All Episodes
Previous Next
Oct. 12, 2011 - Rush Limbaugh Program
34:24
October 12, 2011, Wednesday, Hour #2
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Well, Snerdley, you'll be interested to know that Business Insider just posted a story saying that Herman Kane has lost the Tea Party.
Herman Kane lost the Tea Party last night when he said he would have hired, what was it, Greenspan?
They liked Greenspan at the Fed.
That's what it was.
Yeah, he said he would appoint a Fed chairman like Greenspan.
So the business insider, some guy named Zeke Miller.
So, okay, that's it.
I guess Herman Kane's finished.
Business Insider says he lost a Tea Party last year.
There's one thing, you know, Rick Santorum did say.
Let me ask an audience, how many of you support this 999 thing?
Zilch zero no button.
Now, the 999 plans, a 9% sales tax and 9% flat tax, fair tax, and 9% something else.
And every one of those people up on the stage that talked about it said, yeah, that 9% is going to be 20% in two years.
Now, something here about this needs to be said.
If you're going to try to take Herman Kane's 999 plan and discard it, disqualify it because, well, that 9% tax rate, forget the sales tax.
I mean, a lot of people don't want that.
But any 9% tax rate is going to be 20% in two years.
Well, if somebody proposes a fair tax, say 15%, anybody says, oh, no, I can't go for that.
That 15% is going to be 20% in six months.
If that's how we're going to refute these plans, I mean, there's none that can ever be implemented because they'll never stay at the, and Herman said, no, it's not going to happen because I'm going to require two-thirds vote of Congress to raise the tax above 999.
Of course, that begs the question, well, who's going to, how are you going to pass that requirement?
Two-thirds.
The Congress is going to readily give up their power of social architecture that they have with the tax code.
But stop and think about this.
Here's a business insider guy.
Herman Kane's finished because of a single issue, and it's Alan Greenspan.
Able to point somebody like Greenspan and that's it.
Okay, forget Herman.
Next up.
I love the way this works.
By the way, well, he was.
Newt Gingrich was the smartest guy in the room.
There was, here, Newt has a follow-up.
I didn't know I had a follow-up here, but it was on the next page.
But in Grab 17, we'll play these two back-to-back.
17 again, this is Newt talking about, well, maybe Barney Frank, Chris Dodd need to go to jail.
I think it's perfectly reasonable for people to be angry, but let's be clear who put the fix in.
The fix was put in by the federal government.
And if you want to put people in jail, I want to second what Michelle said.
You ought to start with Barney Frank and Chris Dodd, and let's look at the politicians who created the environment, the politicians who profited from the environment, and the politicians who put this country in trouble.
Clearly, you're not saying they should go to jail.
Well, in Chris Dodd's case, go back and look at the countryside deals.
Barney Frank's case, go back and look at the lobbyists.
He was close to Freddie Mac.
Clearly, clearly, you're not saying they should go to jail.
Oh, why is it so clear that anybody at Wall Street ought to go to jail?
Somebody explained this to me.
Clearly, you're not saying they should go to jail.
Then Newt followed up.
He didn't stop, said this.
Everybody in the media who wants to go after the business community ought to start by going after the politicians who have been at the heart of the sickness, which is weakening this country, and ought to start with Bernanke, who has still not been exposed for the hundreds of billions of dollars.
I want to repeat this.
Bernanke has in secret spent hundreds of billions of dollars bailing out one group and not bailing out another group.
I don't see anybody in the news media demanding the kind of transparency at the Fed that you would demand of every other aspect of the federal government.
And I think it is corrupt and it is wrong for one man to have that kind of secret power.
And the audience loved it.
They went nuts.
By the way, greetings.
Welcome back.
Rush Limbaugh serving humanity by being here.
It's all it takes.
The Limbaugh Institute for Advanced Conservative Studies.
Telephone number if you want to be on the program 800-282-2882 and the email address El Rushbo at EIBNet.com.
So clearly nailed them.
You know that Karen Tumulty has an MBA from Harvard.
Karen Tumulty, who was on the moderator panel last night, has an MBA, a Master of Business Administration from Harvard University.
Now, if there was ever anything that proved the worthlessness of one of those, it's that bit of news.
I have some emails from people saying, you know, you need to tone it down today.
You're too revved up about these media people because these media people are actually asking questions that make our people look good.
Newt, Michelle Bachman, they look great answering those questions.
Gotcha questions.
You know, Rush, they actually ended up working.
I understand that.
That's not what peeves me.
What peeves me, folks, is the substance and the reality of this.
We are living in a destroyed economy for very learnable reasons.
Very discernible reasons.
Inarguable reasons.
It has been years since the evidence was procured.
We had the authorette of a book on this program, Gretchen Morgenson from the New York Times, who exposed the whole thing.
We interviewed her in the Limbaugh letter.
Everybody in that town knows what happened.
Everybody in that town, including Karen Tumbledy, knows what went on.
They know it was Fannie and Freddie, and they know it was the federal government imposing these rules on the lenders.
They know it.
And what infuriates me is that they continue with the lie.
They continue with the myth for the express purpose of trying to trip up these Republicans and make them look like cold-hearted, uncaring about people, Republican candidates who only want to support the rich.
That's what infuriates me.
That's why I love Newt's answer to this, and it's why I like Bachman's answer.
But the truth is not enough.
Because after this debate's over, these people in the media continue to spread this lie.
And they continue the construct that Republicans are a bunch of fringe kooks who don't care about people.
That's what irritates me about it, is that they know.
Now, I know I said Karen Tumbley looked like she had a blank stare on her face, and she did.
And it is arguable whether she knew.
But I'm telling you, it's not a secret in that town what went on because the people that were responsible for it had gotten rich.
They have profited from it personally.
Everybody knows what went on.
Everybody knows what the subprime mortgage business was.
Everybody knows that it was the federal government under the aegis of affordable housing and equality and making sure everybody had a home.
You know how else they know?
They played a clip from 2004 last night in that debate of George W. Bush praising the whole concept of homeownership.
They're trying to shift the whole notion that it was Bush that was behind us.
They know what went on.
They know what goes on here.
This is this gotcha business.
Frankly, if the right people are answering the questions, yeah, you can turn it into a positive for the moment.
But the entire Washington, D.C. elite, ruling elite establishment continues to live propped up by lie after lie after lie and treat the people who are trying to get to the bottom of this and fix the problems that we face as the kooks and as the extremists, as the haters and all of this.
And sometimes, look, I know that this is the rule and I know this is what goes on.
I'm the one that defined it.
It's still, there's some days it ticks me off.
Just as it ticks me off, and everybody knows in their heart that Obama is purposely doing what he's doing.
Everybody knows it.
And even people on our side don't have the guts to say so.
And all we're talking about here is the American people and their lives being destroyed.
That's all we're talking about, which to me is a major, big thing.
But what seems to be of paramount importance here is propping up the phony ruling elite status in New York and Washington rather than actually dealing with fixing this mess for the benefit of the country and for the benefit of the American people, which they all claim to be doing, but none of them are.
So that's what irritates me about it.
I know that the guys, like Newt, looked great answering the question.
Michelle Bachman looked great answering the question.
The very idea the question is still asked just irritates me.
We're not going to get to the bottom of this, and we're not going to turn this around and fix it as long as we continue to live in a lie.
As long as the whole propaganda that's promulgated here is not checked, countered, and done away with.
Let me take a brief time out.
We'll come back.
And we will start weaving your phone calls into the media.
By the way, in 2008, a little irony for you from Karen Tummelty.
During the 2008 presidential campaign, Karen Tummelty accused McCain's campaign of playing the race card for a television ad, which criticized the connections between Senator Obama and Franklin Reigns, who was the former CEO of Fannie Mae, who was one of the people who actually got nailed, who got caught in some of the shenanigans going on over there.
So McCain runs an ad connecting Obama to Reigns, and she does a story.
And actually, she's at Time magazine at the time, accusing the McCain campaign of playing the race card.
You know, all about protecting Obama.
And this is from the media that loved McCain.
So the hypocrisy here is what grates on me now and then.
Anyway, your calls are coming up next as we continue.
Don't go away.
Okay, Charles and Tucson, you're next or first on the program.
Great to have you and welcome.
Hello, sir.
Ditto, sir, from Tucson.
I'm calling because I have a request of you.
And I believe the time is now, sir.
I believe it's your duty to back one of these conservative candidates.
I believe that you have an obligation to this country and to the people to back one of these candidates.
You're in a unique position, sir, where you understand the manipulation of the process of the establishment and everybody else out there.
I can't thwart that, but you can, and I believe that's your duty.
Really, you think I can thwart the establishment?
I think if there's any way you can influence or assist one of the conservative candidates who's going up against the world, like Herman Kane, who has poor fundraising and organization, things like that, with the media going after him, Republicans going after him.
And I think if there's any way that you can influence or assist him in that process, then you need to, because this election, everyone in America right now is watching their country destroyed before their very eyes.
And this election is important.
And I'm asking you, along with many other Americans like me, asking you to step up and stand up to these guys.
Let me ask you a question.
You're probably not going to like the question, but I'm going to ask you the question anyway.
Ask from my perspective as a broadcast professional.
I follow your advice and I pick a candidate.
And then I do what you would expect to be done every day after.
I just pump this person.
I encourage, I tell people this is the answer, whoever the candidate is.
What happens if the candidate over whom I have no control goes out there and does or says something stupid or loses big?
What does that what you realize the danger I mean when I don't have control over what they're going to say, when I don't have any power over the ability of whoever it is I choose to run a campaign that I would run, what makes sense about that?
Why do you want me to short-circuit the election process?
It's up to these people to stand out, get noticed, and get elected.
I understand that, sir.
And once again, that's why the burden of responsibility is on you, not me.
And I can't make that decision for you.
But I know that in the past, a couple people swore an oath and they pledged their lives, their fortunes, and their sacred honor for this country.
Right.
And you might have to put yourself out there.
It's a risk.
And that's the decision that you must make, sir.
But make no mistake about it.
You have an influence on this country.
I talk to people one person at a time.
I convince people one person at a time.
You talk to 20 million people at a time.
That's right.
23.
You can't do that in the media.
You have an influence that I can't match.
And that's what people like me are asking you to do, sir.
I know you can't control what they say.
That is a significant thing.
Let's say I see.
Let's say I end up supporting candidate X, and it's learned in three months that Candidate X has a semen-stained dress in some woman's clothes.
Yes, but, sir, you're not going anywhere.
You're not going to lose.
You've been attacked so many times.
You've taken it, and you've risen above it, and you've gotten stronger every time.
You're not going anywhere, sir.
Well, that happens to be true.
Now, I have to admit, you're right about that.
And you put yourself out there for Operation Chaos, sir.
What it do?
It didn't necessarily succeed because we got Obama, but your influence, your influence was shown in that capacity.
If someone like Herman Kane just gets a little bump, he can go from being the guy that doesn't have the money, but people like him, to being the serious contender that you believe he is.
I just told you, Business Insider just said he's finished because he would support.
He's not finished.
I'm not listening to what any of those dingleberries have to say about Herman Kane or any of those people.
They have no clue.
They have no clue what the people of America feel or think.
They're like aliens on another planet in a little bubble typing things up.
You have an answer to everything I throw at you.
I've been listening to you for 10 years, sir.
I've made up my own mind on things.
I'm not a mod-numbered robot asking you to do it for me.
I'm asking you as a leader to step up and take that burden of responsibility.
And you want me to pledge my life, my honor, and my sacred fortune in the process.
Yes, sir.
Not sacred fortune, a sacred honor.
Yes, sir.
I want you to, you might have to put yourself out there a little bit, but you have a lot of people who don't feel like they're being heard.
They're watching the news.
They're watching Karl Rove.
They're watching Krauthammer.
And they're saying, where is the person that's speaking for me?
And you're one of the only conduits that has that.
By the way, by the way, you know, I have profound respect for Charles Crownhamer, but I guess on the Fox All-Star panel show, the special report with Brett Bayer, Mr. Crownhammer said it's really unfortunate here what's happened with the Arab Spring.
The Christians are being wiped out and that it's looking really bad for democracy over there.
And, well, I'm saying to myself, where is the apology to all the people who said that from the beginning?
No, I'm not thinking about me.
I don't think about me.
But you had the whole inside the beltway intelligentsia thinking that that Arab Spring was democracy on parade, that we were democratizing the Middle East.
Had to get rid of Mubarak, had to do this, had to get rid of Gaddafi and all that.
And now, without just, okay, forget I said that.
Don't remember I said that.
Looks like it's bad for democracy now.
There's never any accountability here.
And it's just, it's just a side note here, really worthy of nothing.
I just, it's one of these things that I continually am surprised by, is that the genuinely, really smart people don't see it clearly from the get-go.
And when they finally do see it, there's no mention of how they got it wrong.
But at the outset, when there were those saying, no, no, no, no, this is, you guys are ending up.
You're encouraging the Muslim Brotherhood.
This is not democracy on parade in the Middle East.
This is the very opposite.
Oh, you know what you're talking about.
You're just a reactionary just don't understand the issues and principles involved and so forth and so on.
When in fact, we do.
Why is the attack on the Christians in Egypt?
Why is that not as important as the attack on the Muslims in Bosnia was?
I'll tell you why it's not.
because the very people who missed this can now very loudly come around and contradict themselves.
The Christians are being, what did I say?
There no longer is a Christian church anywhere in Afghanistan now.
And the, you pronounce it, Coptic, Coptic Christians in Egypt, they're being summarily wiped out.
And we were all told this is a wonderful thing that we should support and get on the bandwagon.
This is democracy on parade.
Anyway, look at, Charles, I appreciate the call.
I understand what you're saying, and I thank you very much for it.
We will be right back.
Investors Business Daily has an editorial that comments on some leaks.
Apparently, the WikiLeaks dump had some interesting data in it.
Leaked cables show that Barack Obama wanted, when he went to Japan, to apologize for dropping the bomb on Hiroshima and Nagasaki.
And Japan said, no, you're not.
The Japanese said, you are not apologizing for that.
Leaked cables show that Japan nixed a presidential apology to Hiroshima and Nagasaki for using nuclear weapons to end overseas contingency operation known as World War II.
IBD asks, will the next president apologize for the current one?
The obsessive need of this president to apologize for American exceptionalism and our defense of freedom continued recently when Barack Obama's State Department, run by Hillary Clinton, contacted the family of al-Qaeda propagandist and recruiter Samir Khan to express its condolences to his family.
Khan, right-hand man to Anwar al-Olaki, was killed along with Olaki in an airstrike in Yemen on September 30th.
We apologized for killing a terrorist before he could help kill any more of us.
Yet another part of the world apology tour that began with Obama taking the oath of office to protect and defend the U.S. and its Constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic, something he immediately felt sorry for.
Another stop on his apology tour, Japan, where Obama, November 2009, bowed to the emperor, something no American president had ever done.
It could have been worse if plans to visit Nagasaki and Hiroshima to apologize for winning the war with the Adam bomb had come to pass.
A heretofore secret cable dated September 3rd, 2009, recently released by WikiLeaks.
Sent to Secretary of State Clinton, it reported Japan's foreign minister telling U.S. Ambassador John Ruse that the idea of President Obama visiting Hiroshima to apologize is a non-starter.
The Japanese feared the apology would be exploited by anti-nuclear groups and those opposed to the defensive alliance between Japan and the U.S. Whatever the Japanese motive, Obama's motive was to once again apologize for defending freedom, this time for winning with devastating finality the war Japan started.
He's also a pure unfettered leftist who's got a chip on his shoulder about this country.
Like I told you, Elizabeth Warren, running for the Senate in Massachusetts, run around and saying, hey, you get rich in this country.
You didn't do it alone.
You needed all the rest of us.
That's how Obama looks at this country in the world.
America thinks it's a superpower.
It's not a superpower.
America only got where it went because it stole everything from other people.
Now, Obama has to run around the world apologizing for that, thinking that will make the world love us.
I know a lot of you probably show, what, the Japanese didn't want the apology?
No, they have a nuclear energy industry.
They don't want a bunch of anti-nuke extremists running around protesting their existence now.
The Japanese prime minister had to talk the president of the United States out of apologizing.
And it should be noted, ladies and gentlemen, Reverend Wright is obsessed with Hiroshima and Nagasaki.
It's even mentioned in his Audacity of Hope sermon, which inspired Obama's book title.
And yet Obama claims he never heard what Reverend Wright said all those years, that he was a member of the church.
Here's Bill in Knoxville, Tennessee.
Hi, Bill.
Welcome to the EIB Network.
Hello.
Hi, Rush.
Love you 99.8% of the time.
Thank you, sir, very much.
I appreciate that.
Okay, I've got a comment.
Perry did ask Romney about his aides visiting Obama on the health care issue.
And he handled that question very well, as he handled Huntsman's question about him tearing down companies.
I think there's only three people that have a chance of winning the election, and it's Romney, Kane, and Gingrich.
I could tear down $999 just by saying I'm on Social Security and already pay 9% sales tax.
He's going to add 9% on my 30 grand a year Social Security and another 9% sales tax.
The other one is Gingrich.
And you made a comment some time ago about what could have been.
My comment is: you have a tremendous influence on this nomination.
And according to Reagan's 11th commandment, I kind of wish you'd give Romney a little break.
He's been vetted.
He's the only one that's really been vetted so far.
And he's handled it quite adroitly.
And I think I don't want to end up with another John McCain who has, you know, Gingrich and Kane haven't really been vetted like Romney.
Okay, that's what I wanted to say.
I appreciate your listening to me.
Well, I'm glad you called.
Just one small disagreement.
Rick Perry asked Romney about remarks made by a guy named Glenn Hubbard, who was Romney's economic advisor that said Obamacare and RomneyCare were the same thing.
But I don't think Romney was hit up by anybody for the fact that his advisors actually went to the Oval Office for three meetings, one of which was attended by Obama to help them implement Obamacare.
And even if Perry brought this up, it was not nearly as forceful, and nobody else did either.
I was expecting it.
I'm thinking that all the rest of these people on the panel are there because they still think they've got a shot at this thing.
And whenever there is a huge vulnerability that's been exposed about the frontrunner, you go for it.
And nobody did.
That's something that surprised me.
And maybe the lower tier doesn't think they really have a chance.
And that they don't want to bloody Romney up too much.
That's the only other explanation.
Maybe they just don't think they've got.
I mean, the conventional wisdom is this is over.
That nobody can stop Romney.
He's got the money.
Nobody else has anywhere near the amount of money.
It's inevitable.
I mean, that's what is being put out there.
It's inevitable.
I have people writing the same thing in an email.
Don't rush.
Give it up.
It's over.
It's Romney.
Everybody knows it's going to be just a fait accompli.
Nobody can get close to him.
He's got the money.
He's got all the years of experience.
It's who the big Whigs want.
That's it.
It's over.
You have all kinds of people.
I think you, some of you would probably be surprised if you realize Romney believes in man-made global warming.
For example.
And as governor of Massachusetts took positions and endorsed policies that would promote the whole concept of man-made global warming.
Now, I happen to know it's a hoax.
I happen to know that there's no such thing as man-made global warming, not as an explanation for climate change.
And that's just one thing.
Sorry, folks, I see a great opportunity here.
We have a liberal socialist president who is as discredited as one is ever going to be.
We have circumstances that are dire.
Country needs to be turned around if we're going to preserve it.
Yeah, you know what?
I could check out.
I really could.
I don't need to work anymore.
I could get rid of a lot of grief.
I could get rid of a lot of distractions.
I get punt.
But it matters too much to me.
When I see these yokels marching down a Wall Street, the so-called future of the country, good Lord, I get scared.
I know they're small in number, but I know that there are a lot of people that think like that.
They've been educated this way.
They're going to have to be beaten, defeated.
And everybody who's responsible for them thinking what they think is going to have to be dealt with at some point if this is going to be turned around.
That 80 years of the slow creep of socialism in this country.
And the answer to it's not Pablo.
Be right back.
Don't go away.
Mark, York, Pennsylvania.
Hi, welcome to EIB Network.
Great to have you on.
Thanks for having me on.
You bet.
Hey, well, I'm calling about in regards to Herman Cain.
You know, a quote I often think of is leadership is action, not position.
And so far, I think out of all, you know, everyone always says Romney, like you were saying, you know, he's the front runner.
But I don't even think people are even focused on him anymore.
And I don't even know where they're getting the information because everyone I've talked to, it's everyone except Romney because maybe he's just a shoe-in.
But right now, I think Herman Kane is definitely gaining ground because of his, you know, before no one really knew who he was.
And now the media is portraying him, you know, as someone who you want to listen to.
I think that's where he's getting a lot of support because, you know, first off, when he is interviewed, he is answering the question with yes or no.
You know, he's not beating around it.
And like the people who supported Chris Christie, a lot of them said they supported him because, you know, he said what was on his mind.
And I think that's what people like about Herman Cain.
He tells you how it is.
Well, there's no right now.
You know, there's no question about that.
I think one of the things that Republican voters are eager for is straight talk, not mealy-mouthed mishmouth or mishmash, but somebody willing to take it to the opposition the way the voters feel it.
And so any candidate that does that is going to resonate.
I think it's one of the reasons Newt is bubbling back up.
He's just taking it right to them.
And I think you're right about Herman Kane.
He's taking it right to them.
And when they try to discredit his little 999 plan, he's unflappable.
He just tells them, like, this poor Bloomberg woman last night that, well, we don't have these independent analysis that say your $999 plan is $200,000 short.
Well, all I have to say about that is that your analysts are just wrong.
And the place erupted.
Here, let's go to soundbite.
This is number 19, John Huntsman.
Charlie Rose asked him, when you mentioned the flat tax, does that mean that you look with some favor upon Herman Cain's 999 plan?
I think it's a catchy phrase.
In fact, I thought it was the price of a pizza when I first heard it.
Okay, but Herman was not at all taken off his game by that.
$999 will pass, and it is not the price of a pizza because it has been well studied and well-developed.
It starts with, unlike your proposals, throwing out the current tax code.
Continuing to pivot off the current tax code is not going to boost this economy.
This is why we developed $999.
9% corporate business flat tax, 9% personal income flat tax, and a 9% national sales tax.
And it will pass, Senator, because the American people want it to pass.
It didn't come off a pizza box.
No, it was well-studied and well-developed.
See, you can't, he's unflappable.
I don't know how else to describe it, but where can you buy a pizza for $9.99?
That's a slice, right?
A slice is $9.99.
Really?
They do have $9.99.
I thought Huntson might have been out of touch.
I don't know where you get a pizza for $9.99.
Some are even cheaper on Tuesday night than $9.99.
Wow, cool.
And Michelle Bachman said, well, you know, I don't know, Herman.
Take your $999 plan and you turn it upside down.
And, you know, Herman devils in the details.
And audience loved that too.
That was a great comeback for it.
It's the fastest three hours in media and two of them are already in the can.
But we've got much more straight ahead, ladies and gentlemen.
Another big, exciting broadcast hour coming up.
You sit tight.
We'll be back and continue.
And I got a great soundbite roster here that we barely scratched the surface of.
I say it looks good.
It may not be when I study it, but I'm going to do that here during the break.
▲
Export Selection