All Episodes
Previous Next
May 23, 2011 - Rush Limbaugh Program
38:03
May 23, 2011, Monday, Hour #2
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
All right.
This place that Obama's from in Ireland.
Did you know he's from Ireland?
He's from Ireland today.
It's called Money Gall.
M-O-N-E-Y-G-A-L-L.
Money Gull.
His great great great grandfather was from there.
Town of 289 people.
He actually said that he comes from a long line of Obamas in Ireland.
His grandfather's name was Kearney.
Or Kearney.
From the long line of Irish Obamas.
Yeah.
And by the way, in this speech, he has yet to give a shout out to the people of Joplin, Missouri.
Or what?
What is it, Mr. Sturdley?
Is he going to trace whose ancestry?
Well, either the Hussein part of the ancestry.
Didn't he do that when he went to Cairo?
The Obamas.
I did not know that the Obamas were from Ireland.
I learned something new today that I that I didn't know.
That the Obamas trace themselves back to Money Gall, town of 289 people.
Falmouth Kearney was his great-great-grandfather's name.
But no shout out.
No, he was not a community organizer.
He was a shoemaker.
Falmouth Carney was a shoemaker.
His youngest daughter, Mary Ann, moved from Indiana to Kansas after her father's death in 1878.
Mary Ann Carney is the paternal grandmother of Stanley Dunham, President Obama's maternal grandfather.
And this is how you get the long line of Obamas from Ireland.
But not one shout out to the people of Joplin, Missouri, or any of the people whose lives have been destroyed over the uh over the last few days.
Anyway, greetings, welcome back, Rushlin.
Boy, having more fun and a human being should be allowed to have.
We're here at 800-282-2882.
Email address L Rushbow at EIBNet.com.
Tim Pallenti in one hour.
He has announced officially now that he's running for the Republican presidential nomination.
The Democrat National Committee is already out with attack ads and press releases and uh and so forth.
But we will, for the moment here, we'll stick with Obama.
Jennifer Rubin, a blogger at the Washington Post, has a little bullet point review of Obama's appearance at APAC yesterday.
She calls them the problems in the speech.
One, Obama made it clear the United States is willing to give away Israel's bargaining positions for nothing in return.
Number two, that Obama never ever mentioned the right of return.
And folks, I you know, I mentioned this all last week, and it really is fundamental.
The right of return, if not mentioned or discussed, makes all of this academic.
It makes it meaningless.
The right of return is the single most, if you can say that there's a single most divisive point, it is that.
The right of return basically is the Palestinian demand that grandchildren and children of displaced Palestinians all the way back in 1948 be allowed to return to what is now Israel, to their homes.
We're talking four and a half, five million people.
If that happened, it'd be the end of Israel, which is what the objective is throughout the Arab world.
They want basically Israel to commit suicide.
Obama wants Israel to commit suicide.
And I can't believe people are getting all bit out of shape because of Benjamin Netanyahu's refusal to commit suicide in public at a joint appearance with Obama on Friday.
What?
Just because the President of the United States uh uh patriotism requires us to be loyal.
Our president wants Israel to commit suicide, and we're supposed to sit here and be offended when the Prime Minister of Israel refuses to commit suicide and does so in public.
Number three, Obama did not reiterate specifically well about the right of return.
The Israelis will never go for it, and the Palestinians will never go without it.
So there's no there is no quote unquote peace.
There will be no resolution.
And Obama not mentioning it is irresponsible.
And what all what Netanyahu was talking about Friday was essentially telling the world in his joint appearance with Obama that.
That without talking about the right, if somebody doesn't tell a Palestinian that there's no right to return, then they're being treated irresponsibly.
And Netanyahu said, let me just tell you it's not going to happen.
It's not going to happen in plain spoken language.
And that's no doubt when the shrieks began on Friday afternoon.
If they hadn't begun already, that's when they topped out.
Because that was considered to be the number one act of insolence and disrespect.
Because Netanyahu was essentially saying to Obama, your plan isn't going to happen.
And you aren't being responsible because you're not telling the Palestinians that there isn't going to be a right of return.
And until somebody tells them, they keep hanging that or dangling that as a carrot in front of them.
But he doesn't mention it.
He didn't mention it yesterday to APEC.
He did not reiterate specifically the necessity of a military presence in the Jordan Valley.
He did not or can't, he said Israel can't be expected to negotiate with those who want to destroy it, but negotiations need to resume.
That's what he said.
Fantasy.
He sits there and he says all these things.
Well, of course, our good friends, the Israelis can't be expected to negotiate with those who want to destroy them, but negotiations need to resume.
Over what?
Right of return is the big deal.
And number five, if anything Obama underscored the United States has differences with Israel, but it's between friends.
But we never hear of the differences we have with the Palestinians, do we?
Let's go back to June the 4th, 2008, when Obama spoke to the American-Israel Public Affairs Committee.
APEC.
He was singing an entirely different tune when he was running for president.
And back then the Jewish Democrats bought it.
Just another Obama campaign promise with an expiration date.
Listen.
Any agreement with the Palestinian people must preserve Israel's identity as a Jewish state with secure, recognized, defensible borders.
And Jerusalem will remain the capital of Israel, and it must remain undivided.
All that's off the table now.
All that's off the table.
All of that's off the table, and the very same group, just three years ago, he totally changes his tune.
And yet they still support him because liberals are liberals first.
Netanyahu said the 67 lines are not defensible.
That's why there was hostility.
We can't go back to them.
Back in 2008, Obama promised Israel's identity Jewish state must preserve.
Secure, recognized, defensible borders.
All of that pure campaign pep.
No, I know.
He didn't mention the right of return once in his APAC speech.
He didn't mention it once last week.
And that's why what he's talking about is irresponsible.
Now, let's move to Obama's APAC remarks.
Yesterday.
Now, Jennifer Rubin, the blogger at the Washington Post, says that what you're going to hear next was the lowlight of his speech.
It was the reiteration of his Thursday remarks on the 1967 lines.
But mixed in were blame the media and woe is me sentiments that were shameful displays by a U.S. president.
Let me repeat what I actually said on Thursday.
Not what I was reported to have said.
I said that the United States believes that negotiations should result in two states with permanent Palestinian borders with Israel, Jordan, and Egypt, and permanent Israeli borders with Palestine.
The borders of Israel and Palestine should be based on the 1967 lines with mutually agreed swaps, so that secure and recognized borders are established for both states.
The Palestinian people must have the right to govern themselves and reach their potential in a sovereign and contiguous state.
Now, Obama continued, as for security, every state has the right self-defense, and Israel must be able to defend itself by itself against any threat.
Provisions must also be robust enough to prevent a resurgence of terrorism, to stop the infiltration of weapons, and to provide effective border security.
But it's all fantasy.
Of course that should happen.
Everybody ought to have a house and a beach, too.
The full and phased withdrawal of Israeli military forces should be coordinated with the assumption of Palestinian security responsibility in a sovereign non-militarized state.
The duration of this transition period must be agreed, and the effectiveness of security arrangements must be demonstrated.
That's what I said.
This Obama still speaks.
That's what I said.
Now it was my reference to the 67 lines with mutually agreed swaps that received the lion's share of the attention.
And since my position has been misrepresented several times, let me reaffirm what 1967 lines with mutually agreed swaps means.
By definition, it means that the parties themselves, Israelis and Palestinians, will negotiate a border that is different than the one that existed on June 4th, 1967.
Oh, that's what he meant.
He didn't say that, that's what he meant.
See, we're too stupid to be able to be unable to read his mind.
It's a well-known formula to all who have worked on this issue for a generation.
It allows the parties themselves to account for the changes that have taken place over the last 44 years, including the new demographic realities on the ground and the needs of both states.
If there's a controversy, then it's not based in substance.
What I did on Thursday was to say publicly what's long been acknowledged privately.
I've done so because we can't afford to wait another decade or another two decades or another three decades to achieve peace.
The world is moving too fast.
The extraordinary challenges facing Israel would only grow.
Delay will undermine Israel's security and the peace that the Israeli people deserve.
Why?
Who threatens Israel?
What's Israel doing to cause peace not to come to it?
And Jennifer Rubin says that this point, that's when the booze came.
It is not well known what the deal will be because the right of return, the demand to flood Israel with the children and grandchildren of Arabs who fled during the war of aggression and the security arrangements are the core of the matter.
And he did not mention it.
Moreover, Obama misquoted himself by insisting he said the parties will negotiate a border that is different than the one that existed on June 4th, 1967.
No, he said it was U.S. policy that the deal would stem from the 67 lines, and everybody heard it.
So that's where we are.
One more Obama soundbite in which he really heard now this from APAC yesterday, telling the entire world that they're just too stupid to understand what he really meant.
And it was my reference to the 1967 lines with mutually agreed swaps that received the Lion's share of the attention, including just now.
And since my position has been misrepresented several times, let me reaffirm what 1967 lines with mutually agreed swaps means.
By definition, it means that the parties themselves, Israelis and Palestinians, will negotiate a border that is different than the one that existed on June 4th, 1967.
That's what mutually agreed upon swaps means.
It is a well-known formula to all who have worked on this issue for a generation.
Yeah, well, without the right of return being thrown in here, Mr. President, all of its meaningless.
But that's not what he said back on Thursday.
He said, Go back to the 67 lines.
And when he spoke, when Obama spoke at APAC in 2008, he said he was misunderstood then too.
He said nobody understood what he meant when he talked about a divided Jerusalem.
So we're always misunderstanding him.
We hear what he says, but then when we react to what he says, oh no, no, no, I didn't mean that.
You, you, you didn't understand.
You misunderstand what he's saying, which is his uh common note.
Living in fantasy.
So where are we?
Bottom line.
Well, Obama chose Palestinians over Israelis.
Obama is essentially demanding that Israel commit suicide.
Netanyahu says I'm not going to commit suicide.
People say Netanyahu was rude when he refuses to commit suicide.
Obama chose Palestinians over Israelis.
He did it after learning that Hamas became a part of the Palestinian ruling class, the terrorist group.
Obama chose the Muslim Brotherhood over freedom when he invited them to his Cairo speech and when he endorsed the misnamed Arab Spring without reservations or conditions.
And we know now what's happening in Egypt.
Obama chose lawlessness and open borders over protecting innocent citizens when he sued Arizona.
My friends, there's a pattern here.
Obama chose voter intimidation over civil rights when he chose not to prosecute the new Black Panthers in Philadelphia.
Obama chose the public sector over the private sector with his stimulus slush fund.
Obama chose socialism over the private sector when he took over two U.S. car companies.
Obama chose a path to socialized medicine over free market solutions to health care when he signed Obamacare into law.
Obama chose true cowboys over Congress when fighting a war on Qaddafi in Libya.
Ignoring the War Powers Act by saying, Well, we're not really all in.
Obama chose czars over cabinet members.
He chose class warfare over prosperity when he demagogued taxing the rich over cutting out of control spending.
He chose politics over solutions when he failed to produce a budget or demand one from Congress.
It's clear who Obama is.
He's the sum of his choices.
We all are.
It's just that his choices ain't us.
Mort Zuckerman, who is the publisher of the New York Daily News, U.S. News and World Report, a real estate magnate in New York City was on the syndicated McGlacklin group over the weekend.
The host John McLaughlin said to Morton Vuckerman, U.S. News and World Report Editor Mort Vuckerman have this exchange between Obama Middle East speech, McLaughlin says, you know what that's called.
It's called betrayal.
You know what that's called?
That's called betrayal.
Yes, Israelis do not feel that they have the Americans at their back for the first time since the founding of the state of Israel.
This is what you just want to drive.
Mort Vuckerman laying it out.
It's exactly what they feel.
Betrayal.
The Israelis don't feel they have the Americans at their back for the first time since the founding of the State of Israel.
This is from their point of view to the phones.
And Bourbon Alley, Illinois, Ron, am I pronouncing that right, Bourbonali?
Ron, are you there?
Yes, I am.
Do you hear me now?
Yeah, I hear you now.
How do you pronounce where you're from?
That's Bourbon A. Bourbonet.
All right.
We used to call it Burbonus, but uh we changed to the French way.
Well, I thought that's where the Bears uh uh complex is.
I thought it was Bourbon A. Absolutely right.
We haven't helped the Bears a bit, but yeah, we're trying.
Well, everybody has to be somewhere.
Hey, Ross, I'm uh up front, a seminar caller, and I'm calling on behalf of the black B. The herminator, Herman Cain.
When are you going to have him on?
Um, what do I well I don't know how to answer this?
If I answer if I answer this question, I don't I can't win here.
Because I opened the floodgates, and I don't uh you obviously okay.
So you've heard you've heard uh you're heard Trump on and we've got Plenty coming in a little over a half hour.
And you obviously want Herman Cain on the program.
And Newton was on.
Here's the thing.
Here's the thing.
I can't look at I You know the policy of this program is no guests.
We waive the policy on occasion.
I mean, when Bush and Cheney were in the White House, and if they called and wanted to appear, we welcome them.
Every one of these people that you've heard on the program, Ron, called and asked to appear.
We do not.
I do not invite people to appear on the program.
You're sitting out there upset.
I may be playing favors, and I am disrespecting Herman Cain because I haven't invited him to appear here, but I haven't invited anybody.
And one of the reasons, you know, is uh he will be on this program now.
I mean, there's there's there's no question about it.
Once you start with candidates, you have to let them all on at some point, just in the interests of uh fairness and what have you.
So I don't know when, but I'm sure Herman Cain will show up on this program.
I like Herman Cain, as you know.
I've said so many times.
Absolutely.
Yeah, yeah, I really like him, and I I like how straightforward he is.
Uh you know, there's no beating around to Bush about him.
Herman, I think you I think he would take Obama apart in a debate.
You know that the truth is this, and I don't mean this to be a put down a Herman Cain.
I agree with you.
Anybody could take Obama down in a debate if they would.
It's not a question of could they?
It's a question of do they have the fortitude and the guts to try it.
Get rid of the fear.
Get rid of the fear.
Speaking of Herman Cain, he appeared on Fox News Sunday with Chris Wallace.
And Chris Wallace said, question what would President Cain offer the Palestinians to make peace?
Nothing.
Because I'm not convinced that the Palestinians are really interested in peace.
If the Palestinians come to the table with Israel with a genuine offer that the two of them can sit down and negotiate, the United States would, in fact, try to facilitate that discussion.
But if we look at history, it has been clear that the Palestinians have always wanted to push the Israelis and push Israel for more and more and more.
I don't agree with that.
And I respect Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu for taking a stand and saying they cannot give that up.
Secondly, it's Israel's decision, not President Obama's decision as to what those borderlands ought to be.
Amen right on Duba Doobah.
No question about it.
You've seen all the jokes, haven't you, startly?
That we ought to go back to our 1858 borders, or that we ought to go back to the 1967 budget.
Uh all these uh jokes are circulating around to try to mock Obama's demand to going back to the 1967 borders.
And I you know, Herman came to who is Obama President of the United States, Rush, that's what you've got to really.
Yeah, but who is he to determine?
Well, we give him five million dollars.
Well, yeah, but okay, fine.
Well, how come all the demands are here on Israel?
How come whenever these negotiations start, it's always Israel has to give up land?
It's always Israel that has to give up and compromise on all this.
Why is it always on them?
It's unmistakable.
What's your question?
You have a quite uh okay.
I Mr. Snerdley has a question for me, uh, the host.
He he says it's a bad question.
He wants to know.
How can anybody expect to be elected president of the United States when they haven't been elected to anything before?
No elective office.
Where in the world?
Who does he think he is, right?
Is that what you yeah.
I know Snurdley claimed he claims to love Herman Kane, but you don't understand why he thinks that he's even viable here because he's not.
Okay.
So that means to you if he's not served in elective office, he doesn't have what?
What does that mean to you?
No experience governing.
No experience governing.
None whatsoever.
No experience governing.
Right?
It is a business.
There's no question about it.
I did teach that it's a business, just like any other business, and there are requirements.
And you climb the ladder, and so snerdly is saying, how can he expect to leapfrog to the top of the ladder with no experience in this?
Okay, dare I, in answering this question, invoke the name Obama.
Okay, now you I know what you'd say.
So Obama was elected to the Illinois Senate for a number of years and voted present.
And when he didn't vote present, he was voting to make sure aborted babies stayed aborted.
When he was elected to the U.S. Senate, he worked a total of a hundred and fifty-seven days, and I don't think sponsored any legislation.
And yet there were no questions about his qualifications.
There were no inquiries.
There wasn't any um concern about his lack of experience in governing.
Some people might also say, in response to your question, that they're sick and tired of the professional political class, and they wouldn't mind having somebody from totally outside it, who nevertheless has CEO experience.
Top rate CEO experience.
And they can go as far as their campaign takes them.
Would you sit here?
Would you tell Herman Cain, you know what I mean?
Who do you think you are?
Damn, I get you don't think he's serious about this?
You would ask him if he's serious, he's dead serious about this.
I can tell Herman Cain serious about it.
So what he thinks issue-wise is not enough for you to uh get past the fact he's never governed before.
He's never served, he's never been elected to anything.
That's right.
All right.
Well, just keep in mind, Snerdley is the screener, not the host.
And that's his uh that's his point of view.
I'm not trying to tick you Herman Cain people off.
He's snurdley genuinely uh asked me this question.
There are others, Ulysses Grant never served in elected office.
Uh Herbert Hoover, Herbert Hoover never served in elective office.
Dwight Eisenhower, Dwight Eisenhower served in elective office.
Zachary Taylor, William Howard Taft, none of these guys ever served in elective office.
Of course, George Washington never had previous elected office to serve in, and he did okay.
In fact, he rejected the they wanted him to be king.
And uh, and he rejected it.
We we moved now.
We mentioned Farid Zakaria GPS earlier in the program.
We have some some some uh Nick Robertson-like sound bites, not from Nick Robertson, but it is Nick Robertson all over again.
Nick Robertson down there at Tariri Circle.
Or the square, which is a circle, asking Mustafa and Ahmed during the uprising in Egypt.
What is your message for President Obama?
He doesn't care about us.
My messenger Obama is where's he been?
Nick Robertson went down to Ahmed.
What is your message for President Obama?
Same thing.
In the end of those reports, Nick Robertson, well, as you can play me here, the sentiment here in the square in the center of Cairo.
Very happy for the involvement of President Obama.
So yesterday, on his own show, Farid Zakaria GPS, he spoke with Egyptian student activist Sarah Abdelrachman.
Sarah Abdel Rahman about President Barack Obama's Middle East speech on Thursday.
Farid Zakaria said, Sarah, what did you think of President Obama's speech?
The U.S. foreign policy, I believe, was is completely inconsistent when it comes to the region.
Also, they decided very last minute to support the people of Egypt during our revolution.
We get hit with tear gas, and uh then we pick it up after you know the tear gas is completely taken over over our bodies, and we see the mark made in USA.
Okay, so Farid Zakaria, all for one here, because you know he's hoping for adulation and uh idolatry and all kinds of love for Obama from Sarah Abdelrahman.
But all she could say was, well, hell, we uh tea tear gas is thrown at us, and we saw it was made in the USA when the canisters were empty.
So Farid Zakaria tries another.
He spoke with human rights activist and lawyer, Razia Amran about uh Obama's Middle East speech on Thursday.
He said, I thought President Obama was trying to do was to present the broad picture and say, look, in general, we support all these movements.
Of course, there are going to be differences.
Of course, there are going to be specific policies, but he was trying to say the United States is broadly in support of democratic reform everywhere.
Did that not ring true for you?
To tell you the truth, I was not impressed, and I didn't expect to be impressed.
Like I was not impressed when he came to Cairo and gave the speech.
If you analyzed what he said about Israel and what he said about the other countries, completely inconsistent.
Farid Zakaria, batting cleanup after Nick Robinson O for two, tries now for a third.
Student activist and law student, Noor Noor.
That's spelled N-O-O-R is the first name, N-O-U-R is the second name, but both pronounced the same.
Student activist law student Noor Noor.
Zakaria says, So Noor Noor, what did you think of Obama's speech?
I like Crozier, was not impressed.
I was not expecting to be impressed simply because Obama's very good with words.
If anything, the U.S. foreign office is very good with words and horrible with actions.
Fantasy.
Exactly what I said earlier.
Fantasy.
So Farid Zakaria, oh for three, outdoing even Nick Robertson.
Finally a fourth.
He goes to the cleanup guest.
Farid Zakaria talking to Walid Rashed about Obama's Middle East speech.
Zakaria says, you guys are being very hard on Obama.
What would you say, Waleed?
You know that I didn't speak.
I didn't discuss it with Noor, but really I have the same comment that to be honest with you, Obama have a very good uh he's a very good in speech and in body language, and like that, fine.
I like it so much.
But you can't keep bromising me every day.
If you would like to speak about us, you must speak about us from our position, from our view.
Well, Walid Rashev essentially said to Farid Zakaria that Obama's speeches are meaningless.
So 0 for 4.
That's what I'm gonna say.
Start screening these people.
Now, if you're gonna go into Teriri Square and find out uh protesters loving Obama, you talk to him first before you put him on.
Well, what this show, I mean, I'm sure they have bookers.
You know, I've told you about this, folks.
I don't go on these shows anymore.
Two times on crossfire is all the education I needed.
What happens is they book you as a guest on the show, and then somebody, producer calls you up, and they do the pre-interview.
And I, like a naive Doomkoff, the first time believed that they were genuinely interested in what I had to say and was going to say, that they were genuinely interested in what I thought.
So they're asking me these various questions, and a couple of them were just outrageously offensive and stupid, and I reacted as such.
That's what they want.
They were they they they searching for questions that would cause me that in their mind to have an eruption.
They weren't interested in anything else.
And uh I remember the first time I did crossfire.
Uh it was a total setup.
It was with uh Kinsley and Robert Novak, and it was a total setup.
They had me, and I forget the guy's name, as a liberal host in WLS Chicago, way back in the late 80s, and they wanted to ostensibly talk to us about some issue of the day.
And instead, it was a it was a show on the dangers of talk radio to democracy, the irresponsibility of voices on talk radio.
And this other guy, I wish I could remember his name.
Uh, We ended up being united against Kinsley on the show, because we realized that we'd been sandbagged and used.
So that was it.
And it happened once on the Today Show.
You know, and that's where I had the falling out with Katie Courick.
I had spent the weekend in the White House or spent the night in the Lincoln bedroom with George H. W. Bush and Katie Couric wanted me on to find out what it was about.
And as I started answering her questions, she started smirking.
Camera was not on her.
So I stopped said, see, see, look at your smirking.
You didn't want to hear it.
And she reacted violently.
Oh, I was not smirking at you.
I was smirking at what somebody was telling me in my IFB.
Ever since then.
I mean, it's uh it's been frosty between uh the perky one and me.
After that, forget it, because I now know the trick, I know the game.
The last thing they want is what you really care about.
So, I can't believe they've got these pre-interviewers, they've got these bookers.
How in the world they know what Farid Zakari, the host of the show wants.
They want some sycophants in there.
They're going to talk about Obama being the greatest thing since sliced bread to U.S. foreign policy, and they go, oh, for four.
Uh maybe they don't have the bookers.
Maybe there have been budget cuts.
Who knows?
Uh we're, after all, are in Obamaville.
Or maybe these guests are very sophisticated.
Maybe the guests know exactly what I know.
They know what they have to do to get on the show, and then when they get there, they tell them the truth.
That probably is the more likely of the two scenarios.
By the way, Snerdley, Carl Rove agrees with you on Herman Kane.
Uh Carl Rove was on Fox and Friends this morning, and he said that no talk radio guy, the talk radio guy from Atlanta is not going to be elected president.
He's got a he's got a great narrative, personal narrative.
He's got a good narrative about Obama, but what's he done in elective office?
At some point you got to give people uh experience, confidence, and your experience in elective office and in that business.
And uh Rove said he's not going to be there.
So you and Rove are on the same page when it comes to Herman Cain.
Now, John Huntsman and I mentioned early in the program look for there to be a media and Republican establishment push for John Huntsman to take the place that Mitch Daniels was going to occupy in the Republican sweepstakes.
Uh, John Huntsman having lunch today with George H.W. and Barbara Bush, I think in Kinnebunkmort, Maine.
Because Huntsman's on a New Hampshire tour.
And Huntsman, uh, ambassador to the Chinese uh to China for Obama.
But he's uh he's from the from the Mitch Daniels school.
We've uh got to get along with the people that don't like us.
Uh and we gotta be nice, basically.
Stop uh stop the uh stop the bickering, uh, essentially.
Who's next?
Steve in Fountain Hills, Arizona.
Welcome, sir, to the EIB network.
Great to have you with us.
Right.
Yeah, uh rush.
Paul Paul Ryan's probably the best.
I mean, Obama White House knows he can be beaten by this Trotsky White House, they're really scared of Paul Ryan.
He was on David Gregory's show yesterday, and David Gregley went after him like a rabbit pit bull.
And and and Paul Ryan hung in there.
They would never have gone after Obama like that.
Paul Ryan is so much, he's a million times better looking than Obama.
He's a million times smarter.
The guy's principal, he's really sticks by this whole public.
It's not just about Medicare, it's about his whole budget cut thing.
Ryan is a real vegan conservative, and he's the future, and the future is now.
I don't know why we're waiting.
We're talking about these Mitch Daniels, this Chris Christie, who doesn't believe in immigration.
He's an open border guy, the guy's for Captain Tree, the guy's terrible, he wants Obamacare.
Well, now, let me let me stop you, Steve, because you're on to something.
You uh except except Ryan has said again, he's not running for president this year.
By the way, I I did understand the guy, right?
He's for Paul Ryan, that caller, right?
Uh he says he might run some other time, but not Now.
And Steve, the reason is he's serious about shepherding the budget through the House.
He's serious about it.
But they are scared of Paul Ryan.
I am holding here in my formerly nicotine stained fingers a political story.
GOP ignored Ryan plan red flags.
It might be a political time bomb.
That's what Republican pollsters warned as House Republicans prepared for the April 15th vote on Paul Ryan's proposed budget with its plan to radically remake Medicare.
No matter how favorably pollsters with the Tyrants group or other firms spun the bill in their pitch.
The Ryan budget's approval rating barely budged above the high thirties, or its disapproval below 50, according to a Republican operative familiar with the presentation.
It's amazing the number of unnamed Republicans who are bleeding all over the politico, destroying and taking out other Republicans.
And now they're taking out Paul Ryan.
So an unnamed Republican calls politico.
Says, yeah, yeah, you know the dirty little secret is.
Ryan's budget sucks.
It doesn't poll well.
Everybody hates it.
The poll numbers on the plan were so toxic, staffers with the National Republican Congressional Committee warned the leadership you might not want to go there in a series of pre-vote meetings.
So they're trying to just scare every Republican possible away from the Ryan budget now in Politico.
AP has a poll, by the way, uh out today that says that everybody hates the Paul Ryan plan.
Everybody hates it.
And as part of the AP's story, in addition to everybody having the Ryan plan, guess what?
Medicare doesn't even have to be cut.
Most Americans say in the AP poll that no, we don't need to cut Medica, and we don't need to do anything with Social Security.
There's nothing wrong with either.
▲
Export Selection