of economic growth.
Now, did you ever, did you ever think you would see the day when the U.S. economy would depend upon the ChICOMS and India, or when an American president would be so overjoyed in this.
Now, never mind the U.S. economy still has a GDP that's twice the size of the ChICOMs.
And India's combined, the uh let's see, U.S. GDP 14.1 trillion, China's is 4.9 trillion, India's is 1.2.
And now we're but we're saying we're now beholden to what happens with the ChICOMs and what happens in India.
And Obama talking about protectionism.
He is the protectionist.
Who is it that's been complaining about foreign money coming into the Chamber of Commerce during the campaign?
Who is it that's been complaining about uh big union buddies?
Obama's attacks on domestic companies investing in foreign countries.
How about our environmental and tax laws chasing out foreign investment?
And this guy wants to run around and talk about how he flavor uh favors globalization.
What he does is wants to preside over the decline of the U.S. economy of the United States of America, period.
He's doing it.
He is um he is implicitly acknowledging it.
He's happy that it's happening.
And I know it's still tough for a lot of people to get their arms around this, but how else would you describe it?
What what could possibly explain the president of the United States happily saying the days of American dominance are over.
As though, here's the thing.
As though American dominance was bad for the world, as though American dominance was evil, as though American dominance led to all kinds of racism, sexism, bigotry, homophobia, uh, environmental destruction, whatever these cliched causes the left drums up.
And this is who we have running the country, and that's why there's no way this guy can move to the center.
There is no center in Obama's world.
And there is no center in the Democrat Party, particularly in uh in Congress.
A new Kaiser Family Foundation poll.
56% of midterm voters want partial or full repeal of Obamacare.
Eight out of ten people who voted Republican favor repeal of Obamacare.
80%.
The top reason for voters' choices was the economy and jobs, followed by party, the candidate, and health care.
It sounds, you know, this issue of health care is a big deal in the election.
And that's why all of the stories yesterday and they're continuing today to try to detract to distract people's attention from that.
Well, yeah, it was just messaging.
The Democrats had a PR problem.
Um had a Communications problem.
All the uh the great oratory Obama was known for somehow had vanished, it was missing.
Make no mistake about it.
It was implicit.
It was substance, it was policy, it was health care and the economy, and those two things are inexorably linked anyway.
Because as the health care law is implemented, there goes the U.S. economy because so much of it is transferred to government control.
So that what the message here is clear for the Republicans who now run the House of Representatives.
You send a repeal bill up to this president every month or every week, and you debate it every day on the floor of the House of Representatives, and you make the Democrats defend this.
You make Obama veto it.
You and who says, by the way, we can't override a veto at some point.
I don't believe that that's impossible.
I think that can be done, especially as we get closer to the 2012 elections.
On the cutting edge of societal evolution, El Rushbo here.
Telephone number 800-282-2882 if you want to be on the program.
There's a story here at AOL, America Online Politics Daily, that is laughable.
Thank you.
It's a story about why a Democrats lost last Tuesday.
Here's the headline.
By the way, the author here is David Gibson, religious reporter, AOL Politics Daily.
Right?
The religion writer at AOL.
That's a plus that there is somebody who cares about religion at AOL.
But get this.
Did the Democrats' loss of faith lose them the House?
Of the many reasons cited for the election day shellacking administered by Republicans to President Obama the Democrats, perhaps none is as puzzling to political analysts or as maddening to religious progressives who put so much faith and work into Obama's success that the Democrats' failure to mobilize the religious left and reach out to conservative believers.
One of the many reasons cited for the election day shellacking, or of the many reasons, perhaps none is as puzzling than the Democrats' failure to mobilize the religious left and reach out to conservative believers.
That's why they lost.
And would you like to hear the pull quote from this story?
Some point to the administration a wonder how a party led by a committed Christian who is as religiously fluent as Barack Obama could allow itself to be outflanked on faith outreach.
And this guy is serious.
Folks, they are scraping the bottom of the barrel.
They are doing everything they can to convince themselves and as many people as possible that substance Obama's policies, particularly health care and spending and this massive debt had nothing to do with this defeat.
Now, according to the religious writer at AOL, it's because somehow the Democrats who are led by a committed Christian, religiously fluent as Obama allowed itself to be outflanked by the Christian right.
Now let me ask you a question.
How many of you, when you think Democrat Party, when the concept of the American left is mentioned to you?
When you see a Democrat, when you see Stanny Hoyer, when you see Jim Clyburn, when you see Chuck U Schumer, when you see Obama, when you see Pelosi, do you think religion?
If you do think religion, you're thinking how they often always trash it.
How they ridicule it, how they impugn people of faith, how they're doing everything they can to see to it that people of faith do not have a role in government.
And here comes this guy, David Gibson, claiming that the primary reason that they lost, Or one of the reasons is the Democrats' loss of faith.
Pray tell when did the Democrats have any?
When did the Democrats utilize any?
The Democrats are embarrassed to talk about it.
You put up an activity scene, and who's out there trying to get it torn down?
Any public display of anything religious on the Christian side, who's out there trying to shut it down?
Disciples of the left.
Disciples of the Democrat Party.
And now they're trying to tell us that that they weren't religious, that they got somehow got outflanked.
I mean, it just it's laughable.
And let's go to the audio soundbite, starting here with number five.
Last night on Hardball on MSNBC, Matthews interviewed Huffing and Puffington Post political reporter Sam Stein.
Now wait till you hear this.
Who is responsible for making Obama veer so far to the left?
Who could be responsible for this?
Question.
Reagan did a lot on his first year, a lot of presidents, George W. They think it's his first year.
I didn't agree, but he did.
They tend to get credit for them and get re-elected.
This time there seems to be a disconnect.
Maybe it's because he wanted to do progressive things and not just cut taxes.
Now that I don't know how you answer that question.
It's incoherent, but Sam Stein takes a stab at answering this.
Sure.
Well, there's two things here.
One is that, you know, the galvanizing force in the campaign in 2008 was that he was going to bring civility to politics.
Well, that's a two-way street.
You need to have the other side of the case.
How do you do that in a world of Rush Limbaugh?
You don't, and that's the problem.
Setting the tone and then forcing the left to respond to that in the Congress and in the media, and forcing a kind of an environment in which it's all polarized.
How do you say, well, I'll be a reasonable center-left politician in that environment.
You heard right.
I, Il Rushbow, forced Obama to the left.
Obama was elected, and he was going to bring civility.
He was going to lower the sea levels.
Speaking of that, have you seen where Obama's travel itinerary might change, might have to come home sooner because that volcano eruption is going to make flying through the volcanic dust problematic.
Why?
The guy was going to lower the sea levels.
Why can't he do something about the volcanic eruption?
Something as insignificant as a volcanic eruption is going to change a travel itinerary of little Barry.
That's what they're calling him in Indonesia.
So it is IL Rushville.
Obama walks into Washington and he's going to be all civil, and he's going to be polite.
We're going to have a new era of everybody getting along with everybody.
We're going to bring civility to politics.
But it's a two-way street, you need the other side, and the other side was me, and I, of course, didn't permit it, and therefore that forced Obama to the left.
Rowan Scarborough and human events.
Among all the bad tactics by Democrats leading up to their election disaster November 2nd, one tactician stood out as the worst.
That would be former President Bill Clinton.
read this, as I read excerpts of this to you, you are going to suspect, as I mentioned yesterday and last week, that the former president might himself be a A covert operative in Operation Reverse Chaos.
Now we know, we know that Clinton helped our cause with his bumbling effort to get Kendrick Meek to drop out of the Florida Senate race.
I mean, there was no way that was going to happen, but it made the Democrats look um crazy.
Rubio wasn't going to lose that race anyway, but still this was something that Clinton did that did not help the Democrats.
Now, in this this human events piece, they keep talking about Clinton as one of our most gifted politicians.
In fact, they still say he is our most gifted politician.
And why do they say that?
He lied and got away with it.
He lied and got away.
He slipped out of an impeachment noose.
He evade the House managers.
That's why he's one of our most gifted politicians.
So Acting more like a godfather than a distinguished former president and statesman, Clinton became involved in two embarrassing efforts to convince a Democrat to quit his race so the party would presumably hold the seat to boot.
He also counseled congressional Democrats either to pass Obamacare or to lose the 2010 midterms.
They did pass it, and they did lose the midterms.
Now, this I want to focus on this because I do want to focus on Clinton's motivations here.
This is my theory that both Clintons want to get back in the White House.
That both Clintons see this shellacking last week as a golden re-entry opportunity.
And that my theory is that both Clintons might have willingly participated in creating this debacle.
So let's go back to 1994 and Hillary care.
Hillary care gets shellacked, and so do the Democrats.
The Republicans win the House for the first time in 40 years.
And it is precisely because of the massive overreaching nationalized health care of Hillary Clinton.
It bombed.
The American people didn't want it.
They don't want nationalized anything.
And so they sent the Democrats packing.
Clinton knows what happened.
Now he said this year and last summer to the Democrats of this Congress, you know what happened to me back?
We lost the House in 1994 to Republicans, and a reason we lost because we didn't pass health care.
Don't make the mistake we made.
If you, if you want to keep your seat this year, you make sure you vote for Obamacare, you pass health care this time around.
That's the simple best thing you can do to make sure you get re-elected.
Now, Clinton knowingly lied to him.
Anybody with half a brain knew that voting for Obamacare was falling on a sword.
Obama wasn't gonna get hurt no matter the outcome, but the Democrats were.
Even I, L. Rushbo, in a uh gesture of true compassion, warned the Blue Dogs.
If you do this, if you vote for Obamacare, it's the end of your career.
You are going to pay the ultimate price.
You're gonna be sent shellacking.
Nobody's wanna, you know, you're not gonna have any role here.
Your voters are gonna vote against you because you guys cannot have it both ways.
You cannot say that you are fiscally conservative and vote for this abomination.
And yet Clinton was out there telling them, hey, don't listen to Limbaugh.
You go out there and you make sure you don't compound the mistake that happened to me.
Uh a vote for health care is how you get re-elected.
A vote for health care is how we hold on to the House.
Nobody can convince me Clinton believed that.
There's nobody in the world that can convince me that Bill Clinton believed he was telling these guys the truth.
He couldn't possibly believe that.
And we know precisely because after the 94 midterms, he went to the center.
After the 94 midterms, did he stay far left?
No.
He wanted to get re-elected.
He read the tea leaves.
What did he tell these guys to do?
Stay far to the left.
So that Obama is perceived as stay far.
Well, Obama's gonna stay far to the left because he's got no prayer.
And there is no center for Obama, he can't possibly move.
And then Clinton offered a White House job to Joe Sestack to drop his primary challenge against Senator Spector.
Sestack said no, all the publicity surely did not help in the narrow loss to Pat Toomey.
Clinton, as godfather, then outdid himself.
He pressured Kendrick Meeks to pull out to improve the chances of Republican turncoat Charlie Christ beating future GOP superstar Marco Rubio.
But Clinton's biggest goof came months before the election.
Former Democrat presidents have made it standard fare to reinvent their presidencies.
Jimmy Carter, for example, this year blamed the deceased Teddy Kennedy for blocking his big health care bill 30 years ago.
Clinton's reinvention was this.
If the Democrat control Congress in 93-94 would have passed Hillary's health care bill, a Party would not have lost the Senate and the House in the Gingrich Revolution.
And of course we know, and Bill Clinton has to know that just the opposite is the truth.
Clinton did not just say it years later.
He lobbied reluctant Democrats to vote for Obamacare, using precisely that argument.
Approve the federal takeover of health care, and you will win the election.
Operation reverse chaos.
You might say that Clinton was the first field general.
Clinton was the first field marshal.
He put Operation Reverse Chaos into effect even before I, the commanding officer, announced it.
Oh, it's fun to watch all this.
Meanwhile, meanwhile, we get the fact that the Republicans won because marketing and packaging.
Healthcare has nothing to do with it.
Spending, Democrat policies, nothing to do with it.
And now we get the idea here from the religious reporter at AOL Politics David, the real reason the Democrats lost was they were outflanked by religious right.
Get this.
Some point to this administration and wonder how a party led by a committed Christian who is as religiously fluent as Obama.
Didn't we just have a poll?
30 some odd percent of the people think he's a Muslim.
And the religion writer at AOL claims that he is religiously fluent and a committed Christian.
This is a spoof.
Obama a committed Christian.
I'm sorry.
You can't say that somebody's a committed Christian when 30% of the country wonders whether or not he is a Muslim.
Okay, the AOL uh politics daily religion writer says that the reason a Democrats lost is they got outflanked by religion.
Would somebody on my staff find out what the Food Network is saying about why the Democrats lost last Tuesday?
I want to find out what the food network is saying.
They want to find out what the sci-fi channel is saying.
They want to find out what the O Channel is saying, and then why want to know what TV Land is saying?
But first the food network.
A mystery missile.
Mystery missile launch seen off the California coast, a mysterious missile launch off the Southern California coast, caught by a CBS affiliate camera Monday night.
Officials are staying tight-lipped over the nature of the projectile.
CBS station KFMB put in calls of the Navy and the Air Force Monday night about the striking launch off the coast of Los Angeles, which was easily visible from the coast, but the military has said nothing about it.
KFMB showed video of the apparent missile of former U.S. ambassador to NATO Robert Ellsworth, who is also a former deputy secretary of defense to get his thoughts.
He said it's spectacular, it takes people's breath away.
It's a big missile.
Meanwhile, the Pentagon says they're checking it.
Now, folks, I thought we had satellites specifically designed to spot ICBM launches.
I thought we had a network of satellites up there designed to spot this kind of thing wherever they happen.
In the world.
And here we have a missile launch 35 miles off the coast of California.
And if it really wasn't ours, even if it was ours.
But if it wasn't, whose was it?
Where did it come from?
The fact they're checking into it.
And there are strange things happening.
Again, a reminder, President Bush at the top of the next hour.
His book is Decision Points.
And today will be his first radio interview discussing the book and other things happening in the world and the country today.
We'll have a brief timeout, come back and return Right after this, don't go away.
Now, look, folks, I'm just saying here, but every time the Chinese get mad at us, like about Taiwan, and they are livid at us over the Federal Reserve devaluing the dollar, which is what this uh QE2 is, the $600 billion purchase of treasuries over what is it, eight months.
It's actually gonna end up being closer to $800 billion, close to a trillion, maybe.
And this is devaluing the dollar.
The Chicoms hate this.
Every time they get mad at us, some Chicom general usually notes how easy it would be for them to take out Los Angeles with a missile strike.
▲
Export Selection