Welcome to today's edition of the Rush 24-7 podcast.
So Obama says that race is a key ingredient of the Tea Party, but he didn't say this publicly.
He says it in a new book.
Eric Holder, the Attorney General, said that we are a nation filled with cowards unwilling to discuss race openly.
I guess he's talking about Obama.
Obama won't make the statements in public.
He has to put them in a book.
Details are coming up.
You might have heard about all the great news.
Unemployment benefits.
The requests are down.
Gallup, though, says that unemployment as they measure it without seasonal adjustment went up.
10.3% in February, up from 9.8% at the end of January.
Investors Business Daily, dirty little secret.
Layoffs at pre-recession level, true.
But job openings are down 30% as well.
Let's not forget, folks, that one of the reasons the unemployment rate is dropping is because the number of available jobs as defined by the government, by the regime, is also dropping.
They're just saying that there have been fewer jobs to compete for.
The overall number of jobs in the job market has plummeted.
That's one of the reasons they say the unemployment rate's going down.
And that translates to job openings being down 30%.
Much as we would all love to say that it appears to be we've bottomed out and are now starting to move upward on job creation.
If you dig deep and if you want to know the truth, it just doesn't seem to be the case.
How are you, folks?
Great to have you here.
El Rushbaugh, the Excellence in Broadcasting Network of the Limbaugh Institute for Advanced Conservative Studies, the telephone number here, if you want to be on the program 800-282-2882 and the email address, Elrushbaugheibnet.com.
Something I've been thinking about.
You know, we had the Muslim from Kosovo who attacked the bus full of U.S. troops in Germany.
And this guy saying he acted alone.
But did he?
How much anti-American rhetoric do you find in America?
A lot of it, right?
The American left is filled with it.
Our own president has run around the world apologizing for this country.
We have noted the similarity in things Mahmoud Ahmedine Zad has said to the Democrat Party campaign platform in 2008, 2010.
I've often raised questions of, you know, if I were the Democrats and I'm listening to Mahmoud Ahmedini Zad or several other American enemies talk about this country, I'd be a little embarrassed because it sounds very much the same.
These people say and what Democrats say, what the American left says.
So my question is, with all the rhetoric, all the anti-American rhetoric we get from the left, how come they're never blamed for any of these numerous attacks we've seen on our soldiers in Europe and elsewhere around the world?
I mean, they run around, they call our soldiers baby killers and worse.
I give you one example.
There are many, but I'll give you one, John Murtha, agreeing with the notion that Marines were rapists.
John Kerry, that they were terrorists.
You have prominent Democrats who, since the start of the Iraq War, have been characterizing the U.S. military this way.
And so here comes a lone wolf, a Muslim from Kosovo, supposedly acting alone.
Is he?
Well, snurdly, if they want to sit here and say that, well, I'm watching a football game on Saturday afternoon and somehow I'm responsible for what happens in a shooting incident in Arizona when I haven't said a damn syllable about it, why is it not okay for me to ask a simple question with all of this anti-American rhetoric?
And how about this Westboro church crowd?
I mean, they're out there with the same anti-American rhetoric, anti-soldier rhetoric.
How come it can't be said that what they're doing is somewhat responsible for attacks on American soldiers around the world?
I know this.
It isn't any of us who are being critical of our country, being critical of the American military effort.
We're not sowing the seeds for defeat.
The left in this country is.
They call our soldiers baby killers and worse, but we're not supposed to make any connection.
Somebody starts shooting at our soldiers.
No, no, no.
Isolated lone wolves.
Acting alone.
Not even really terrorism.
We mustn't jump to any conclusions here, right?
We hear this, we hear it frequently.
All right, here's this.
Now, this is interesting.
Obama says race, a key component in Tea Party protests.
Didn't we used to hear that the only reason the right wing opposed Hillary was because she's a woman?
And of course, the only reason we oppose Obama is because he's black.
And the only reason we opposed John Kerry is because he's and the only reason we oppose Bill Clinton is because he's the only reason we oppose Harry Reid is he's and the only reason that we oppose Joe Biden is that he's what?
They're all idiots, folks.
They're all liberals.
We oppose liberalism.
We don't care about the packaging.
Remember this from Eric Holder, our brave Attorney General.
His people.
The new Black Panther Party.
His people.
They want to prosecute him.
It wouldn't be right.
It makes him feel queasy going after, quote unquote, my people, he said.
Though this nation has proudly thought of itself as an ethnic melting pot and things racial, we've always been, and we, I believe, continue to be in too many ways, a nation of cowards, Holder said in remarks to his staff in honor of Black History Month.
This is a couple of Black history months ago.
Now, if Obama says something in private about race relations that he won't say in public, then according to one Eric Holder, Obama is a coward, a despicable coward.
This is from the president of the United States.
From a man elected by the people.
Oh, and by the way, speaking of race being a factor of Tea Party, what was the black vote percentage for Obama?
110%.
No, I'm wrong.
It was 120%, maybe 130% of the black vote went for Obama.
That was only 90%.
Well, who's counting?
Okay, so 992% of black vote went for Obama.
And we're being told here that the Tea Party is obsessed with race.
That the Tea Party has as one of its key components raceism.
And by the way, that holds true for all of his conservative opposition as well.
You could fill a book.
It's still an interesting proposition with what Obama doesn't know or what he's naive about or in fact, he's done that.
He's filled two books with what he doesn't know, his autobiography.
Excuse me, 96%.
96% of black vote.
Right.
And as a Tea Party, it's racist.
And Obama's opposition is racist.
Okay, cool.
So this is from a man, too.
Obama claiming here that the Tea Party and conservative opposition is rooted in raceism, key component.
It's a guy who sat in Jeremiah Wright's church for more than 20 years and said he didn't hear anything.
Barack Obama, an elitist snob with troubling opinions of his fellow Americans, but he doesn't say them publicly.
Says them in this book.
I think he's got some explaining to do.
I mean, this is a this is the kind of stuff presidents don't say.
They're presidents of all of the people.
This is shocking.
This may be too ugly to explore.
This president obviously has a chip on his shoulder, several chips.
And one has to do with race.
Now, this book is by, let's see, Kenneth T. Walsh, Family of Freedom, Presidents and African Americans in the White House.
It's a book devoted, what does Obama think about being in there knowing full well that slaves built it?
He gets asked about that.
What do you think about being in there when most of the servants are black?
And here's an excerpt from it.
But Obama, in his most candid moments, acknowledged that race was still a problem.
In May of 2010, he told guests at a private White House dinner that race was probably a key component in the rising opposition to his presidency from conservatives, especially right-wing activists in the Tea Party movement that was then surging across the fruited plain.
Many middle-class and working-class whites felt aggrieved and resentful.
The federal government was helping other groups, including bankers, automakers, irresponsible people who had defaulted on their mortgages and the poor, but wasn't helping them.
That may be true, but none of it was race-based.
Guests suggested that when Tea Party activists said they wanted to take back their country, their real motivation was to stir up anger and anxiety at having a black president.
And Obama didn't dispute the idea.
He agreed that there was a subterranean agenda in the anti-Obama movement.
A racially biased one that was unfortunate, but he sadly conceded there was little he could do about it.
I think the most, it is totally classless.
It is totally classless.
The guy just got elected president of this country.
He is historic in this.
He's the first black president.
But my point is, Eric Holder says that we don't have the guts to have a public discussion about this.
We're cowards.
Well, leading the coward parades Obama.
He doesn't have guts to say this stuff in public, but he says it to this Kenneth T. Walsh guy from U.S. News writing this book.
But let me ask a question.
How many people really think of Obama as black?
I mean, apart from Chris Matthews, who's obsessed with that?
One of Obama's parents was black, undeniable.
But he was raised by a white mother, by white grandparents.
He went to a highly exclusive private school in Hawaii with rich white students and white teachers.
He went to exclusive colleges that were practically lily white.
I mean, Barry Obama is from a very white, albeit radical left, cultural blackground.
He's not from the hood.
He's not from the movement.
Although I'm beginning, you know, maybe he's right.
Maybe he's right.
Maybe everything is race for him.
The race for the presidency.
He can play upon his race, skin color to get re-elected.
Surely he will.
Surely he is now.
So it's all about making himself a victim.
Telling you, there's a chip on this guy's shoulder, and it, folks, it is a factor in every policy decision he makes.
Every agenda item that he has.
And by the way, what Tea Party or conservative types are mad because they aren't getting enough help from the government.
Is that what they're mad about?
They look at the help the mortgage crowd's getting.
I don't see themselves getting it.
They look at all the...
No, that's not what animates the Tea Party people.
What animates them is the size of government, the never-ending spending, the creating of never-ending dependency, and the ultimate destruction of the greatness of the country.
When's Obama going to have the courage to start calling a bitter clinger, a bitter clinger in public, and not just behind closed doors, like he did in San Francisco at the fundraiser, like in this book?
Remember now, it was his own attorney general.
Don't want to prosecute the new Black Panthers.
They don't want to prosecute his people, quote unquote.
Who says that we're cowards because we won't discuss race?
Hell, even when I don't discuss race, I'm accused of it.
I got to take a brief time out here, my friends.
L. Rushball, the EIB network sit-tight.
We're coming right back right after this.
Now, and the future, into the future, Rush Limbaugh and the EIB network, folks, the Reverend Jacks and Ralph Nader got together at Ewing, New Jersey, the College of New Jersey.
They held a joint lecture on the state of the economy during the Q ⁇ A.
An unidentified pupil, a pupil reporter, student reporter, said, my question is far more abstract, like, you know, and I know you've been talking about it pretty much like the entire time, but like, do you think there's like a need for a revolution in America?
And if so, for what cause?
A non-violent revolution is long overdue.
Why don't the American people learn from their history?
Why don't they learn from what's going on?
Some countries over in the Middle East, we need a revolution.
Would be a counter, a revolution to stop the counter-revolution.
A revolution, often that was violent, but we saw in Montgomery, Birmingham, Cairo, South Africa, non-violent revolutions.
Do you destroy institutions, not destroying people?
So you have the Reverend Dax and Ralph Nader calling for revolution.
If you're having trouble hearing that, the Reverend Jackson said, we need a revolution.
We need a counter-revolution to stop a counter-revolution.
We need a counter-revolution to stop a counter-revolution.
A revolution that ultimately was unintelligible but was started.
Montgomery, Birmingham, Cairo, South Africa, they were nonviolent revolutions.
You can destroy an institution without destroying people.
The student reporter, I'm sure, was wildly satisfied with that cogent answer from both guests.
And after the lecture, the student reported and said, Well, what is your opinion on America's slow acceptance of the reality of global warming?
Now, the student here at the College of New Jersey is asking Ralph Nader and the Reverend Doc to explain America's slow acceptance of the reality of global warming.
They hear every day, Rush Limbaugh, you know, this huge ignorance movement going on.
And this is the counteraction to limbo, right?
But they'll learn as things start melting.
Yeah, the beaches and all that.
They'll learn.
Okay, so it's me.
I hear every day, Rush Limbaugh, a huge ignorance movement going on.
Who's the counteraction to Limbaugh, right?
But they'll learn as things start melting.
The beaches.
The beaches are going to melt.
Beaches.
He calls me ignorant.
I'm the leader of a huge ignorance movement.
Yeah, when my house starts melting, or when my house starts sinking because the beach is melting, then I'll know.
I don't know what the beach melts in.
Let's not forget.
We've got to cut Nader some slack.
He called Obama a con man just a few weeks ago.
Let's face it, Ralph.
Ralph has been peddling some form of Marxism in different vehicles, including the Corvair here for the last half century.
And he's still, where is he?
He still can't get off of small college campaign.
This is not even on CI.
If it weren't for us with our kindness and compassion here, why nobody would have ever heard this?
Well, I know the dope, dopey college kids, yeah, yeah.
Like, maybe just being polite.
No, remember, she first wanted to know, when do we start on this revolution thing?
When do we get that going?
And, of course, the revolution, the Reverend Jackson started talking about revolutions and counter-revolutions in Cairo and Selm.
And where is it?
Montgomery, in Birmingham, in South Africa.
Government emails in Wisconsin.
Government emails reveal a plot to stall the governor's budget repair bill.
A Madison, Wisconsin mayor tried to get the governor's bill stalled while he signed new contracts.
This is from Fox Eyeball News 6 in Madison.
Before protesters stormed the Capitol, the mayor of Madison tried to pull a fast one.
The governor's budget repair bill was on the fast track.
Madison Mayer was racing against the clock to pass new union contracts first.
Emails obtained by Eyeball Fox 6 investigators show the mayor enlisted the help of state senator Mark Miller.
They both tried to convince the Secretary of State to hold up the bill by taking the maximum 10 days allowed by law before publishing the bill.
Collusion.
Democrat Party collusion.
Clear and pure again.
Lots of things we keep learning here.
You may have heard of a guy by the name of Sam Zell.
Those of you who are in the investment markets and follow real estate, no doubt, have heard of Sam Zell.
By the way, the Reverend Dax and Ralph Nader, there is a revolution already underway.
It's called a Tea Party.
You guys have missed the boat when their ship came in.
They were at the airport.
The Tea Party is well underway.
Sam Zell is the current owner of Tribune Media, Los Angeles Times, Chicago Tribune.
I don't know what the status is, but he's the guy who bought them.
Sam Zell used to head up one of his many holdings was J Corps Communications, which for a brief time was the syndication partner of this program, the EIB Network.
Mr. Zell's 80 years old.
I think he is close to it, lives in Chicago.
He's in his 70s, I believe, lives in Chicago, and appeared on CNBC's Squawk Box today.
His umbrella company is Equity Investments, and he's the chairman.
And they had on this program, the guest panelist is New York Times business correspondent Aaron Ross Sorkin.
And he's there appearing with the two hosts and hostette on this program.
And Aaron Ross Sorkin, guest panelist of the New York Times, asked Zell, if you could do one or two things right now to create some of that stability in the marketplace you're talking about, what would you do first?
Repeal Obamacare first.
I'd repeal Dodd-Frank second.
I'd tell the American people that we're in tough times and we got to hunker down and we got to go forward.
And we go forward slowly, predictably, with lots and lots of conversation.
Think about how much conversation and how much in hearings occurred as a result of these two bills that are just monstrosities.
His point is there was no conversation.
There were no hearings.
The normal route and path taken in order to pass legislation this country did not have.
They might have had some hearings on the financial regulatory reform bill, but not much.
But there was none on health care.
I mean, they literally, that was, there were no hearings.
There was no meaningful conversation.
That was simply a jam-it-through kind of job.
And that's the thing he's talking.
So those two bills are monstrosities.
Now, this next, this is fascinating because Aaron Ross Sorkin says those are more important.
They look at Zell.
They see this Republican conservative industrialist, although I don't think he is, but that's how they see him.
And of course, Aaron Ross Sorkin, New York Times working with a template, here comes this big investor, real estate holder, all this.
And they think the first thing out of his mouth would be tax cuts.
So Aaron Ross Sorkin, what a minute.
You think repealing Obamacare and the financial regulatory reform bill more important than taxes?
Absolutely.
It's the uncertainty of, I'm an employer, I employ thousands of people.
What are my costs going to be tomorrow?
I certainly don't believe the BS, that deficit reduction.
I went to Congress lobbying last year for the real estate industry three weeks before the passage of the health care bill.
I asked the simple question to the first guy I met, and I said, what about the 11th year?
You guys have constructed this health care bill with six years of costs and 10 years of revenue.
What about the 11th year?
And the guy looked at me and said, I'm 80.
I rest my case.
You know, you want to get scared.
Let me explain this to you.
Zell's looking at the 10-year health care bill.
He sees what we've explained here.
They got 10 years of revenue, six years of benefits to make it come in under a trillion dollars.
And Zell says, Okay, what happens in year 11?
And this congressman who was intimately involved in Creed, I don't care.
I'm 80.
It doesn't matter to me.
Those are not his words, but that's how Zell interpreted it.
I don't know, I'm 80 years old.
So his point being that this particular guy who was very close and very actively involved in this was not looking long-term, had no concern for the impact on the country.
It was just the latest piece of Democrat legislation to come down the pike.
It had to get passed.
And it's like state pensions: I don't care.
I'm not going to be around.
I'm not going to be around a deal with whatever happens here.
So then one of the co-hosts, Carl Quentinia, says, Well, how much capital would be unlocked if it were repealed or if the court decided to knock it down, meaning healthcare?
The future of the economy is all incremental.
You can't say, wow, there's going to be 40 billion released or not released.
It's incremental.
It's every day businessmen are making decisions.
Do I hire somebody else?
Do I hire this?
Do I open a new branch?
Do I enter a new country?
All of those things require a level of confidence in the future.
And more important, of equal importance, is predictability.
Predictability, because we're being asked to bet on tomorrow.
The government's responsibility is to make the knowledge necessary to reduce the risk to us and everybody else of having to make those decisions.
They don't care about those decisions.
Obama looks at the private sector as simply golden goose.
They go do what you do, and we're going to take as much from you as we can every year.
The incidentals of that are not of interest to us.
So here you've got a guy talking about what he has to do to run his business and plan for it in the future.
What role, unfortunately, government plays in this, and they're gumming up the works.
The legislation, the two big pieces, are monstrosities.
They're not solving at any level the whole question of the ability to plan in the future.
Nobody knows what the future holds.
Like this guy, 80 years old, healthcare, what's about the 11th year?
I don't care.
I'm 80.
So he's saying, you know, we can't make long-term plans here.
We don't know what you guys are doing.
We don't know what you're going to.
You don't know what you're doing.
Zell's essentially telling him they don't know how business operates.
They don't even seem concerned about how it operates.
Joe Kernan, the other co-host, says, so you think that healthcare and Dodd-Frank, that's financial regulatory reform bill, you think it's more important to repeal those than it is to get this repatriated earnings from the tax structure that we have for corporations?
These two pieces of legislation were extraordinarily poorly drafted.
We're rammed through a one-party Congress.
It's causing havoc all over the place.
I run a personal family business, wealth, a family office.
We're literally dealing with the question right now of registering with the SEC for my family office.
Why?
What's the SEC worried that I'm going to go broke and they're going to, and I'm too big to fail?
It doesn't make any sense, but it's a result of passing 2,500-page bills that nobody's read.
Amen.
So it's a mess.
There's nothing improving.
There are no adults running this show.
There aren't people who even care about it.
All this talk about the economy reviving and coming back, the unemployment numbers doing their little dance or whatever they're doing, what we're hearing from people who make economic stability, who take the risk, make the investments to create this floor of stability, are telling us, whenever we'll listen, that they see nothing worth investing in because they don't know what the future holds.
In fact, we're dealing with two pieces of legislation that people don't even really understand the content of.
One of them, health care, in order for things to proceed right now, everybody has to be exempted from it.
Waiver after waiver after waiver.
Otherwise, businesses would go broke, bankrupt, fee me, out of there.
So you can understand somebody in Zell's position or anybody else's.
Small business, large business, doesn't matter.
Here you've got a piece of legislation, healthcare, and in order to survive, you've got to seek a waiver from it.
And as it's implemented, surprise after surprise after surprise.
Brief time out here, my friend.
Sit tight.
El Rushball back.
We'll grab your phone calls, other things as well when we return.
I am still looking for details on this, ladies and gentlemen.
Reuters has posted a story that Judge Vinson, Judge Roger Vinson, has declined to order the regime to halt implementation of the healthcare law.
This is the judge who found it unconstitutional and said that there was an implied injunction in his ruling.
But he has declined to order the regime to halt the implementation of healthcare law.
That's all I know.
I'm waiting for details.
I want to study this.
There really isn't an article on this yet from Reuters, just his warning bell.
This is a flash bulletin.
So we get it.
We'll share the details with you.
In the meantime, we go to Chicago.
This is Matt.
Great to have you on the EIB network, sir.
Hello.
Mega Rush Dittos.
Thank you, sir.
Hey, so I got a question.
So the NFL may be going into a lockout here.
Yeah.
Now, I'm an NHL fan, actually.
I'm more partial to hockey.
So I've already lived through a lockout.
Now, can you describe to me the parallels between the NFL's potential lockout and the Wisconsin mess?
The parallels between the NFL's potential lockout and the Wisconsin mess.
Now, clearly, if you have this question, you must see some parallels.
I had not made the association yet.
Well, because I'm not sure there's going to be a lockout.
I know, and have spoken to a lot of people.
I have some owners and so forth, and they are uniform in their story, and they have been to me for a year and a half.
They're going to be a lockout.
There ain't going to be a lot of good.
And it isn't about, everybody misunderstands, I think, what this is about, including the sports media covering this.
Let me say some things, and you tell me if I'm getting close to your parallel.
The sports media is reporting here that you've got a $9 billion pie.
The NFL gets the first billion off the top, and the owners now want the second billion.
Right now, the owners get a billion.
The players and owners spit it, split it basically 60-40.
And the sports media is running around saying the owners are, they've got enough money.
They think they don't have enough.
They want more money.
And I keep saying it's not really so much about the money.
It's the 60-40 split they can't live with.
They can't live with long-term this thing they got saddled with in 2006 with Tagley Boo with the players getting 60% and the owners getting 40%.
There's a talk with the, well, Rush, we've got to understand here.
These NFL players are partners.
They're not partners.
They don't invest anything.
They are employees.
The league wouldn't exist without them.
I don't want anybody to misunderstand here, but a strict business definition is they're not in a partnership here.
They don't make any investment unless you want to say allowing the NFL to take a billion off the top of the pie is their contribution.
But there's no personal investment from these guys into the infrastructure that makes the game possible.
Right.
Okay.
Now, I think the owners, all this talk about a lockout, everybody in this game knows that they're sitting on top of the biggest golden goose ever.
Oh, yeah.
Most popular golden goose there's ever been.
And they've already, they're in the midst of some bad PR from the Super Bowl.
They made some moves there that look pure greed, selling seats that eventually weren't available because they weren't safe.
This lockout business, the one thing the owners know, it does them no good for players or for the public to side with the owners.
It does them no good.
It does them no good.
I remember being with the Kansas City Royals during a threatened strike, and I remember sitting around listening to some of the management people, and they were loving the fact that the public was blaming greedy players.
And I said, gang, this is not helping us.
That's who we sell.
That's who we don't want them hating the players.
It'd be better if they hated us.
Because they're still going to come out and see our product, but we don't want them hating the players.
And the NFL does not want the public hating the players if there's a contest there, but the owners don't want to be hated either.
Well, but the owners, they're the ones that, quote-unquote, have skin in the game since they're the investor.
Yeah, they do.
In a strict definitional sense, yes.
Yeah, I mean, not to say that they're the ones out there getting beat up in the game.
That's the players, but the players don't invest anything.
They're just getting paid to provide entertainment.
And to take huge physical risks.
But right.
And not to diminish that because, I mean, they do things I wish I could do on the field.
But at the same time, the owners are the ones that are going to be in the poorhouse if things go belly up.
The player can just go find another team.
Oh, well, now, wait a minute.
That's interesting.
You say if an owner goes belly up.
Right, they're going to go in the poorhouse.
I mean, but if that happens, they'll sell the team.
There's going to be a new owner.
That's not going to affect the player.
No.
I mean, a team is not going to cease to exist because an owner hits the poorhouse.
No, but if the team went belly up and they had to sell it, then they have to sell it.
The player, they can just go to another team.
Well, theoretically, that's not all that easy moving around with a free agency and a limited number of slots available.
But what is your parallel here?
What do you see as a parallel to Wisconsin in this?
So in Wisconsin, you have teachers who are getting paid basically benefits that in the private sector they could never ever even get.
I mean, no company would ever give them free health care.
I don't even know what's really true out there, but the teachers are essentially similar to the players, in my opinion.
And the people in Wisconsin are essentially like the owners in the NFL.
Okay, the owners are paying the teachers, i.e., the owners are paying the players.
Right, right.
And in the NFL, the owners are not paying their players lifetime salaries, lifetime health care, lifetime pensions.
Although they do contribute, they are trying to build up that retired player's pension fund.
And there are arguments over the contributions to it.
Right.
But so in the NFL parallel, the viewers, the fans are like the students in the classes that aren't getting taught.
We wouldn't get to see the NFL.
The students wouldn't be able to have a class and be able to get an education.
Yeah, let me ask you a question.
What would you rather lose, school or the NFL?
Frankly, I'd be more depressed if.
It depends on the classroom, I guess.
I mean, if it was my poli-sci class, yeah, I'd rather be.
Okay, well, I see how you're, I see the way you're, there you can.
You can come up with some parallels, I guess.
We are the owners in Wisconsin.
Maybe we ought to be the ones to do the lockout.
We are relying on our negotiators, i.e., the governor and the members of Congress, their legislature, to do our bidding lockout.
Fascinating.
I'm just today's D-Day, midnight tonight's D-Day for lockout.
I'm just, I'm not sure there's going to be one simply because everybody else is so convinced there's going to be one.
Back after this.
There's another poll.
This is from David Ferdoso, by the way, Washington Examiner, another poll in Wisconsin that suggests the liberals have struck fool's gold there, polling data that they think looks good for them, but really isn't.