All Episodes
Previous Next
July 20, 2011 - Rush Limbaugh Program
33:21
July 20, 2011, Wednesday, Hour #3
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
And we're back for the thrilling and final hour of today's excursion into broadcast excellence, hosted by me, Rushlin Ball.
Great to have you here, folks.
Telephone number if you want to join us.
I'm sure you do.
800-282-2882.
Email address L Rushbow at EIBNet.com.
Hey Snerdley.
We had a caller that we had a with a caller that uh that wanted to know what was uh Boehner and McConnell's playbook.
And I said there's one word.
And then I changed and I said, no, it's actually three words.
I'll tell you what the one word was.
Duck.
No, no, no, no.
No, no.
The word in the playbook is not cave, it's it's it's duck.
Look, here's here's where we are.
We had a massive landslide election victory last November.
We sent a bunch of conservatives there.
We took control of the House of Representatives.
But the leadership didn't change in the last election.
The leadership is the same bunch.
The leadership is pre-Tea Party.
The leadership is still the old screw.
And they still have the let's make a deal mentality.
We got to do a deal.
We've got to do something.
That's the mentality.
We got to do something.
And they don't.
They really don't have to do anything.
And I don't.
I don't think it's incorrect to say that until there is Tea Party leadership.
You're not going to see significant change.
Why are we still sitting here worried about caving?
Why are we still.
You know, why do I tell you at the opening of every program?
Republicans are very nervous.
Why do I because it's the same leadership.
And they are of the let's make a deal mentality.
If we had Alan West, for example, just to pick a well-known name for the Republican freshman class running the House.
If we had the Tea Party Brigade run, we wouldn't be anywhere near this deal the way we are at present.
It'd be an entirely different dynamic.
If there was different leadership.
You know what happens.
You know, it doesn't really need to be complicated.
Ronald Reagan called them tax and spend liberals, and that's what they are.
That's what they'll always be, tax and spend.
You don't have to call them Marxists or communists or statists or socialists or doofuses or whatever you can.
They are all that, but they're tax and spend.
And if that's what you're for, they are your people.
Tax and spend.
So Moody's, or as uh good friend Stuart Varney says Moodis.
Moodis has just sided with the doofus.
And said that McConnell's plan B is a non-starter.
And the reason McConnell did plan B was to get Moody's approval.
That's the irony here.
We're trying to get the approval of all these people who uh uh we we want them to recognize that we are responsible adults when it comes to the debt ceiling and we are not going to default.
And Moody's looked at McConnell's plan B and said, nope, won't fly with the doofus, and so we'll fly with us.
Plain and simple.
The president who votes perfect, uh present rather, who votes present on the 14 trillion dollar deficit, national debt smitten, he likes the Gang of Six bill.
He's smitten with a bill that doesn't exist because as I say, the Hill.com, he Democrats Gang of Six Plan won't be ready for debt limit deal by August 1st, much less Ramadan, August 1st, well, August 2nd it won't be ready, and it won't be ready August 1st either, which is um, which is Ramadan.
This stage of events, you'd almost have to conclude that Obama needs the crisis more than he needs campaign money.
You know, Goldman Sachs released, well, I think is is is bombshill news.
And here's their version.
Following another week of weak economic data, we have cut our estimates for real GDP growth in the second and third quarter of 2011 to one and a half and two and a half percent, respectively.
They originally were forecasting U.S. economic growth at 2% and 3.25% in the third and fourth quarters.
Uh second and third quarters, excuse me.
They say that their forecasts for Q4 and 2012 are under review, but even excluding any further changes, we now expect the unemployment rate to come down only modestly to 8 and 3 quarters percent the end of 2012.
That's uh the ChICOM growth rate the 9.5%.
We're talking about the United States of America, and these people are predicting a growth rate of one and a half percent.
We're being outgrown by a communist country.
Folks, there's something else going on out there.
Dana Milbank in the Washington Post today and a number of other liberals are saying, you know, Reagan would have Reagan would have done this deal in an instant.
Reagan raised taxes, Reagan raised a debt limit, Reagan signed on to Reagan did all these things.
My God, if these guys can't do this and they keep invoking Reagan, it's it is utter desperation.
You know when they start claiming the mantle of Reagan for themselves that they are desperate.
And as the Heritage Foundation of Morning Bell says today, desperate to sell American people on a yet to be determined plan to raise the debt ceiling, increase taxes, and avoid necessary reforms to reign in government.
Liberals are turning to an unlikely ally to make their case.
Former President Ronaldus Magnus.
Their utterly transparent tactic reveals a larger truth.
Despite all the rhetoric, liberals have failed to convince America that their way is the best way to move Washington forward.
The offending invocation of Reagan's legacy comes from the House Democrats in the form of a 54-second video, featuring audio from a September 87 radio address in which the former president called on Congress to raise the debt ceiling, warning that the U.S. has a special responsibility to itself and the world to meet its obligations.
Quote unquote.
The House Democrats fashioned those words into a bludgeon aimed at Republicans attempting to lay the blame for Washington's failure to raise the debt cement limit squarely at their feet.
So now Washington Post columnist Data Millbank parroted that message in a column today calling Democrats the new party of Reagan and claiming that conservatives' demands for restraining the growth of government is at odds with the policies enacted under Reagan's tenure.
But all of the clever rhetoric and recasting of history is designed to distract from the reality on the ground.
The U.S. government has racked up $14 trillion in debt for more than 800 days.
As a matter of policy now, by the way, the U.S. Senate has failed to pass a budget.
President Obama continues to call for compromise and shared sacrifice, all while insisting on tax increases to fund spending.
That's not how Reagan operated.
This is again the surest sign of desperation you could see when these leftists have to appropriate Reagan as their own.
Can you make You know, if if I'm if I'm Barack Hussein Obama, and I'm as egocentric as he is, and I'm as narcissistic as he is.
And I get up and I see that my media allies are trying to say that, you know, we're we're the new Reagan.
He spent his life, he wrote in his books that his life's work was to destroy Reaganism.
And now his own media and his own party members are invoking Reagan to uh sell this thing.
It's it remains true.
They're the ones who are desperate.
And to show you how desperate, here comes Clinton Clinton.
Hey, you know what?
I'd use that 14th Amendment without hesitation.
I go in there and I'd turn this thing around and I'd make them take me to federal court and sue my uh sue me.
I'd make them sue me.
I'd make them go to courts.
I'd I think it's constitutional is clear.
I think this idea that Congress gets to vote twice on whether to pay for expenditures is appropriate, it's crazy.
And if they don't like it, they take me to court.
That's and by the way, I have little doubt that if it comes to it, Obama will invoke the 14th Amendment.
I think, as a good friend of mine pointed out, he's probably already got the paperwork ready to go sitting in his desk drawer.
If it uh if it comes to that.
Let me take a quick time out here, folks.
We will um do that, be back before you know it with much more broadcast excellence.
I'm back serving humanity, El Rushbaugh.
How does that happen?
I show up.
It's just that simple.
Okay, I mentioned the heat wave uh earlier.
Uh ladies and gentlemen, do you know this heat index?
How how old do you think that is, uh, folks?
How long have you uh heard about the heat index?
What what actually is the heat index?
Well, I did a research out there.
Uh the heat index was developed in 1978 by George Winterling.
And he called it the humature.
It was a combination out there of the temperature and a humidity.
And in 1979, the National Weather Service under Jimmy Carter adopted it.
So some guy comes along and says, you know what, there's a thing called a heat index out there.
Like the wind chill index, the heat index contains assumptions about the human body mass and height, clothing, amount of physical activity, thickness of blood, sunlight, ultraviolet radiation exposure, and the wind speed.
Significant deviations from these will result in heat index values which do not accurately reflect the perceived temperature.
So we move forward to today, and I look here at Drudge, stifling states of America, DC heat to 116.
Now I saw that, and I said, whoa, it's gonna hit 116 degrees of Washington.
So I called up all my weather apps.
And what I found was this Today, high temperature Washington 95.
I scratched my head and I said, well, we don't care what.
Then I went to Thursday, 100 degrees.
Friday, 103.
Saturday it's gonna be 101.
Sunday, twice uh it's gonna be uh 96 and Monday 93.
I don't see 116 here anywhere.
So then I went to the Washington Post, I heard, well, if it's gonna hit 116 degrees in Washington, they certainly will have the news.
And lo and behold, they did.
Here's the headline.
Shock forecast.
NOAA predicts heat index of 116 in Washington Friday.
Not temperature.
So the arbitrary, you're gonna feel like it's 116, but let me ask you.
How many of you were anywhere where it was 116 in uh in in the last few years, months to know what 116 feels like.
Why not just report the temperature what it's gonna be?
It's gonna be 100 degrees.
It's gonna be 103.
That happens every summer in Washington.
And now it's gonna be 116.
It's gonna be deadly hot.
Unprecedented heat.
116 heat index.
More manipulation.
You wait.
What's predictably to follow here?
Global warming stories.
I remember I've got I've looked at I've got I I've got some stories here.
The Unite the 1980 United States heat wave.
Now this is important because in 1979, Newsweek's story on the coming ice age hit.
You know, 1975 Time had one.
1979, Newsweek had a cover story of the coming ice age.
Now I was working in in Kansas City in 1980 for the Kansas City Royals.
And I'm telling you, in August, it was 104, 105 degrees, and I rem we all had to wear suits and ties.
Game day, game night, my job requirements took me down to the field and the clubhouse and all kinds of pregame stuff with sponsors, clients and grand poobahs of this and that.
Wearing coat and tie, it was hot.
It was that the artificial church at the time had three feet of asphalt underneath the carpet.
It players routinely in day games after come off the field would have to go stand in blocks of ice because the cleats that they wore would melt.
In other words, this is nothing new.
I remember and I re when I moved to New York in 198 in July, started there July 4th, actually.
This show started August 1st of 88, but I did a local New York show and I and a show for Sacramento for six weeks prior to there, three weeks, whatever prior starting on July 4th.
And for three weeks in July, I had never experienced that kind of heat and humidity as it was in Manhattan.
The temperature wasn't all that high.
It was just, man, it was just depressive.
I have never forgotten it.
It would rain, and it the rain felt like you were in a shower.
So this is nothing new.
And I'm sure you and your life can remember all kinds of examples of extreme heat.
Uh throughout your life.
But man, this is new.
It's unprecedented.
Look at it.
116 degrees in Washington on Friday.
Unprecedented.
No, it is.
Let's go to Atlanta.
Rob, hello, sir.
Great to have you on the EIB network.
Hi.
Hey, Rush, thanks for taking my call.
I really appreciate You better.
I I I love you, um, but I'm gonna disagree with you.
Uh-oh.
Um I think um we really are.
I'm gonna disagree with you on what you said earlier about if about the Republican leadership.
You said that if if we had just had different Republican leadership, things would be different.
And and maybe that's right, but but I don't think so.
And here's why I I really think that us limited government types um really are Charlie Brown trying to kick the football.
Um we elected Ronald Reagan, government grew.
We we elected uh we changed the House of Representatives under Newt, and we had a a short timeout, the government grew, and now we elected these Tea Party Republicans, and and we're getting ready to fall on our back again.
And my point is that We have a we have a systemic problem.
Um it's no George Washington couldn't go there and fix this.
The the the way this way the uh government is operating itself is predetermined to spend money.
And that's that's my only point.
And it and it and all the talk about electing the right people and uh and just you know call them and writing them and make them do the right thing isn't gonna fix the problem because it's a systemic problem, and there's lots of reasons for that, I think.
But but I think we we should start talking about that.
Well, I I have been all day.
Uh the the system is just another word for the ruling class.
Well, no, no, the the system is is is the way the constitution is operating and is and is understood and the way the political system is set up.
Um what's what is for example No, you okay.
So our const are you saying the Constitution's the problem then?
Well, uh you know, I'm su I I not necessarily as it was originally founded, I don't.
I think personally I think that the we're we're the you know the the major historic point was uh was the 17th Amendment.
I don't think that that um uh that if we had senators who represented states that we would have ended up with Supreme Court that we have, which would have which would allow uh the things that it has as far as interstate commerce and all the rest.
You're complicating this too much.
You you said that the you said that that we've elected a Tea Party and nothing changed.
I disagree.
If it weren't for the Tea Party, we would have caved.
If it weren't for the Tea Party, there wouldn't have even been a disagreement even after winning the election.
If it were a Tea Party leadership, it would be different.
I there I have no doubt about that.
Yeah, we elected Newton to Boys, and they did balance the budget for the first time in a long time.
At the same time, the doofuses of this country elected Clinton.
Here's your system.
Here's your system.
We have some interesting news.
Oh, what it when four astronauts aboard Atlantis heading home.
When's that sp when are they supposed to land?
Do you have any idea?
I'll find out.
Because I got this great tracking thing on uh Google Earth.
NASA put together the shuttle flight tracker, and it's uh we put the link up at Rush Limbaugh.com.
Thursday.
I want to look at it.
I want to I want to track the landing on this thing.
It's a three DNA.
I don't have to be up early.
I mean, it once it capped, I guess I could watch the launch today if I wanted to.
It just captures the whole thing and then it's it keeps it as a file.
Uh folks, big news here.
Forbes dot com.
Obama calls Democrat leaders to White House at a meeting to take place shortly before 3 p.m.
In other words, Obama has summoned Democrats only to a post-rush show meeting at the White House.
Obama has told the Democrats in Congress and leaders, come to the White House for a meeting after the Limbaugh show.
That's what it means when you got a meeting that starts at three o'clock.
That means you're meeting after the rush show.
Now what what could their problem be?
You figure they got a problem.
They're not calling a meeting to celebrate, are they?
No, they're not gonna not worry about combating the dupus thing.
The Republicans were supposed to have caved by now.
The gang of six was supposed to have been universally adopted, and it hasn't been.
See, they've got a the Democrats have a problem.
And Obama has a problem.
They all know, quote unquote, Obama's a great leader.
He just cursed with bad followers.
He just cursed with bad followers.
So that's their problem.
What are they gonna do?
We know we got a great leader here, but the followers are embarrassing as hell.
The followers are really bad people.
So we need better followers.
How are we going to get better followers?
will probably be what the meeting is.
No, I somebody asked me if I thought the previous caller who cited a 17th Amendment and said he was basically trying to say the system is the Constitution.
The Constitution is one of the problems where we are, 17th Amendment and all that.
There's a group of people out there, folks, that want a constitutional convention.
And it'd be the nuttiest thing we could do, because you'd just turn the whole country over to the left, the parasites and government operatives, that's who would take over, and they would rewrite the Constitution so that it would say exactly what they are doing and what they believe.
You know, the left fights on and on.
They really, when you look at at how they operate, they don't look for knockout punches.
But they keep at it and they keep it.
Just like the old Soviets did.
Soviets didn't have four-year plans.
They just had a plan.
They had an objective.
And however long down the road it took them to get there, that's, and they were never deterred until they, of course, couldn't go on anymore because of their own implosion.
They keep at it and they keep at it.
And we, Republicans, over the course of history have shown that we will surrender all the time.
Now we got people dumping on Reagan.
And knew it when he was driving the agenda.
We have to stay at this.
There's no option.
There's no choice.
Can't cave.
There's no other way out other to sit back and watch it all crumble, which is what?
That's the only option we've got.
If we do nothing, we sit back and watch it all crumble.
Reagan didn't have a conservative House.
The House was Democrat his entire presidency.
In the Senate, it was Republican a few years, then the Republicans lost it, but it was never a conservative Senate.
You think if Jim Dement or Ron Johnson or Marco Rubio were leading the Senate, you think we would have had something akin to the McConnell plan offered by any of them.
There wouldn't have been a McConnell plan offered if we'd have had somebody like Rubio leading the Senate.
I'm not saying just change the GOP leadership and that'll fix things.
There's not a single act that's going to fix things.
I'm just I'm just making observations out there.
I just think we have to press the case at every level.
Every opportunity, every way.
Which is why I've just I've lost patience with people that want to capitulate and surrender at the first negative press report.
It doesn't fit my agenda.
By the way, folks, more on this heat wave business.
Uh story from the Associated Press.
Headline says it all.
Heat wave, hardest on nations' poorest communities.
I I I I kid you not how similar.
I mean, journalism has a playbook.
Women and minorities.
Hardest hit.
Without fail, women and minorities hardest hit.
With much of the nation in the grip of a broiling heat wave, few people are hit as hard as the poor.
And few places are poorer than the Ramshacle communities along the Texas Mexico border.
Known as Colonius.
Of course, the heat doesn't bother the rest of us at all.
No.
It only bothers the poor.
To which I say, take the food stamp, go get an air conditioner.
Well, poverty in this country today.
I saw this.
Poverty now includes a big screen TV.
Air conditioning in a car.
People in poverty have those things.
In this country.
Yes, it's true.
I saw it.
And in Fort Myers, Florida.
Great that you waited.
Nice to have you on the EIB network.
Hello.
Megadinos from the Gulf Coast, Mr. T. Thank you, sir.
Hey, I you were speaking about the uh the phony baloney uh polls that they're putting out uh saying that uh the American people favored a balance approach and tax increases and everything else.
Yeah.
It got me thinking, and which is uh one of your greatest contributions to society as you get us thinking.
Um it got me thinking back to the health care debate and how seemed to me that uh most of the polls out there uh seemed to indicate that an overwhelming majority of the American people were opposed to it, but they didn't seem to care about the polls back then, did they?
Oh, no, of course not.
Exactly not.
You're right.
Um the people opposed the healthcare debate that when the people were opposed to immigration didn't no, no, no.
The people were that's what I mean.
Obama's a great leader with bad followers.
Exactly.
Exactly.
In the spirit of uh when opportunity knocks you, you fling the door wide open.
Can I ask you another question about polls?
Uh about polls by all means.
I know them all.
I'm going to ask.
Well, you you you I listen to you talk about them all the time, and many times you uh you say that uh, you know, one side or the other is sweating because of the internals of the poll.
Yeah.
And I never was able to figure out what the internals are.
Well, uh they the the internals uh are actually polls at when I say internals, some people call them across tabs, other people all other people call them uh the charts, the the all the the the minutiae detail that accounts like what I mean by internals meaning private.
Obama has his own polling unit and it's different from the ABC News poll or the CBS poll or any others.
Um when I say internal White House polling, that means the polls they are personally paying for, their campaign is paying for.
Is what I mean.
And their poll, those internal polls are usually privately commissioned, well, they are privately commissioned, and they and they're usually much more focused, and they spend a lot more money on them.
It's their I mean it is their sole business.
You know, polling data and campaigns go together like uh uh water and soap for most people.
Well, thank you very much, Rush.
That's why you have a lifelong uh student at the uh Limbaugh Institute of uh of uh advanced conservative studies.
Appreciate that.
Thanks.
Thanks, thanks very much.
I uh I appreciate that.
Hey, folks.
You know, I uh peep people ask me uh was it really that bad in Joplin when you went out of destruction?
Said it's worse.
The destruction, the devastation in Joplin cannot properly be conveyed with television pictures, which is weird, but it can't.
When you actually are close by and you see it flying low, getting ready to land, or when we took off leaving.
It is amazing.
There are parts of Joplin that looked as much like the seventh century as I saw when I was in Afghanistan.
That's how bad the devastation was.
And it's just uh a reminder of the unpredictable and unstoppable power of Mother Nature.
Tornadoes, hurricanes, earthquakes, whatever.
None of us are immune to natural disasters.
Chris in Henderson, Nevada, which is Las Vegas, essentially.
Hello, sir.
Hey, Russia.
Mega, what stays happens in Vegas stays in Vegas Diddles.
Thank you very much, sir.
Longtime listener, first time caller.
I've uh I've got a theory that I think warrants your expert uh analysis, and that is that I think what's happening is we're seeing uh the progressives and the left, I guess, in general, is seeing their entire paradigm, their belief system is being challenged.
Um the last two and a half years is evident of that.
What's happening in Europe is evident of that.
And so I think it's to be expected you'd get this kind of reaction.
I know I would react strongly if someone said, hey, uh, your entire way of thinking about stuff.
What are your thoughts?
Um, I I think depends on which liberals you're talking about.
But I think rank and file doofus liberal believers are stunned.
They really do expect the utopia.
They really do expect fairness and equality.
And roses, and uh and all that wonderful stuff.
I I think they're I think they are enraged and angry all the time anyway, but now even more so because they're seeing firsthand it doesn't work.
Liberal leaders are another matter.
They have known forever that they are governing against the will of people.
Now in Europe, they've brought the people along to the when the people have no choice anymore.
And they know human nature, and they know that a majority of people can be made to be very lazy and become dependent.
But they're very patient about all this.
My point, they they'll work on this.
They never give up an idea.
Once they say if they decide the SUV is bad, it's good.
At some point the SUV is going to go.
Unless they're fought.
So I I don't think there's anything mysterious about them.
And I think they know this.
They they look at they have to lie in order to get elected.
They know they're governing against the will of people.
Obama knows it.
He just doesn't care at all.
It's I know it's hard to understand when you're talking about the president, but it's true.
Folks, one other important point about internal polls.
They're true.
A candidate needs the truth.
A campaign needs to know the exact lay of the land.
Internal polls, privately commissioned polls by candidates, are dead-on accurate.
As accurate as polling can be, as distinguished from public polls.
Never forget that.
▲
Export Selection