All Episodes
Previous Next
June 24, 2011 - Rush Limbaugh Program
37:33
June 24, 2011, Friday, Hour #2
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
It's Friday.
Everybody knows what that means.
Live from the left post at our satellite studios in Los Angeles.
It's open line Friday.
Well, it took us about ten years to get that made, but finally, here it is.
Johnny Donovan gets our show open live from LA made.
I know you ran it last hour.
I just thought I'd mention it now.
Can't mention everything all at once, or it wouldn't take three hours to do the program.
Played golf yesterday and I crunched the ball.
I had a had a great time.
We played the South Course at LA Country Club.
It had just had a ball out there.
Well, yeah, and matter of speaking, did celebrate afterwards.
I know what you mean.
Yeah, went out to uh went out to dinner.
Folk, I have to tell you something.
I just asked Dawson, Don, are you unhappy?
She looks miserable in there.
And she said, No, it's just a time change.
I'm you're not getting enough sleep.
Is that what it is?
I'm getting two hours a night.
I I uh I've I don't know why.
I just I don't feel like going to bed.
I wonder I just I do not have that kind of discipline.
Bedtime, there is no such thing.
You go to bed when you get tired.
Uh you go to bed when you get sleepy.
And I will admit sometimes I fight it.
Sometimes I don't, I don't want to go to bed.
That's been the case here, so uh but eventually, I mean, at some point you have to make up for that somehow.
You um you do pay a price for it.
Hey, we're here open line Friday.
That means we go to the phones, whatever you want to talk about, with and reason, of course, is uh permissible.
Monday through Thursday, you are limited.
What you can talk about by whether or not I care.
But on Friday, I don't have to care.
Find out exactly what's on your mind.
And without the influence of me.
Telephone number 800 28288 to the email address L Rushbow at EIBNet.com for a couple days.
One of the themes of the program has been sabotage.
The latest iteration is that the Democrats are now saying that what has happened to the economy is the result of Republican sabotage.
The Republicans want you to lose your job, and they want you to be unable to find your next one.
They want gas prices to be what they are.
They want the value of your home to have plummeted.
All of this that is the result of Obama and liberal Democrat policies, they now say that Republicans did this on purpose.
They've been sabotaging it.
I'm not going to repeat myself from the first hour.
I uh if you if you really, if you didn't hear the first hour, you need to access it at Rushlinbaugh.com or the podcast.
It's poignant, it's powerful, and you need to understand what's going on and why.
There's a reason now that the Democrats have not presented a budget in 785 days.
There's a there's a reason for so much of what they've been doing.
They want to blame all this on the on the Republicans.
And it's a tantamount admission that what has happened has been done on purpose.
They just don't want to take the heat for it.
They want to shift the blame.
And they know they've got a willing accomplished media to help promote this concept.
They also know that the Republicans are a bunch of wusses.
They also know that the Republican presidential candidates are running around saying, well, you know, we're not going to attack the president personally.
No, no, no, no, no.
We're going to stick to the issues.
If we if we stray off the uh reservation and we start being critical of Obama personally, the independents are going to leave us and they're going to go just running fast as they can back to Obama.
Right.
But if the Democrats, if they go get personal, if they accuse us by name of sabotaging the economy, well, the independents are going to stay with the Democrats.
So the Democrats like lies and they like misrepresentations.
They like fallacies.
The Democrats like means spirited extremism as long as it comes from the Democrats.
But they Don't like even the truth coming from Republicans if it happens to be said about Obama.
This is what they tell us.
Not the independence of Democrats.
So anyway, go access the first hour.
It explains so much of what's going on now.
And the pitfalls that the Republicans are about to step into.
Some already have.
Further illustration of the point.
August first, 2008.
Now on August 1st of 2008.
The unemployment rate.
I'm pretty sure.
I gotta check this out, double check this and confirm this.
But according to the piece of paper that I at present hold in my formerly nicotine stained fingers.
Unemployment rate 3.3%, August 1st of 2008, with the presidential election just a couple of months away.
The New York Times had a story by Peter Goodman, more arrows scene pointing to a recession.
The New York Times was doing everything, and even if you go back to 2006, you could get the same story.
The New York Times was carrying a Democrat's water even then, when we were not in recession, trying to convince you that we were sabotage.
Now that we are in one, they go overboard, try to tell you that we're in recovery.
That there are hopeful signs on the job front.
You see it each and every day out there.
They will not report that we're in a recession.
They will not say that we are not in recovery.
Just the exact opposite.
Why, this recovery is uh robust.
Couple of uh couple of speed bumps along the way, but the economy's doing pretty well, they say.
With nine point one percent unemployment back in the days of 3.3 to even 5%.
They were warning of a recession, it might even become a depression.
Um I read today a piece written by a friend of mine named Michael Ledeen.
I've quoted Michael Ladeen on this program before.
He's a noted scholar and think tank thinker.
And he's done a lot of thinking for a lot of different think tanks.
He's been associated with uh, I think heritage, and a number of them.
Now what he's uh what he's primarily known for in recent years has been championing the cause of the Iranian people against the oppression that they face each and every day.
Uh he's always been a staunch supporter of the United States military, keen observer, if you will, of the American political scene, and he has a submission here.
And I happen to receive a copy of it.
And it it's about the this whole notion that Obama is so smart, so much smarter than all the rest of us.
And the reason why this appealed to me is because I think it's a question I bring up on this program all the time.
What is smart?
And I've always said that we need to redefine what it is, because I don't think Obama's smart.
I go totally against the conventional wisdom.
I I look at his gaffs, I look at his inability to speak with a teleprompter, I say, where is this notion that he's brilliant?
Where does this come from?
Does it come from his ability to speak or read a teleprompter?
Is it it must be?
I know that that's a large part of it.
And a lot of people by the same token thought Bush was not particularly smart because he looked like a deer in a headlight reading a teleprompter a lot.
Like they say Dan Quayle did.
In fact, I was at dinner with some friends last night.
This is kind of frustrating too.
And these are these people are us, folks.
I mean, they count themselves as one of us.
And they're they're saying it doesn't matter who we nominate, doesn't matter.
The American voter doesn't care about substance.
All the American voter cares About is what somebody looks like on television and how they sound.
They look good, they sound smart, that's all it takes to become president.
So the saw the talk on the Republican side, therefore centered around Mitt Romney.
Nobody else on our side fits the bill.
It doesn't matter.
I said, let me throw some names at it.
I don't care.
Doesn't matter.
I said, well, what about the elections in November of 2010, the congressional midterms?
There was nobody on the ballot then.
I mean, it was that was an election about nothing but substance.
And in that election, the Democrats got shellacked.
There wasn't a pretty boy on either ballot.
There wasn't a national race that was being contested.
House of Representatives, a bunch of individual races, the Senate, but you go even deep into the state ballots, and you'll find that the Democrats lost six to seven hundred seats in state legislatures.
And so my point to them was that there was a lot of substance on the ballot in November.
And what was it?
The Republicans didn't offer any.
I mean, they basically shut up.
The Republicans recognized that the Democrats were committing suicide, so when that happened, you get out of the way and let the suicide happen.
The precious independents were not voting for looks.
They were not voting for articulate intelligence.
They were voting against substance.
They were voting against Obama.
But that didn't change anybody's mind.
So I'm here, I'm I'm doing a program each and every day devoted to substance.
And I'm listening to the fact that that doesn't matter to a whole lot of people, not everybody, but to a whole lot of people.
They're not gonna take the time, Rush, to care about the substance.
They're not that smart anyway, even if they want to know about the substance.
They're not smart enough to get it all.
Why do you think Obama got elected?
He's a first black president.
He sounded smart, looked pretty good, versus who was our guy.
And I had to admit they had a point there.
But I don't think our guy, even though our guy was leading in the polls before they dredged up the financial collapse, and our guy willingly canceled his own campaign.
I still understood what they were saying.
And they uh I tried every which way I knew to budge them off of it.
And nope, doesn't matter.
So by extension, you could you could conclude that there's only a couple Republicans that they think have a prayer.
It has nothing to do with what any of them think.
I said, okay, Romney, Romney is good looking, he sounds good.
Do you realize that Romney just came out and articulated the Obama position on global warming?
I don't care, Rush.
That's my whole point.
It doesn't matter.
And then they said to me, what you have to win the election.
That's that then after you win the election, then that's that's when you really start doing what you believe.
But if you have to go out and say, but but this was stupid because the most of the people do not agree with Obama on global warming.
Well, the people that don't vote Republican do, and that's why it was smart for Mitt to do it.
So our guy should lie, deceive, and be good looking.
That's and how many of you are nodding your head in agreement right now?
Three people I see on my side of glass are nodding their head in agreement.
Yep, our guy should lie and deceive and be good looking.
Or our girl, too.
We got, you know, we got uh oh.
Palin despised Palin.
Absolutely despise Palin, and the reason is because they don't see that she has a snowball's chance in hell of winning.
It wasn't about, well, in one case it was about specifics with Palum, although I didn't bother digging deep there, but it was just no chance.
You gotta nominate somebody that can win, but not on substance.
It's gotta be looks and perceived intelligence.
And I know I'll tell you, the Bush years did have that effect on people on our side of the aisle.
Because the uh drive by's state control media portrayed Bush as a blithering idiot, and Bush never defended himself, responded to it, so he just let it hang out there.
Meanwhile, we have to sit here and listen to how smart Clinton is.
We have to sit here and listen to how brilliant Obama is.
When in fact Obama isn't at all, and that takes you back to Michael Adine and a piece that he's written that is a continuation of many other pieces he've written along the same lines about the same subject.
That Obama really is a gaff machine, a walking, embarrassing gaff machine.
I will splain what I mean when we come back from this obscene prophet time out.
Don't go away, my friends.
Don't go away, my friends.
Ha.
Welcome back, Rush Limbody cutting edge of societal evolution.
What's up with all the presidential gaffes, anyway, writes Michael Ladine.
Big media doesn't pay much attention to them, even though Obama makes an amazing number of errors in his public statements.
And I think it's easy enough to understand why the big media largely ignores them.
To report them all would totally undermine the image of the president to which a surprising number of reporters and pundits are wedded, that of an unusually intelligent and well-educated guy.
Yet someone who tells a crowd in Vienna that his Austrian isn't very good, or who tells Marines that he's pleased to speak to the Marine Corps.
And who just today, yesterday, just yesterday, said he had given the medal of honor to a survivor from the 10th Mountain Division when in fact the award was given posthumously, does not fit my definition of a brilliant and cultured man.
And I don't know if you are aware of this, but this is a mistake that this is pretty bad.
This is bad.
Obama did visit the 10th Mountain, the 10th Mountain Division, and he congratulated them on their service, and he told the soldiers that were all gathered there that he had given the medal of honor to Jared Monty.
President said, I've given this Medal of Honor to Jared Monte who came back from Iraq alive.
But he didn't.
Jared Monty died in Iraq.
He was killed in 2006.
It is reminiscent of vice president bite me in St. Louis.
Stand up, Chuck, let him see you, Chuck.
Chuck's in a wheelchair.
Bite me notices in a wheelchair.
Bite means, oh God, bless you.
Gee, oh, what did I just let everybody let's let's stand up for Chuck?
Let's stand up for stand up for Chuck.
But this, here we've got we've got audio.
Here is the president making a mistake about a soldier killed in action in Afghanistan yesterday afternoon, Fort Drum in New York.
I had the great honor of seeing some of you because uh a comrade of yours, uh Jared Monte, was the first person who I was able to award uh the Medal of Honor to, uh, who actually came back and wasn't uh receiving it posthumously.
He did receive it posthumously.
He did not come back.
He had no clue what he was talking about.
Whoever put that on his teleprompter had no clue what he was talking about.
Nobody in this regime knows what they're talking about.
Now, some people think they do this on purpose.
Just insult members of the military.
But here, here you you have a medal of honor winner who lived to receive it, but it was a different man.
Living honoree is named Giunta.
The deceased hero from the 10th Mountain Division was named Monte.
Now, both are Italian.
Did a White House speechwriter confuse the two Italians?
And if so, what does that tell us about the ship under the command of President Obama?
That's worth pondering for a moment.
When you add up all the mistakes that Obama has made, not slips of the tongue, real errors in statements and speeches that he could read from his ubiquitous teleprompter.
They make quite a number.
So what, you may ask?
Well, the answer is that hundreds of people traditionally read the drafts of presidential speeches and statements.
And that happens for two good reasons.
Presidential utterances are instant policy.
It's hard to walk away from a public statement.
Second, the myriad political appointees want their leader to look good, and they strain to ensure the accuracy of his statements that they write for him and uh end up on the teleprompter.
Or at least they used to.
Ladine says, I don't think that's happening in this administration.
Friend of mine said to me earlier today that he was really amazed at the discipline of Obama's team, specifically in the small number of leaks compared with previous administrations.
And that's because so few people are in the loop and know anything going on, because nobody trusts anybody in there.
But he goes on to point out we're not dealing with a profound intellect here.
Fifty-seven states.
I mean, we could recount all the faux paws here, and they just laugh and look the other way.
Oh, yeah, it's just Obama.
But this is major.
Announcing somebody as alive who isn't at an award ceremony.
Let's head to the phones, shall we?
People have been waiting patiently.
It is open line Friday.
Bill in Burlington, North Carolina.
Great to have you, sir.
Hello.
Hey, love to show, man.
I uh my question for you is with the strategic oil reserve being released.
Who gets that oil?
How is it regulated?
Uh, you know, are we as a taxpayers reimbursed in any way for the oil that's given out?
And does it stay in our country?
Or does it go out to the point of the room?
Yeah, those are good questions.
I, and you know, I used to have the answer to every one of these questions back when we were toying some administration toying the idea of doing this some years ago.
I wanted to find out exactly the answer to your questions.
Um the oil does stay in the United States, but there are a lot of surprising things about your questions are actually very good.
And I'm just drawing a mental block on them.
But I'm gonna find out.
I I'm I'm I'm gonna I'm gonna get the answers to your question before the program ends today because they're very good questions.
I just uh I don't want to I don't want to take a stab at what I think I remember here and and uh not get it right, but it is you know, you you're quite who gets the oil, who gets the credit for it, who who is paid for it, what what kind of money uh changes hands, uh how it's regulated, where does it go, this sort of thing, all those are valid questions.
This whole thing, of course, is silly.
We're not talking about enough oil to affect supply and demand.
We're not talking about enough oil to affect price.
And I think even the regime has admitted that.
This is just it's well, we're doing this for politics.
We're doing this to make it appear that we're reacting to pressure.
OPEC.
Uh we're we're doing this because it's an election coming up.
It's election season.
Uh we're doing this to bash big oil.
There's all kinds of opportunities for Democrats in releasing this, but in terms of having actual any actual impact on the supply that would affect price, it won't have any.
In fact, it never would.
There's not enough oil in the strategic reserve.
Even if you released it especially if you released it all at once and on one day.
You're not we don't have the the capacity here to affect the price.
This what what I find interesting about this is that the regime is admitting, or they at least they want us to believe that they believe more supply will cause a reduction in price.
And yet, drill baby drill is silly to them.
Well, yeah, easy for you to say, Limbaugh, drill baby drill.
Well, it's a lot more complicated than that, Mr. Limbaugh.
It may sound simple to you.
You just go up there and start digging some holes in the ground.
Here comes that Texas crude, but no, it's a lot more complicated.
Really, what's complicated about it?
We know where the all is, we know what kind of all it is.
There's natural gas around all.
You go out and you get them both.
You help the domestic production.
You reduce our dependence on foreign producers.
All of it good.
But we can't do it.
Because drill baby drill is a mistake.
That's a pipe dream, they say.
Can't get enough oil soon.
If we start drill, baby drill tomorrow, Mr. Limbaugh, we're not going to have enough oil to make any difference.
Yeah, you can say that every year the idea comes up.
Okay, so the idea came up 15 years ago, drill, baby, drill.
If we had acted on the idea 15 years ago, where would we be today?
We would actually have some oil being drilled and pumped, and it would, you know, a daily supply of oil from new wells would no question have an impact on price.
Lower the price.
All because of supply.
Anyway, I appreciate the call, Bill.
Thanks very much.
Uh Melissa in Fort Worth, Texas.
Welcome to the EIB network.
Hi.
Hi, thank you for taking my call.
I wanted to get your opinion on why Herman Cain isn't getting more attention in the media, whether it's TV or print media, half the time they don't even list him as a candidate for president in the polls that they're you know reflecting in various newspaper articles.
I mean, when you see him at these Republican debates, I know that some of the time Fox has on that device that measures you know the audience response.
And he seems to be getting the highest numbers.
He seems to be a very smart gentleman that a lot of people like, yet he's not getting the media attention that I think that he very well deserves.
I mean, if Herman King didn't go to the CNN Republican debate, I don't even know if his name would have ever been mentioned on CNN.
Right.
I know what you mean.
I don't I don't understand it.
Well, the best answer that I can give you when you're talking about people like CNN uh and and others, I just think it's no more complicated than they don't think he can win.
I'll bet you if you could get the producers, the assignment editors, the people behind the scenes that you never see who are responsible for what stories get covered.
The people who are out there assigning, okay, Biff, want you to go follow Herman Cain around a couple days.
Uh see what Herman Cain's doing.
Those assignments aren't being made because I don't think these people think Herman Kane has a chance.
I don't think they even think he's a serious candidate.
And by that by that they mean serious in terms of the ability to win, not that he's really serious and meaning this.
They just don't think he's got a chance.
It's a little bit like what you were talking about earlier, substance versus, you know, the Mitt Romneys of the world who have the right.
Absolutely.
I mean, he's definitely got some substance.
It's unfortunate that the Republican Party is reducing itself to looks alone and whether or not somebody can read off of a teleprompter.
Well, I don't know that the Republican Party has done that.
The remember the people telling me that that's what it's going to take are Republicans.
They were telling me that's what the Republicans better start doing.
They better stop worrying about somebody's pure true and blue on policy and substance.
They better find somebody who can lie and and and is good looking.
Because that's what people, the people are not deep, they're shallow, and they don't start paying attention until two days before the election or three, maybe two weeks.
And that's when you go after them big time.
You don't Waste any campaign money now.
You don't waste uh a whole lot of time on debates.
I mean, you wait until people are really paying attention, and you just hit them with good looks and say whatever you have to say to get elected.
That that was the theory I heard last night.
And that's the theory was that's what Republicans don't do, and that's why they lose.
It's what the Democrats do and they win.
And then nobody goes to the polls to vote anyway.
So that's very important.
Well, not true.
Presidential races, the turnout has been uh pretty large last three, four times around.
I mean, relative to maybe the you know the previous.
Relative to previous presidential races, yeah.
Turnout has been uh pretty big.
I don't know.
I'm looking, I'm like you.
I I I heard that theory, and I know there's an element of truth to it for some people.
The fact that that might describe a majority of voters, that's not pleasant to uh to contemplate.
But you know, your your question about Herman Cain, I don't know if you've ever watched golf on television, but I'll give you a little analogy.
During the Masters, Rory McElroy was leading the tournament, and he was blowing everybody away just as he did recently last weekend at the U.S. Open.
On Sunday, after the front nine, he had a meltdown.
And they stopped covering him altogether.
You couldn't get a single shot of Rory McElroy.
They stuck with the leaders.
And I kept, you know, I was watching it, and I wanted to see McElroy.
I wanted to say, how's he handling this?
And the people I was watching would say, hey, he's out of it.
Rush, they got they haven't got time to show you people who aren't gonna win.
I said, Well, I would like to I'd like to see how he's dealing with this.
But Rory McElroy went from three days of start to finish coverage, like Tiger used to get.
And the minute he dropped out of the lead by two strokes, never heard of him.
It's just the way the media is.
So are you telling me that the media determines who's going to win over a year before the election and then decides other people?
No.
No, I'm no, no, no, no, no.
Because no, I'm telling you that that's why they're not covering who they're not covering now.
Not that they're right.
I'm not telling you that they're right.
I mean, it's also it's not their job.
If they're not covered by the media, and that's just that's what the unfortunate part is because I think Herman Cain has a lot to offer, and he's got a lot of substance.
Yeah, I agree, but it's not their job to do his to do to it's not their job to get him coverage.
But they're covering people that they're covering candidates that didn't even attempt some of the initial republic.
They're covering candidates that they hope will embarrass the Republican.
They're covering candidates that they hope will make people not inclined to vote Republican.
That's my point.
Well, that's because the media is not fair and bound.
The media is part of the Democrat political apparatus.
Which is always very short, very short-sighted, in my opinion.
Well, for them, yeah, but it's it is what it is.
So if Herman Cain is to get noticed, he's gonna have to do something himself that gets him noticed.
And here comes the old debate.
You do it with substance, or do you do it with you know, walking around wearing women's underwear?
*Epic music* *Epic music* and
It's open line Friday.
Rush Klimbo serving humanity.
Executing a signed host duties flawlessly zero mistakes.
Look, folks, I don't want to mention any names out there because I frankly don't particularly like the names I would have to mention.
But they're already making fun of Herman Cain and the way he talks on on television.
They're already doing that.
Now they never did that with the BAMster.
As you know, it was just the exact opposite.
Obama, oh my God, look at the crease of his slacks.
Why my God, what a smart guy.
This guy that David Brooks destined not just to be president.
He was gonna be a great one because of the crease in his slacks.
And we're supposed to rely on that.
Conservative columnist for the New York Times.
That's the criteria.
Now which we are supposed to accept Obama being qualified.
Smart guy, very serious candidate, Rush, very, very serious, a man of credible depth, you can hear it.
He's incredibly nuanced.
He's elegant in the way he speaks.
Very eloquent and elegant.
Remember the commentators were marveling at the way Obama spoke and put syllables together.
I can just tell you they're out there making fun of the way Herman Cain talks, just like they make fun of everything else about Palin.
They make fun of everything about Palin.
They make fun of Romney about being a Mormon and uh being a cookie cutter Ken doll.
I don't know what they're making fun of Pollenty for, but they're making fun of Politney, but they're not making fun of Obama.
Now, Herman Cain, if I had to say, Herman Cain probably represents everything the news media says does not exist.
Herman Cain is articulate.
He is very highly successful.
He is a conservative Republican who is black, and that is what they tell you doesn't exist.
And that is a primary problem that Herman Cain has.
You identify yourself as a black conservative, and you may as well be admitting that you're a whore or a prostitute, an uncle Tom, you've been bought off, whatever, you aren't real.
It's not possible for a black person to be conservative.
The way the media and the left look at this country, a black person who is conservative is a black person who would agree with the whole notion of slavery and would want to be a slave owner.
That's how bad it is.
That is how devoid and distanced from reality that they are.
But I mean the media will not even admit that somebody like Herman Cain can exist.
Look what they do to black Americans who identify themselves as conservatives.
You want to talk genuine intelligence.
You want to talk real depth of education, Shelby Steele.
Writer, professor, economics, stuff appears in the Wall Street Journal.
Thomas Sowell, a brilliant economist, philosopher, an incredibly deep individual.
Our sometimes guest host, Walter Williams, Ditto.
These people don't exist.
They are black conservatives.
They are traitors.
They don't they don't deserve any legitimacy at all as far as the media is concerned, as far as the left is concerned, they don't even deserve respect.
Legitimacy of any kind.
And of course, it's the height of unfairness.
That's what it is.
And that's one of the hard cold realities of politics.
It is what it is, and you have to deal with what it is day in and day out.
It's the epitome.
Politics is the epitome, just like meritocracy in sports.
It's the epitome of there's no such thing as fair.
A lot of people think that life is not fair, and that the attempt to make it fair, thus the attempt to legislate outcomes, is destructive and devoid of any reality because it cannot be done.
Genuine fairness has been defined by these people as everybody is the same.
Everybody finishes the same.
Everybody gets up, they go to work if they survive the abortion, they get a job, and they all earn the same amount of money.
They all live in the same kind of house.
They all pollute just as little or as much as their neighbors.
They all have the same kinds of cars.
They all have the same kind of kids who all go to the same kind of college.
That's the utopia.
Everybody's the same.
And to make that happen, we're gonna take away money from people who don't conform.
People have too much, whose car is too big, whose houses are too big.
Don't worry about it.
We'll run around and we'll take what they've got.
And we'll give it to you, and we'll make everybody the same.
Flies in the face of what everybody, left, right, independent, libertarian, everybody in politics knows there is no such thing as fairness.
Not only is there no fairness in politics, there really isn't any fairness in life when you get down to Brastack.
Dope Line Friday, Rush Limbaugh with one big exciting big broadcast hour, busy broadcast hour remaining from our week here in Hollywood from uh from Los Angeles.
And we'll get to as many of your phone calls as uh as possible in the next hour.
And uh the story of the Wall Street Journal of wealth and incomes and why Americans are so unhappy with this economic recovery.
▲
Export Selection