All Episodes
Previous Next
Nov. 26, 2010 - Rush Limbaugh Program
36:52
November 26, 2010, Friday, Hour #1
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Welcome to today's edition of the Rush 24-7 podcast.
I don't care where you look today.
I mean, everything's hilarious.
Everything's I don't know why I'm not laughing either, but everything is hilarious.
Charlie Wrangle hadn't had time to find a lawyer.
Walks out of his own trial.
Poor Charlie's problem.
I think it illustrates.
We have a crying need for lawyer-client reform, lawyer care reform.
I mean, he hasn't had time to find a lawyer.
Lawyer insurance or something.
Hi folks, how are you?
Rush Limbaugh.
This is the EIB Network.
Great to have you here.
Telephone number if.
Excuse me, you want to be on the program today, 800-282-2882, and the email address Lrushbo at EIB net.com.
Some of the hilarity.
MSNBC, apparently Friday, I didn't hear it, literally had a cow over driving Miss Nancy.
All day.
Apparently they just went bockers over driving Miss Nancy.
Until finally some Republican named Ron Kiss Christie put them in their place.
But I mean we've got the sound bites coming up.
We got this from Salon.com, the war room by uh who's this uh and I don't know the author.
Oh, Sasha Bramski.
Obama's toughest task, make us believe again.
And there's this this one passage in here.
Obama believes in good government in moderation in a smart, worldly calm approach to politics.
He believes that government can and should act on behalf of ordinary people to protect them from the vagaries of an unregulated market, and also believes to smooth out the rough edges created by boom bus cycles, inequality.
He doesn't believe any of this.
This is what this stupid babe at Salon believes.
This is what she wants.
Sorry, stupid.
Take it back.
Uh ignorant, uh hopeful, uninformed.
This is sh this is what she thinks.
This is what she wants.
This is a classic.
This is a classic example of how this guy got elected.
This paragraph, let me read this to you again.
Obama believes in good government.
No, he doesn't.
Show me an example of Obama's good government.
TSA.
I mean, we got people being patted down, being felt up.
We have sexual assault happening as in in a in a security line.
We got a guy who say, You touch my junk, and I'm gonna f I'm gonna I'm gonna have you arrested, and he gets thrown out of the airport.
And Nepalitano says we've all got a particip.
When they get a member of Congress, when the president has to undergo this kind of stuff, when every member of Congress, the legislative branch has to undergo this kind of stuff, then fine.
But if it is, is this outright good government?
He believes in moderation.
Moderation.
What's the debt now?
A smart, worldly, calm approach to politics?
There's nothing smart about it.
There's nothing worldly about it, and there's no nobody's calm.
Not a single soul is calm.
Uh if the government should act on behalf of ordinary people, he's destroying.
He's destroying the opportunity for ordinary people to become extraordinary.
To protect them from the vagaries of an unregulated market.
Give me the unregulated market over what the hell we got now.
And everybody's clamoring for an unregulated market.
Also to smooth out the rough edges created by boom busta.
Give us a boom.
Would somebody please give us a boom cycle?
People are tired of the bust.
There is no boom with Obama.
There's no smoothing out of rough edges.
There's simply a destroying of everything.
Inequality and the twists and turns of history.
So classic.
This is how the guy gets elected.
Here's some woman at Slate.com or Salon.com.
This guy was a canvas.
That's what she wants a president to be.
That's what she wants the country to be.
That's what she thought Obama was going to be.
Then she unfortunately for Obama and for his broader progressive political agenda.
Conservatives have spent the last 30 plus years demolishing any notion that government can ever be a force for good in the social and economic arena.
Nope.
But I I we've got runaway government now.
What's your name?
Sasha?
Is that right?
Sasha Bram.
We got runaway Obama government now, but somebody please tell me we want more of it.
Anybody want to stick their hand up?
We want more of this?
I don't think anybody does.
Get this.
Duck Out Democrats give away 14 billion dollars.
House Speaker Pelosi opens a lame duck session today, but plans to send a 250 dollar gift check to every Social Security recipient, a 14 billion dollar last hurrah for Democrats before they surrender control to Republicans.
Another story out there that the lame duck session is petering out.
Basically, only three things on tap.
One of them is uh is is uh tax cuts, a compromise on that.
Well, extending the Bush tax cuts because there aren't any tax cuts being discussed, but uh it really a pared down um uh lame duck agenda.
Uh the payout is supposed to make up for two years without a social security cost of living adjustment, which is tied to inflation and inflation's been flat.
Now, uh Pelosi and the government are lying, or and and there is inflation, or it's flat, and Nicola is unnecessary.
They cannot have it both ways.
The reason why they're giving Nicola is because, and that's cost of living adjustment.
There isn't one because there's no inflation.
And yet, Pelosi's gonna write them a check for 250 bucks, 14 billion dollars in total.
Uh they can't have it both ways here.
They're just simply trying to buy the senior vote again with our money.
Pelosi called it uh a one-time payment that'll help millions make ends meet during these difficult economic times.
It's always a one-time payment.
The last one-time payment was back in 2008, I think.
And there was another one-time payment in 2009.
And we had a lot of stimulus there, right?
For $14 uh $14 billion stimulus, $250 in the hands of seasoned citizens.
$250 per year, one time check.
Really going to have a great economic stimulus.
We've had an $800 billion stimulus, we had a $700 billion TARP, uh, another $600 billion, well, close to one trillion with the Fed printing money.
Uh there isn't any stimulus.
Uh and the proponents also argue the expenditure will provide economic stimulus because the old folks would quickly spend the money.
Wait till you hear the next story, though.
The old folks will quickly spend the money on what?
Dog food or medicine.
Isn't that the option the Democrats have given them?
The legislation dubbed the Seniors Protection Act was written by nine-term North uh North Dakota Congressman Earl Pomeroy, one of many veteran Democrats who lost re-election and won't be returning to Congress next year.
It's just one item on Democrats' long-wished uh long wish list.
Trying to cram more here than my mouth can keep bubble in my brain.
They also want to extend unemployment benefits and the military's not asked to tell policy for gays in the service and ratify a nuclear weapons reduction treaty with Russia.
In other words, the Democrats are trying to inflict as much damage on our economy as they can before they get out of Dodge.
Now, senior citizens.
We hear this next.
I mean, with every story, the the hilarity quotient ratchets up.
From Pullman, Washington, AP story, invoking the spirit of Star Trek in a scholarly article entitled to Boldly Go, two scientists contend that human travel to Mars could happen much more quickly and cheaply if the missions are made one way.
They argue it would be little different from early settlers to North America who left Europe with little expectation of return.
The main point said Dirk Schultz Makich of Washington State University, main points to get Mars exploration moving.
He and his colleague Paul Davies of Arizona State say that one of 55 articles in the issue devoted to exploring Mars that humans must begin colonizing another planet as a hedge against catastrophe on Earth.
Okay, now we start thinking about who to send, right?
If it's one way.
Who do we send?
At the top of the list, George Soros.
Because they say later in the story we're gonna need a billionaire to fund this, because the private sector is probably gonna have the best opportunity to fund it.
So send Soros, send every environmentalist wacko.
I mean, you want to call it, get hold of Stephen Hawking and let him lead the way because he thinks that this has to happen.
Get this.
Mars is a six month flight away.
It possesses surface gravity, possesses an atmosphere, abundant water, carbon dioxide, and essential minerals.
Now wait just a second.
Carbon monoxide, we thought that was the most dangerous substance on Earth.
Carbon monoxide, trapped greenhouse gas, is leading to the destruction of planet Earth.
Now these guys are happy that there's carbon dioxide on Mars.
They propose the mission start by sending two-person teams in separate ships.
More colonists and regular supply ships would follow.
They say the technology already exists or is within easy reach.
I the more I read of this, I mean the the uh the more I'm tending to support it, depending on if I get to choose who goes.
You know, since it's a one way trip.
Davies and Schultz Mackich say it's important to realize they're not proposing a suicide mission.
No, no.
The astronauts would go to Mars with the intention of staying for the rest of their lives as trailblazers of a permanent human Mars colony.
They think the private sector might be a better place to try their plan.
Uh what we would need is eccentric and eccentric billionaire.
Uh, there are people who have the money to put this into reality, and that's where I think George Soros comes into play.
Uh uh send the environmentalist wackles a perfect world.
No pollution, no electricity, no um in uh you've got a mine for water, no not pristine world.
A pristine world they can keep pristine, and by the way, they go there and they die.
They don't come back.
Well, that's that's the mission.
It's not a suicide mission.
They go there and they colonize to get ready for the rest of us to join them.
They say we'll be ready to start this mission in 20 years.
Two decades.
Now, in two decades, won't we all have died from man-made global warming?
Do we have two decades to wait?
Now it gets better here.
You would send older folks, around 60 or something like that, said Schultz Makich, bringing to mind the aging heroes who stay today in space cowboys.
That's because the mission would undoubtedly reduce a person's lifespan from a lack of medical care and exposure to radiation.
So they suggest sending old people are gonna die sooner than anybody else anyway.
Send them in the mission, they're gonna die of radiation and no health care.
And yet it's not a suicide mission.
Now we're getting down to the crux of the idea.
Now we're getting death panels.
Death panels, this is how they're gonna manifest themselves.
I wonder if this proposal is actually buried somewhere in the health care bill, and we just haven't found it yet.
It's over 2,000 pages.
By the way, Paul Krugman was on um and gave away the game.
Paul Krugman, New York Times columnist, was on uh this week with Christiana Manpour yesterday during a discussion about the Obama debt commission report.
We have three sound bites, and he is godlike to the left.
I mean, he's an economist, a Nobel Prize winner.
When Krugman speaks, left wingers listen, bow down, uh uh gesticulate.
I mean, they just they they fall all over themselves.
This guy is a god to them.
They should have said, okay, look, Medicare is going to have to decide what's going to pay for, and at least for starters, it's going to have to decide which medical procedures are not effective at all and should not be paid for at all.
In other words, it should have endorsed the panel that was part of the health care reform.
If the commission isn't even brave enough to take on the death panels people, then it's doing no good at all.
Whoa.
In other words, it should have endorsed the panel that was part of health care reform.
If it's not brave enough to take on the death panels people.
Well, you're thinking, well, what is what does he mean by this?
All right.
Well, Christiana Manpore says, look, what's going to happen?
I mean, are you clear on where a compromise is going to be?
It's got to be discussed before the end of the year.
No.
No.
Some years down the pike, we're going to get the real solution, which is going to be a combination of death panels and sales taxes.
It's going to be that we're actually going to take Medicare under control, and we're going to have to get some additional revenue, probably from a VAT.
I mean, this is this is the guy they all bowed down and genuine toward, folks.
And he said death panels and a national sales tax.
That's that.
Some year down the pike, we're going to get to the real solution, which is going to be a combination of death panels and sales tax.
There it is.
Sarah Palin was right.
And that's why they flip down and had a panic reaction when the phrase was first used.
And here's more.
Kirchyana Munpore says, so where do you see the British economy going?
We're going to have Cameron typosterity in this country, not as a deliberate policy, but because the state and local governments are going to be slashing their spending.
There's going to be no further aid coming from uh from Washington.
We're in Herbert Hoover territory in the United States for sure.
We're already there, thank you, Barack Obama.
Barack Obama Hoover.
We live in Hooverville.
Death panels, VAT tax, feta comply.
He let the cat out of the bag.
He speaks for a lot of leftists.
We'll be back.
Half my brain tied behind my back just to make it fair, Il Rushboard, the Limboy Institute for Advanced Conservative Studies.
Now, if you just landed from Mars, and we're talking about sending people to Mars, but if you just if you just landed from Mars and you turned on any American drive-by media, you would hear the biggest issue facing a lame duck Congress is will Democrats cut taxes for most Americans or will Republicans cut taxes for the rich?
That is how they are framing the issue of extending the Bush tax cuts.
And you know, I've got frustrated people in this audience, and they're going to continue to be frustrated.
Are we ever going to control a message rush?
Are we ever going to control it?
Are we ever going to seize the day where we define the message for the media?
The answer is no.
Get over it.
The media is not us.
They are not on our side.
We're never going to control the message in the media.
No matter what, we would have the smartest guys in the world.
Reagan did not control the message in the media.
Reagan controlled the message with the American people.
He won the argument.
We're not going to control the message in the media standpoint.
Stop bothering me about this.
It's very, very simple.
Here we have three mistakes in one single news brief, but the American people are not being fooled by any of this.
Will Democrats cut taxes for most Americans or will the Republicans cut taxes for the rich?
First off, there are no tax cuts being proposed by anybody for anybody.
The debate is, are taxes going to go up or not?
That's all that's on the table here.
But expecting the media to frame it that way is a waste of time, and it's only going to frustrate you.
For years, we have heard that the Bush tax cuts were for the rich.
But now we hear the Democrats are fighting to keep those tax cuts for the middle class, as we've pointed out Friday and repeatedly over and over and over.
yet the democrats in the media say the tax cuts were only for the rich now the next obvious retort is this how can you cut taxes for ninety five to ninety eight percent of americans which the democrats say obama wants to do when less than fifty percent of the population actually pay any income taxes
So if you've had any doubt that the media is a bunch of propagandists, uh and and people indoctrinating their their customers rather than reporters, it's that simple.
There are no tax cuts being proposed.
All that's being proposed are will the current tax rates be extended or will they not?
And if they're not, whose taxes will go up?
Now what the Democrats want is for the wealthy to have their taxes go up.
One of the things Obama is asking, and this gets to Pelosi and her 250 checks to the seasoned citizens.
Obama repeatedly says that extending the current tax rates, forget even the talk of tax cuts, extending the current tax rate for people over 250 grand a year will cost the government 700 billion dollars.
And he says, where are we going to get that money?
Well, where are we going to get the money for Pelosi to give every seasoned citizen 250 dollars?
Where did we get the money for her to do that in 2008?
Where are you getting the money, Nancy?
We don't have the money, and we're not losing.
The government has got to figure out a way to balance its budget based on the status quo.
The status quo is 36% tax rate for the upper bracket.
On the table is dropping that and raising it to 39.6 as a means of saving 700.
It's all convoluted.
There's not one tax cut being proposed.
The only thing being proposed is should we raise taxes on the people who own small businesses and hire many of the people who work in this country?
That's the question.
A lot of smart alex in the email.
Hey, Russia, see the Steelers game last night.
Hey Rush, how about the Steelers last night?
Yes, I was in Pittsburgh.
I was at Ketchup Field, but that was not a football game.
That was that was somebody imitating football, but that that was not a football game last night.
I don't know what that was a massacre.
But uh one team did not show up last night.
Who knows why?
But whoa, what a what what a just absolutely depressing game if you're a Steelers fan.
Let's say now, folks, um I don't talk about a whole lot of other people on this program, as you know.
I very seldom mention by name anybody at MSNBC, because they're not a non-factor.
I mean, they're entertaining and they're out there, but in terms of the number of people they reach, zilt zero nada.
It's just that they're not a factor.
Uh and I don't talk too much about the columnists at the New York Times because they just they don't they don't interest me.
And I I I'm not prone to allowing myself to be distracted uh by such people.
But in the case of Paul Krugman, there are always exceptions to this.
And Krugman is an exception.
Krugman, because not just is it a columnist of the New York Times, he is godlike to many Democrats.
He is godlike to many on the left.
He is the brainchild behind quantitative easing.
Paul Krugman, if if if the truth be known, might be one of the stealth influences on Ben Bernanke of the Federal Reserve.
Uh Paul Krugman has been suggesting for years, at least the last two, that the problem with Obama's stimulus is it hasn't been enough.
We haven't spent enough, and FDR did not spend enough.
We haven't really, in Krugman's view, put Keynesian economics at a true test.
And he's got a vested interest in government spending, government salvation, government savior, uh being illustrated.
Of course, it can't.
It never has been.
It's not possible for government to create wealth.
Just doesn't happen.
Now, Paul Krugman is 57 years old.
In terms of Mars missions, he may be shovel ready.
But I just want to point out to you, two weeks ago, Paul Krugman was saying that we need a major war to get us out of the recession because Keynesian spending didn't do it.
We needed a major war, like World War II.
Iraq, not good enough because that was Bush's war.
Afghanistan not good enough because that was Bush's war.
Maybe what he had in mind is a civil war because when he now starts telling the truth about Obamacare, there are going to be a lot of people in the White House and on the left going, my God, Paul, have you lost your mind?
We're trying to keep this a secret.
We have we've we think we've succeeded in beating back this whole notion that there are death panels here.
And of course, anybody with any common sense knows that this is a dead ringer for the British health care system and that rationing of health care, if this thing is not repealed, if it if it uh if it holds up, there's only one way that this can ever be paid for, and that is by health rationing.
And the people that get rationed out of health care are the elderly.
It's a it's look at people stop being human beings that are looked at clearly and simply as Dimes and quarters.
Is there any investment sense?
Is there any financial sense in investing?
Whatever it would cost to prolong an elderly person's life by a year or two.
Or should that money be spent elsewhere on a young person's health care or some other social program?
Inexorably, when the government is in charge of this, human beings stop being human beings.
And my biggest argument with liberalism, it dehumanizes people.
For all the talk about compassion and uh love and tolerance, liberalism dehumanizes a society.
And in the eyes of liberal leaders, human beings stop being human beings and they're pieces on a chessboard or a chalkboard or what have you.
They're to be interchanged and exchanged or gotten rid of, pulled off the board.
There's there's no question there are death panels in the Obamacare bill.
Everybody knows it.
Now Clark Krugman has let it out of the bag.
But when Sarah Palin used the term death taxes, Krugman wrote a piece.
It was August 14th, 2009 in the New York Times.
And he called Sarah Palin and other conservatives lunatics for suggesting that there were death panels in Obamacare.
He referred in that column, August 14, 2009.
He referred to the death penal claim as a complete fabrication, a smear.
He used that term twice and lies three times, and stated that it was being promoted by a lunatic fringe.
He has mocked death panels as a lie in numerous other editorials.
And yet, yesterday on ABC, again, here is Paul Krugman.
Some years down the pike, we're going to get the real solution, which is going to be a combination of death panels and sales taxes.
It's going to be that we're actually going to take Medicare under control, and we're going to have to get some additional revenue, probably from a VAT.
Now, this folks is just i if if there were a competent reporter on that program, this is uh this week with Christiana Manpour, if there were a competent reporter participant on that program, a red flag or two should have gone up immediately.
Mr. Krugman, death panels?
You yourself, sir, have written that anybody who says there are death panels in the health care legislation are lunatic, fringe, or liars.
It's clear as a bell here.
If you just wait, if you're just patient, liberals will eventually slip up because they can't remember to whom they've told what lie.
If you lie routinely, which is what liberals and liberalism has to do, you better keep it up because you can't remember who you've told what lie.
You have to assume everything you've said is a lie and remember everything you've said so you can say it consistently.
Well, this is huge.
Not just because Krugman works at the New York Times.
That's part of it, but because he's a Nobel Prize-winning economist.
He is somebody that the left listens to for economic advice.
So now we have it.
Palin was right.
But you're not going to see this in the drive-by media.
You're going to see anybody saying this other than on this program or places like it.
But I mean, there you have it.
No, I didn't need Krugman to validate that there are death panels in there.
My point in doing this is to simply illustrate that they lie.
They lie from the and the reason they lie is when we are right.
Truth is the greatest threat these people face.
Truth is the biggest enemy they've got.
And now he's out there saying that death panels are a cost saver.
Even back in March, there's a YouTube video of Paul Krugman talking about how death panels will save money, death panels and now a VAT tax.
So, there you have it.
Just another illustration of who these people are, how they lie, what they lie about, and why.
But the simplest thing to do to realize who these people are is just they lie.
If you can just get your arms around it, just accept that.
Everything else is simple.
Wall Street Journal today, Peter Walston and uh Sue Deep Red, the Federal Reserve's latest attempt to boost The U.S. economy coming under fire from Republican economists and politicians threatening to yank the central bank into deeper partisan politics.
A group of prominent Republican leaning economists coordinating with Republican lawmakers and political strategists launching a campaign this week calling on Ben Bernanke to drop this idea to buy six hundred billion dollars in additional U.S. treasury bonds over the next eight months or so.
The increasingly loud criticism of the Fed comes as some economic officials outside the United States are criticizing the Fed's move to effectively print money, which has the side effect of pushing down the dollar on world currency markets.
Obama last week defended the Fed.
Of course he would, because he's into.
He's all about the weakening of the U.S. dollar and the weakening of the U.S. economy.
Somebody has a great piece in the stack here.
I will give them proper credit when I get to it, but I don't have it in front of me, so I can't remember who it is that wrote this, but it's it might be the journal.
I'll find it in a second.
Obama thinks he's gaining favor in the world by running around apologizing for us, by apologizing for our transgressions, apologizing for our superstars uh superpower status, apologizing uh for all of the evil uh and all the immoral, unjust actions that the United States has taken.
He thinks he's gaining favor with people.
And what he's actually doing is diminishing not just the country, but himself as well.
And that could not be more accurate.
And is evidenced by his utter failure at this G twenty.
You never, never do you go on such a prominent, publicized meeting like this, without some concrete deal already agreed to in advance.
You don't go to a major meeting like this and subject yourself to potential embarrassment, humiliation, and it's exactly what happened.
Every I mean he took it on the chin on virtually every agreement, and he tried to hammer out.
The world is not responding to the way Obama sees this country.
They don't want to see America the way he does.
They don't want to hear America apologized for.
They need us.
Obama has been raised to believe all these people around the world hate us, hate America, have deep resentment for us.
He's bought into all that because Reverend Wright told him that.
Because Reverend Wright thinks the rest of the world hates us.
The rest of the world may say they do.
But down at the economic level of dollars and cents, they need us.
They don't like a president running around diminishing his own country because he's diminishing himself.
This does not make the world a safer place.
It does not make it a better place.
It does not bode well for the future.
This guy's an utter wrecking ball all by himself on the world stage.
To the point now getting embarrassing.
This this presidency of Obama's.
It doesn't take much to irritate the left.
Try this.
Barack Obama's presidency is graffiti on the walls of American history.
That's what his administration is.
No more than graffiti on the walls of American history.
We have a juvenile delinquent for a president who has ruined so much public and private property, not even his gang making much of an effort here to protect him.
But it's an utter disaster.
And this move by the Federal Reserve to devalue the dollar, this doesn't bode well for now.
You're all worried about deflation.
The problem with deflation, if you're curious, is that it causes people to sit on stockpiles of money.
Why spend a dollar today if it'll buy you a dollar and fifty worth of something tomorrow?
If things are going to continue to get cheaper, why spend today?
That's the theory of deflation.
Problem with deflation is when providers of services and manufacturers of products cannot even break even.
They stop producing and servicing.
Then you have an utter slowdown and stoppage.
And so they're trying to inflate here with the printing of this money to avoid the dreaded deflation, and this is causing panic.
Inflation is not good either.
So it's it's an it's it's an utter mess.
The one thing that works that has not been tried is to just hands off here.
You know, stop all the regulating, stop all of stimulating, stop all the printing of money, stop all of this, and just cut some marginal tax rates and get out of the way and let the American people in the U.S. economy revive it themselves.
That's how it always happens, and it will again if these eggheads would just get out of the way.
Talent on loan from God.
I am Rush Limboy, your guiding light.
Telephone number, we'll get to your calls.
800-282-2882.
More hilarity.
Politico.
Freudian slips may haunt Obama.
Now, this is just absurd.
This is from a news bunch that looked the other way when it's time to tell everybody the truth about Barack Obama.
This is a bunch of people who saw only an historical figure.
Who only saw the first black president as a candidate.
And said everything else doesn't matter.
We've got to do whatever we can to f to move this guy along to further his candidacy.
And now, only now, after the utter devastation of this graffiti written presidency.
Do we get this story?
Freudian slips may haunt Obama.
President Obama, fresh from his drubbing in the 2010 midterms, is trying to revive his fortunes by pursuing a path toward the middle.
Right.
Obama's effort to overhaul his image is encumbered by by conflicting impressions of who he is.
That have been engraved in voters' minds by his own words.
No, no, no, no, no.
Not just his own words, politico.
Who he is has been engraved in people's minds by virtue of what you and others in the state-controlled media told us about Obama.
The next hilarious paragraph during unguarded and even some staged moments.
Obama has allowed unintended glimpses into his thinking at various times.
His offhand comments have led critics and many voters to view him as an ardent leftist or as an elitist, or most recently a partisan Democrat.
Oh no, Obama is screwing up.
He's actually making Freudian slips and allow people to see falsely that he's a partisan Democrat, an ardent leftist.
These Freudian slips, this is more covering for the guy.
These so is this silly notion he's moving to the middle.
These Freudian slips, uncovering the man beneath the spin in the speeches, are embedded in American subconscious, if you will, because they seem to come directly from the president's inner self.
Obama can change his policies, but he cannot easily erase these perceptions, and because of his cool opaqueness, noted even by his own staff and his relatively brief track record on the national stage.
Voters have little else to go on.
Yeah, why do they have little else to go on?
Because people in the media have refused to do their jobs.
He wasn't vetted.
This is beyond Freudian slips.
Every time I read a story like this, I'm reminded of that soundbite we played.
Charlie Rose and Tom Broco.
I don't know who he is.
I don't know what books he's.
I don't know who is mentored.
So I well, find out.
You are reporters.
The bitter clingers comment to his extreme leftist politic.
Everybody knows who Obama is.
That's what the 2008 midterm elections were all about.
Even talk about it here.
First, there was his condescension toward blue-collar Midwestern voters, San Francisco fundraiser, they get bitter, they cling to guns.
This remark suggested he's an elitist.
Suggested?
He's an elitist.
He is an elitist.
But then came the actual policies of President Obama.
They seem to fill in the outlines suggested by these earlier glimpses.
Other presidential Freudian slips even left us since Obama's hostile to accumulating wealth.
It's not a Freudian slip.
It is the truth.
It is a reality.
He is hostile to the accumulation Of wealth.
And he's doing everything he can to take wealth from people who've earned it and give it to those who haven't, redistribute it.
These are not Freudian slips.
Here's the political writing of piece.
Oh, you guys are misunderstanding Obama.
He's really not what these Freudian slips indicate.
So it's just more covering.
And what this means is that inside the bowels of the Democrat Party, as I began to tell you last week, they really know they got a problem.
They don't want this guy running for a second term.
They don't want him even thinking about it.
Also, a memo to the uh politico, a Freudian slip is nothing more than an actual revelation of the truth, an unintentional revelation of the truth.
They're totally mischaracterizing these Freudian slips, Obama mistakenly telling people something.
Oh, he's revealing who he is by accident.
They know it, that's what they're worried about.
▲
Export Selection