All Episodes
Previous Next
June 21, 2011 - Rush Limbaugh Program
31:16
June 21, 2011, Tuesday, Hour #3
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
The views expressed by the host on this program documented to be almost always right, 99.6% of the time.
It's a thrill and a delight to be with you.
As it is each and every day, Rushlimbos serving humanity.
Half my brain tied behind my back just to make it fair.
Our telephone number is 800-282-2882.
Okay, I want to clear this up.
I erroneously stated that John Huntsman was pro-choice in a discussion about how the media, in proclaiming Republicans to be moderate, are going to tell us that people to the left of the mainstream of America are who moderates are, particularly Republican moderates.
And it is not an accident.
I get screwed up here on misunderstanding a comment that was made, some things that Rick Santorum said.
Huntsman has been criticized for not signing an anti-abortion pledge, and that's what I misunderstood.
Huntsman said that he didn't need to sign such a pledge, the Susan B. Anthony pledge.
He didn't need to sign it because he didn't need to prove to anybody his commitment to pro-life.
He's a Mormon.
He's an Eagle Scout.
So, of course, he's pro-life.
He's got a long pro-life record.
He supports the Right to Life Amendment.
He signed three pro-life bills to help limit abortions in the state.
And he's refused to sign under the anti-abortion pledge, but not because he's pro-choice.
He just thinks his record speaks for itself on that.
And it does.
So I wanted to clear that up and not have that be left hanging out there for anybody to further misunderstand.
The polling data, ladies and gentlemen, has not changed in almost two years.
Voters continue to support the repeal of Obamacare.
This is the latest from Rasmussen reports.
53% favor repealing of the health care law.
49% say that Obamacare is bad for the country.
And it isn't changing.
No matter what the Democrats do, no matter what the circumstances are on the ground, as it were, no matter what the regime says, no matter what anybody else is saying about it, the public opinion on this is not changing.
And it's just one of a number of issues in which Obama is in the minority.
And as I say, practically every meaningful Obama position is opposed by a sizable majority of the American people.
Now, you would never know this listening to reporting of day-to-day events by the media.
But I tell you, if the election were held tomorrow, Obama would lose in a landslide.
Now, I went to dinner with some friends last night.
We were talking about this.
I want to run this by you just to see what you think.
If you care to call about it, fine.
The theory was put forth last night that it's way too soon to start getting into specifics about Obama, his policies, and what's wrong.
Because people aren't paying attention, and you'll just irritate them and bore them.
Keep the powder dry.
Wait for a period of time closer to the election when a nominee is chosen before going full bore on Obama because you don't want to create sympathy and you don't want people to get worn out on all this.
And the alternative to that was also presented.
Look at this is not just your average ordinary run-of-the-mill election.
This is serious stuff.
And it's like Huntsman said, for the first time in our history, we're a nation in decline, statistically, demonstrably in decline.
That's not insignificant.
Is it something that needs to be treated as a ho-hummer until we get closer to the election?
Or is it something that needs to be hammered? each and every day to the point that people finally get it, even if they aren't paying scant attention.
Should the effort be made to get them to start paying attention now?
I always am fascinated as I gather with my friends and associates and listen to their theories on how this ought to happen and what the tactics ought to be.
By the way, there's a blog here from Reuters James Pathokoukis or Pathakis or Greek.
It's not just McKinsey suggesting Obamacare is a mess.
The McKinsey Consultancy Group had a story last week.
30% of American business said that they'd drop employer-covered health care once Obamacare becomes law.
That's, by the way, that's a low number.
It's far more than 30% of the employers who drop health care as a benefit once Obamacare hits by design.
Another sad reality is by design that is supposed to happen.
The Congressional Budget Office has now estimated that only about 7% of employees currently covered by employer-sponsored insurance will have to switch to subsidized exchange policies in 2014.
However, our early 2011 survey of more than 1,300 employers across industries, geographies, and employer sizes, as well as other proprietary research, found that reform will provide a much greater response.
The McKinsey said 30%.
They're disagreeing with the Congressional Budget Office.
CBO says 7%.
McKinsey says 30%.
So then when McKinsey announced this, the Obamaites and the Democrats said, wait a minute, you just can't say that.
We want to see your methodology.
So there was a lot of pressure on McKinsey to release its methodology, which it finally has.
And as this blog points out, missed in all of this was another consulting firm, which also found some worrisome Obamacare trends, as explained by our buds at the Heritage Foundation.
Price Waterhouse Cooper recently released its annual report on medical cost trends for 2012, and it is revealing.
Their report shows healthcare costs and premiums continuing to rise and uncertainty increasing for employers who offer insurance to their workers as a benefit.
Healthcare spending increased by 7.5% in 2010 and will grow by 8% more this year.
In 2012, it'll rise again by 8.5%.
Folks, this is exactly the opposite of Obama's promise that his healthcare plan would reduce premiums by $2,500 per person.
This is another reason, by the way, why I don't believe that we just have some innocent bystanders here acting as parasites, sucking the blood out of the U.S. economy, assuming that there's always going to be a blood supply.
I mean, they're actively lying to us about the outcome of their policy.
Now, you remember it as well as I do, Obama promising that premiums will be reduced on average by $2,500 per person.
It's the exact opposite.
They're going up 7.5%, 8.5% per year.
And by 2014, when the whole thing starts being implemented, that's when the employers are going to drop it.
They won't be able to afford it.
And the government is going to be oh, so happy for this to happen.
That's what they want.
They want as many people as possible in the federal exchanges.
Because this is how they intend, ladies and gentlemen, to make hay and to assume even more control and power over the American people.
UK Daily Mail.
Obama has failed blacks, says Bachman, as African American unemployment hits 16%.
The jobless rate, African Americans, is the same as it was during the Depression in 1929.
Hispanic unemployment has now risen to 12%.
Here's the story.
Barack Obama has failed black Americans as unemployment soars to Depression era levels, according to Michelle Bachmann, who said the unemployment among the black community has rocketed to 16% during Obama's term.
Shockingly, the African-American unemployment levels are the same as the Depression era in 1929, and they are up from 12.7% when Obama was inaugurated in January of 2009.
And there is no way, there is no way that any black leader can argue with this.
Unemployment in African American America is 16%.
Now you got Calypso Louie running around saying there is a murderer in the White House.
And he's not talking about David Axelrod, because Axelrod's not there anymore.
He's talking about Obama.
He's talking about Libya.
They're not happy out there.
And the Hispanics are not happy.
And Obama blew off a Hispanic group the other day, supposed to show up and speak to Hispanic group, and he didn't show up.
And they got a little ticked off.
They weren't happy out there.
All right, my friends, sit tight.
We'll coming back.
More of your phone calls straight ahead as the Rush Limbaugh program continues right here on the EIB network.
Hey, who's next?
Where are we going?
This James in Oak Hill, Oak Hill.
Hell, Ohio.
Great to have you on the program.
Hi.
Hello, Mr. Limbaugh, and this is a pleasure and an honor.
Thank you very much, appreciate that.
Okay, I chatted with your screener a little while ago, and it seems like you're on independent voters.
It seems like you're being a bit critical and hard on us independents.
It seems like you're thinking that most of us are more liberal-oriented than conservative-oriented.
And I don't have any facts or figures to support that, but I'm thinking that's probably the other way around, that we're a bit more conservative than liberal.
And it just seems like lately you've been kind of, well, a bit critical and hard on us independent voters.
I can understand why you would think that.
And I said earlier in the program long before taking your call that my real complaint is not so much with the independents.
I mean, you're who you are.
My real beef is how you are portrayed.
It is how you are characterized.
You are characterized as unique and special.
You're the smartest voters around.
You're not ideologues.
You're open-minded.
You make up your mind issue by issue.
You hate partisanship.
You hate bickering.
You hate arguments.
You hate confrontation.
You do not like it when Republicans start talking about Obama.
You do not like it.
And when that happens, you are going to run right to Obama.
And these people that are offering this characterization are advising candidates of this.
They're telling candidates that that's who you are.
And how to get your vote is to go soft on Obama and don't be critical of him and all that kind of thing.
And I think it's bogus.
It is bogus, sir.
I personally, yeah, I know that's what the liberal media wants to portray it as, but I don't mind getting in a liberal face.
I have no problem with that at all.
And I wish the Republicans would do this a lot more.
You did the Reagan thing a little while ago with him directly taking on Carter.
That was great.
And too bad that there doesn't seem to be somebody in place right now that's doing the same thing.
Take them head on.
Take them on directly is the way I would prefer that they would do it.
All right.
Well, I appreciate that.
And as I say, I totally understand why you might think I'm going after you.
You're who you are, and I'm not going to change who you are.
But I do really resent the way you independents are portrayed.
And I resent the fact that consultants, everybody else, says that an independent, by definition, is undecided.
And therefore, every election turns on the independents.
And everybody says this.
Maybe a pundits from both sides of the aisle say this.
It's though 80% of the electorate doesn't matter.
40% automatically vote Republican.
40% automatic.
If this were the case, the campaigns wouldn't cost what they cost.
It's patently absurd to believe that 80% of the American people are not reachable during a campaign.
That they've already made up their minds.
They're not going to change their minds.
They're partisan and they're rigid and you're idiot and you're this and that.
But the independents, oh, yes.
And of course, everybody's going to spend their time trying to persuade them.
Sorry, I don't buy it.
And I also don't buy what we're always told about you independents, and that is that the slightest bit of criticism of any Democrat, and you are not going to put up with it, and you're going to run back to the Democrats in droves because you don't like partisanship and mean-spirited.
I happen to think the biggest partisans, the most mean-spirited extremists in American politics today are Democrats.
And the very idea that a Republican might be critical of Obama is going to run you into the arms of Barney Frank or Anthony Weiner or some of these other vociferous, loud, offensive, mean-spirited, extremist Democrats is just patently insulting to me.
And there's something else, too.
The independents, if you accept everything that's said about you, that you guys don't even want a clear-cut choice, that you like muddle, that you like things muddled up and not quite clear, because it takes a special mind.
It takes a special discipline to navigate and wade through all of the gunk.
And I just, the things that are said about you, and both parties do it, I just don't happen to be a believer in.
I think people who are persuaded by these people to run for office only trying to appeal to 20% of the voters, it's no wonder that those people lose.
And who are the nominees of these people?
Who are the candidates that these consultants have put forth as the surefire winners?
They're the ones that lose.
Poor old Bob Dahl, John McCain, these are the people that end up losing.
And who do they lose to?
They lose to firebrand partisans on the left.
It's just I think all of this is a giant trick or whatever.
I think it's a scheme.
And I think that the left has hatched this as a means of getting Republicans to shut up.
It's a scheme designed to get Republicans not to make their case, to not draw the contrast.
And if national elections were only about 20% of the voters, George Soros would just go out and buy them.
George Soros would not be investing all the money in all the liberal think tanks and media watchdogs trying to influence opinion.
He would just buy the votes of those 20% of the people.
This is all such a crock.
There.
I've said it very clearly.
We'll be back.
Rushlin boy in Hollywood all week, chugging Diet Raspberry 2 if by tea.
I got an email forget, what are they rush?
Do you have a return policy?
No.
There aren't any returns because you won't want to.
Nobody's going to return the tea.
I had to laugh.
We have a return policy on 2 If by T. All right.
It was just referenced by our independent caller in the first hour of this program, audio soundbites of John Huntsman at his announcement, seeking the Republican presidential nomination today at the Statue of Liberty, the same place Ronaldus Magnus announced his candidacy in 1980.
Now, this is very instructive.
Mr. Huntsman channeling Reagan, going to the Statue of Liberty and saying, I'm going to be like Reagan.
I respect the President of the United States.
I respect Obama.
I'm not going to attack his reputation.
All of this.
You know, we can't be seen attacking Obama.
That's not the way to.
All of this.
So we're going to listen to Huntsman, and then we'll take you back to 1980, to Reagan announcing his candidacy against Jimmy Carter.
And you tell me, after you hear this, if you think Reagan soft-peddled it all, if you think Reagan didn't attack and was not critical of Carter, period,
much less his reputation, you will hear Ronald Reagan blame Jimmy Carter personally for the economic disaster that Jimmy Carter caused back in 1981.
Governor Huntsman from Utah at the Statue of Liberty is the first of two soundbites we have.
Let me say something about civility.
For the sake of the younger generation, it concerns me that civility, humanity, and respect are sometimes lost in our interactions as Americans.
Our political debates today are corrosive and not reflective of the belief that Abe Lincoln espoused.
I don't think you need to run down someone's reputation in order to run for the office of president.
I respect the president of the United States.
He and I have a difference of opinion on how to help a country we both love.
But the question each of us wants the voters to answer is who will be the better president, not who's the better American.
I'm just going to shut my mouth.
I hear this kind of stuff, and I get close to blowing a gasket.
Now, they're trying to say he's Reagan.
That's the point.
Well, they're trying to say he's Reagan because he announced the same place Reagan did.
And you'll hear that there's no similarity here at all.
But we're really this civility stuff.
For the sake of the younger generation, concerns me, civility, their country's being destroyed for crying out loud.
Their generation, you young people, you're in such debt here.
Your chances for economic prosperity over.
Huntsman himself said so in his own announcement.
We are for the first time a nation in decline.
And yet, we've got to not say so.
Can't say so.
Might be impolite.
Here's the second bite.
I don't know what I'm about to do.
Behind me is our most famous symbol of the promise of America.
President Reagan launched the 1980 general election campaign from this very spot.
It was a time of trouble, worry, and difficulty.
Yes, it was.
And he assured us that we could make America great again.
That's true.
And through his leadership, he did.
Today, I stand in his shadow, as well as the shadow of this magnificent monument to our liberty.
All right, now we go to Reagan.
It was September 1st, 1980.
Liberty State Park in Jersey City, New Jersey, there at the Statue of Liberty.
And as you listen to these, I want you to ask yourself if you're hearing Reagan talk about the need for civility.
He doesn't want to run down somebody's reputation.
Look, it speaks for itself.
Just listen.
The Carter record is a litany of despair, of broken promises, of sacred trusts abandoned and forgotten.
His answer to all this.
Stop the tape a second.
Stop the tape.
I don't know everything Huntsman said, but I don't have a transcript I had.
I don't have it in front of me.
I don't.
My guess is he did not say one thing critical of Obama's record based on the soundbites we do have him saying.
And I could be wrong about that.
But if he did say something about Obama's record, I'm sure it wasn't as hard-hitting as Reagan is talking.
Recube, by the way, Reagan to the top here.
I mean, folks, this is passion.
This is 1980.
This is Reagan.
And back in 1980, a lot of people thought we were in the same place then that we are now.
There was a big difference.
Jimmy Carter was thought to be just an incompetent boob.
Today, motivations are of a different opinion.
People are really, really worried about the objective of Obama.
Carter was just bumbling through it all.
But you listen to this and you're going to hear a Reagan that doesn't exist in these consultants' minds, a Reagan that they don't want you to think ever existed.
This is just, it's so powerful.
It is so passionate.
And it's how you do it.
Reagan was campaigning against somebody he thought was a disaster for the country and said so.
Here we go.
The Carter record is a litany of despair, of broken promises, of sacred trusts abandoned and forgotten.
His answer to all this misery?
He tries to tell us that we're only in a recession, not a depression.
As if definitions, words relieve our suffering.
Let it show on the record that when the American people cried out for economic help, Jimmy Carter took refuge behind a dictionary.
Well, if it's a definition he wants, I'll give him one.
A recession is when your neighbor loses his job.
A depression is when you lose yours.
And recovery is when Jimmy Carter loses his.
Right on, right on.
Here's Reagan now blaming Carter, bluntly questioning his motivation.
I have talked with unemployed workers all across this country.
I've heard their views on what Jimmy Carter has done to them and their families.
Let Mr. Carter go to their homes, look their children in the eye, and argue with them that it's only a recession that put dad or mom out of work.
Let him go to the unemployment lines and lecture those workers who have been betrayed on what is the proper definition for their widespread economic misery.
Human tragedy, human misery, the crushing of the human spirit.
They do not need defining.
They need action.
Call this human tragedy whatever you want.
Whatever it is, it's Jimmy Carter's.
He caused it.
He tolerates it.
And he's going to answer to the American people for it.
Yeah, but we can't do that anymore.
So we got to be civil.
Reagan was being uncivil here, you know.
Oh, yeah, according to current standards, as espoused by brilliant Republican leaders.
That's incivility.
What you just heard is incivility.
He was too mean.
He attacked Jimmy Carter personally.
That's no way to win.
We can't do that.
The independents are going to run away from us in droves if that happens.
And he only won 49 states.
I also know this.
I also know that Reagan never served in Jimmy Carter's regime or administration.
John Huntsman did serve in Obama's.
He was ambassador to the Chikoms.
All right, we have one more soundbite here from the great Rinaldus Magnus.
I'm looking forward to meeting Mr. Carter in debate, confronting him with the whole sorry record of his administration, the record he prefers not to mention.
If he ever finally agrees to the kind of first debate the American people want, which I'm beginning to doubt, he'll answer to them and to me.
This country needs a new administration with a renewed dedication to the dream of an America.
Right on.
An administration that will give that dream new life and make America great again.
Right on.
Right on, right on, right on.
And I'm going to check the transcript here.
And Mr. Huntsman did not mention Obama's name once in his announcement today saying he was seeking the presidency of the United States.
He did not mention Obama's name once.
The closest he came was when he said, and I respect the President of the United States.
Be right back.
Don't go.
Back to the phones we go.
Looks like Scott from somewhere, Hartzo, upstate New York.
Hello, sir.
Hello, Rush, first-time caller, long-time listener.
Thank you, sir.
Good to be on with you.
I had a few things to say, but I think if you could play that clip of Reagan over and over again, maybe somebody will listen to that and say, that's what I need to be saying.
Somebody needs to go after the Democrats.
I don't understand why this pacifism and this, let's just sit back and play nice.
This is our country.
This is what we're fighting for, and you can't just have somebody sit back.
Well, I know.
And, you know, Mr. Huntsman today, in his announcement, actually said that for the first time in our nation's history, we're a nation in decline.
You know, that's not insignificant.
That's not a whole hum thing.
Why is it a nation in decline?
Why?
For the first time.
But yet he respects Obama and he respects Obama's reputation.
And he also said near the end of his remarks announcing his candidacy today, he said everything is at stake.
Okay.
Why is everything at stake?
That's not insignificant either.
Everything is at stake.
Why?
Boy, if you run for office and you're going to be running against somebody and you don't, I don't know.
You know, I'm not out to be hated here.
I really am not.
I am not out to be despised and I'm not out here trying to make myself a target.
I just don't know how else to deal with this.
I'm not trying to make myself persona non grata to these people, but I swear, folks, this is, you know, what we it's not just the consultants who are advising our candidates to go squishy and mushy and so forth.
But it's all the rest of us, too.
You know, there are conservatives who don't run for office.
I happen to be one.
And when we talk the way we talk, when we talk this way, they tell us that we're too confrontational and we're being too conservative and we are too provocative, too partisan.
I don't understand what's motivating these people.
It clearly isn't winning because this isn't how you do it.
So I was at Mr. Huntson, Huntsman, what void are you filling here if you respect the president and yet we're in a state of decline for the first time ever?
And if everything's at stake, what are you doing?
What void are you filling?
You don't want to get into a contest who's a better American.
You want into a contest who's a better president.
Well, if you're going to make the case that you're a better president than Obama, you're going to have to start talking about why he's a bad one.
Or are you going to say, he's okay?
He's a nice president.
I'm just going to be better.
And maybe so.
Maybe that's going to be the tact because as you all know, folks, we really can't offend the independents.
We can't offend them.
By the way, we're getting a good lesson in civility, folks.
Both the Politico and the Huffing and Puffington Post are dusting off preposterous, long-since discredited rumor that Rick Perry is gay and that his wife is leaving him.
These rumors are seven years old, and the Politico is doing a story about the rumor being seven years old.
And that's the left-wing civility that we're supposed to emulate, right?
Okay, folks, have a wonderful day, and we'll catch you back here in 21 hours.
▲
Export Selection