All Episodes
Previous Next
Nov. 4, 2011 - Rush Limbaugh Program
36:55
November 4, 2011, Friday, Hour #1
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Welcome to today's edition of the Rush 24 7 podcast.
I am starting to sense it.
I'm starting to see it when I sense it.
When I see it, probably is true.
It's been my track record.
I think I detect the media heading into damage control on the Herman Cain story.
A lot of media are since day five now, and still nobody knows what he did.
Not a single media outlet can report what he did.
Some are even suggesting that the politico had no business running this story.
These other journalists who are beginning to say this.
Friday it is, folks, so let's go.
Live from the Southern Command in Sunny South Florida.
It's open line Friday.
Yep, yep, yep, yep, yep, yep.
Yahoo, big showbiz break is yours today if you get on the program because Friday is the day you get to pretend the program is yours.
Meaning you get to talk about whatever you want.
Few people, I'm gonna say this.
Few people really take advantage of this opportunity.
And by that I mean.
And I understand this, by the way.
I mean, look at Monday through Thursday, we take calls based on subject matter that interests me.
I mean, even if I'm not talking about it, if somebody brings up something and interests me, we'll talk about it.
If they want to talk about something I don't care about, Sayonara.
Adios.
See you later.
Ciao.
But on Friday doesn't matter.
Therefore, on Friday, here's a golden opportunity for people to talk whatever.
And I'm always amazed at how on Friday people want to talk about what interests me.
Anyway, you know the rules.
Feel free.
Question, comment.
You think something needs to be said that isn't being said or hasn't been, or if you think it hasn't been, telephone number 800-282-288-2.
If you want to go the email route, we check the email.
That's L Rushball at EIB net.com.
Media also in damage control over the Occupy Oakland riots the night before last.
I mean, yesterday, the uh media was trying to pretend the Oakland protests were peaceful, the very model of a love fest, but now the truth is coming out along with some of the pictures, and they're switching over to damage control mode, and they're doing the same thing in the Herman Cain story.
Really, folks, five days now, and nobody knows what he did.
Think of all the news stories there have been.
Think of the political and how they got this ball rolling.
And after five days, there has yet to be a report what he did.
Nobody knows still.
Five days.
As Wes Pruden, former editor-in-chief of the Washington Times points out, if somebody, when he ran the Washington Times newsroom, if somebody like the political reporters would have brought this story to him, he would have thrown them down the steps.
And if they survived that, he would have fired them.
You telling me you want my newspaper to publish this rot gut?
What do you got?
There's nothing here.
I want names, places, activities, things that happen.
There's nothing here.
No, we want to run this, and we want Kane to respond to it.
We want him to provide the information.
Well, uh a lot of ease, even seasoned journalists, and I got sound bites.
You can tell they're getting edgy now because they're getting all upset at me playing a race card in reverse on these guys.
The reverse race card, it works every time it's tried when I play it, and it's got them all ticked off.
So we got that to do.
Here's uh Washington Post, ABC poll.
70% of Republicans say the Cain allegations don't matter.
Can I tell you, folks, behind the closed doors of the mainstream media outlets, that poll, because it's in the Washington Post.
I can't tell you how that ticks them off.
This was supposed to destroy Herman Cain and I'll tell you something else.
It was supposed to destroy every other Republican by sp by shifting the focus to all of them in this man, getting them to comment to uh not comment to uh pile on Cain Or what have you?
This was you know, I I'll tell you what, there's a there's a question out there that uh I I really think that needs to be asked because the the way the media is doing their their backtrack on this now, the way you're doing damage control as the same thing as yesterday was start focus on how poorly Herman Cain is handling this.
Which, of course, we uh on the cutting edge that aspect of the story yesterday.
He's doing such a lousy job handling this.
How about a poll on how good a job Obama's doing handling the economy?
What do you think a poll like that would look like?
Well, we already have that poll, and it's called what do you think of the direction of the country?
Good, bad, worse, horrible, what only 16 to 30 percent, depending on the poll, think the country's head in the right direction.
So, on what do you want to judge a candidate or a a uh a political person's qualifications, how he's handling a no name, no information, empty scandal with quotation marks around it, or how he's handling the U.S. economy.
It's like I said yesterday, I don't care, folks, and no matter what happens here, every Republican nominee or candidate for the nomination.
Every one of them is so superior to Barack Obama, it's laughable.
And of course, the drive-by's know that.
And the Democrats know that.
But when you got the Washington Post and ABC News in their joint poll saying that 70% of Republicans don't care about the Herman Cain allegations.
What that can be translated to is the following.
Politico, you failed.
You attempted, along with others in the mainstream media to take the guy out, and you failed.
Your influence isn't what you thought it was.
Alana Goodman at Commentary Magazine writes basically the entire Washington media could have collectively called in sick all week, and it wouldn't have made a difference, at least not for 70% of Republicans.
The latest Washington Post poll, one of the first to be taken post scandal, reports that seven in ten Republicans say reports that Herman Cain made unwanted advances toward two employees when he was head of the National Restaurant Association.
Allegations which have been stiffly rebutted don't matter when it comes to picking a candidate.
Could it be in determining why this result is what it is, you could say, well, maybe people don't care as much about sexual harassment anymore.
Maybe people recognize what it's always been, a tool for advancing liberalism.
Or maybe people just fed up with the media in its modern incarnate, particularly Republicans.
We know that's true.
We know that most Republicans, even if they're rhino republicans, are fed up with the way the media is going about conducting business these days.
Herman Cain's manager, Mark Block, was on Fox this morning.
American newsroom, he was on there with Martha McCallum, and he said this is the last day he's going to talk about this.
So this the media and everybody's turned Washington into a cesspool, and we are not going to swim in that cesspool anymore.
We are not going to play by the rules that the media has established.
Block said the fact of the matter is the political article, if it was held up to the same standards as the code of ethics of the code of ethics for journalism, the people involved would be fired.
This is Mark Block, who is a target of the media this week as being the architect of the guy who's mishandling this, who's advising Cain poorly, making Cain look like an idiot.
This block guy, he's the guy that puffed on a cigarette of TV and they hate the guy.
And so he finally has uh has awakened.
He also said that the Cain campaign's Considering its legal options and may sue Politico over the as yet unsubstantiated allegations, and that's what they are.
Five days now, folks.
Do you realize in one day we knew what Clinton had done with Lewinsky?
And we knew that Newsweek spiked the story, and that the estimable Matt Drudge ran it.
We knew on day one what Clinton did.
And he was advised to go out there and lie about it, and it didn't work.
Five days running, and we still don't know what Herman Cain did, and there doesn't appear to be anybody in the media who can tell us.
The media openly begging for the women to come forward and tell their stories.
Wait a minute, don't you know?
How could you run the story without knowing what the women were going to say?
You need the women to come forward and tell the story?
Why can't you just report it if you know it?
Why is it incumbent upon the women who don't want to come forward, apparently.
So that's where we are on that story.
Ladies and gentlemen, I have another thing here.
This is uh this story close to my heart, and we're going to get back to the Cain story, as you can well imagine, because I haven't even gotten the audio sounds by some bites yet.
And uh they're they're enlightening and uh entertaining as well.
One of the things that the left attempts to do is to codify elements of their ideology as science.
That was what global warming and many other things as well, all about.
Codify liberalism as science, therefore making it irrefutable, making it inarguable.
And of course they failed.
Everybody knows that it's a hoax, but liberalism uh is is uh the well, the attempt is made frequently to codify liberalism as science or some other unquestionable aspect of life that people just accept on the basis of the credibility of the field that we're talking about.
And of course, science, up until the global warming hoax had almost perfect credibility.
Somebody was a scientist and said something, it was automatically believed.
Just the way journalists used to do it.
What are you frowning at in there?
Nothing to do with me.
A technical problem in there.
Oh, we got a technical problem with the screener program.
Does that mean that we won't be able to take calls?
Oh, okay.
It just means you won't be able to put them up for me.
I got it.
Anyway, there was a there was a um a very important and major story that we touched on it yesterday, but there's much more information in the latest AP story that makes this story even more pertinent.
Especially vis-a-vis the scientific consensus on man-made global warming, and make no mistake, all of that was nothing more than an attempt to codify liberalism as science, to codify political beliefs as science.
Dutch professor faked data for years.
A prominent Dutch social psychologist, who once claimed to have shown that the very act of thinking about eating meat makes people behave more selfishly, has been found to have faked data throughout much of his career.
And he was, by the way, lionized and treated as a hero all during his career.
In one of the worst cases of scientific fraud on record in the Netherlands, a review committee made up of some of the country's top scientists has found that University of Tilburg professor Diedrik Stoppel systematically falsified data to achieve the results he wanted, just like what happened at the Hadley Climate Center, University East Anglia, London, i.e.
global warming.
And so the university of Tilburg has fired the 45-year-old Dietrich Stappel and plans to file fraud charges against him, according to the university's spokesman.
I have manipulated study data, I have fabricated investigations, he wrote in an open letter published by a newspaper this week.
I realize that via this behavior I have left my direct colleagues stunned and angry and put my field social psychology in a poor light.
This guy's the madoff of science.
The committee set up to investigate Stoppel said that after its preliminary investigation it had found several dozen publications in which use was made of fictitious data in the period since 2004, although Stoppel's career goes back to the early 1990s.
This year, Stoppel co-authored a paper published in Science Magazine that said white people are more prone to discriminate against black people when they encounter them in a messy environment such as one containing litter, abandoned bicycles and broken sidewalks.
This guy actually reported this as the results of a scientific study.
White people are more prone to discriminate against black people when they run up against them in a garbage dump where there are abandoned bicycles and broken sidewalks.
And of course news people on the left, like at Politico and MSNBC just ate it up.
I mean they sucked it up.
They loved it because it confirmed everything their stupid liberalism has taught them.
And there it was now finally codified as science.
White devils discriminate against poor Rastus.
Near garbage dumps, broken sidewalks and littered bicycles.
Something as absurd as that was accepted as genuine science, the result of research and study.
These findings considerably advance our knowledge of the impact of the physical environment on stereotyping and discrimination and have clear policy implications, said the paper.
The findings that white people are more discriminatory against black people in rubbish areas, broken sidewalks and dilapidated bicycles.
Considerably advances our knowledge of the impact of the physical environment on stereotyping and discrimination and have clear policy implications.
Although the paper that linked thoughts of eating meat with antisocial behavior was met with scorn and disbelief when it was published, it took several doctoral candidates Stoppel was mentoring to unmask him.
I gotta take a break, but we'll be right back.
And we're back, Rush Limbaugh having more fun than a human being should be allowed to have.
Here it is, open line Friday.
Here's the meat eater story from the fake scientist in the Netherlands.
It was published August 30th of this year in something called the Dutch Daily News, and the point of this story was meat eaters are selfish and less social.
This is what this guy Stappel, Diedrich Stappel, who's now admitted everything he's done the last five, six years has been a fraud.
Meat brings out the worst in people.
This is what psychologists at the Radbowed University and Tilburg University concluded for various studies on the psychological significance of beef.
Thinking of meat makes people less socially and in many respects more loutish.
It also appears that people are more likely to choose meat when they feel insecure, perhaps because it's a feeling of superiority or status displays.
Let me make an observation here, folks.
I know meat eaters.
I am a meat eater.
I have never met anybody who feels superior to anybody or anything because they eat meat.
But I have I have run into all kinds of holier than now vegetarians and vegans and other wackos who do think they are superior and better and smarter than everybody else.
I know gazillions of beef eaters, and I don't know a one of them who has forced his eating choices on anybody else, but I know a bunch of ragtag, stupid vegan vegetarians, holier than now superiorists, who try to force everybody to eat what they eat and to not eat what they don't approve of.
Such as this bunch of louts demanded in Berkeley, California, that Burger King sell veggie burgers.
And of course, Burger King caved.
So lie after lie after lie about white people, other aspects of sociology and science, meat eaters and so forth, and all of it fraudulent, it was a failed attempt to codify liberalism as science.
Hey, welcome back, folks, at Rush Limbaugh, the EIB Network, and Open Line Friday.
Just one more excerpt from this fraudulent sociologist's piece on meat.
This is important.
This is what he wrote, which he's now admitted was totally fraudulent, made up out of whole cloth.
Thinking of meat does not exactly bring out the best in people.
People who looked at the steak on their plate, had made selfish choices in imaginary situations.
They thought themselves more important than others.
In a fire, they often wished to be saved first, and that they were less willing to help someone who is upset.
It was also found that after people eat ate meat, they felt less connected to others.
They felt lonely and unpopular after eating meat.
Now you think that sounds preposterous, right?
It is no more preposterous than some of the absolute BS that we've had to listen to about global warming for 20 years.
And that we continue to hear about global warming or any of this other cockamami BS about other dietary news the left puts out in an attempt to codify itself as science.
The important thing to remember is this guy's writing was accepted, welcomed, unanimously by American journalists, worldwide journalists who reported this with glee when he wrote this about meat eaters.
I mean, it's technically ridiculous.
But it just goes to show you how how gullible people are, are better stated, how desirous the left is for any codification of their asinine beliefs as science.
The politico with another story.
I'll tell you this bunch of the most sex-obsessed people I've seen since I don't know when.
Just imagine if Ken Starr had been this obsessed.
There's a big long story here by Kenneth Vogel and Maggie Haberman and Alexander Burns, three people, and I can tell you what it says in six words.
More anonymous cane details from the politico.
More anonymous details.
This bunch is positively sex obsessed, and now it's in damage control mode.
Herman Cain flatly denies the most serious allegations facing him.
But Politico has learned new details, making clear there were urgent discussions of the woman's accusations at top levels of the NRA within hours of when the incident was alleged to have occurred.
What's new about that?
We all knew that.
The new details which come from multiple sources, independently familiar with the incident at a hotel during a restaurant association event in the late 90s, put the woman's account even more sharply at odds with Cain's emphatic insistence in news media interviews that nothing inappropriate happened between the two.
What new details?
We still don't know what they are.
More we I'm not kidding when I say anonymous details, not anonymous sources.
We've got anonymous details now make up the bulk of a story.
If I didn't know better, I would say journalism had created a new standard.
Anonymous sources has now morphed into anonymous details.
In recent days, sources have offered new details of the incident.
The woman in question, roughly 30 at the time, working at the NRA's government affairs division, we knew all that.
Told two people directly at the time Cain made a sexual overture to her at one of the group's events, according to the sources familiar with the incident.
She was livid, lodged a verbal complaint with the NRA board member the same night.
But still, we don't know what.
Remember the Duke lacrosse case?
Seasoned reporters hounded those kids based on no evidence, no evidence.
None.
Zero.
Seasoned reporters.
And many of the faculty at Duke signed all kinds of uh uh whatever they were supporting the accuser, condemning the lacrosse team members.
And remember how that turned out?
A total fabricated, made up story that was believed simply because it fit stereotypes of the left.
It fit a narrative.
It fit a template.
And then there's this.
This is uh back to the political from Jonathan Martin.
This scandal now, folks, really intensifies.
Joel Bennett, the attorney for one of the women who complained about Herman Kane, a National Restaurant Association, said today that his client's settlement was dated in September of 1999 and signed by the trade group's general counsel, but not Kane.
Cain had already left the organization by then, before his three year term was up.
So when was the settlement signed?
Nine nine.
September of ninety-nine.
What will the media make of this?
The settlement date.
September of nineteen ninety nine equals nine nine nine.
The same name of Herman Kane's economic plan.
Somebody needs to call the dethroned Dutch sociologist and have him make something of this for us.
To the audio sound bites we go, and we are guarding where did I say we're going to start number five?
Starting in number five last night on PMS NBC, Washington Post columnist Eugene Robinson.
And he was on to discuss the Americans for Herman Cain ad.
And he was asked, okay, obviously that was Limbaugh's voice, and they're calling it a high-tech lynching.
They're playing the race card on this.
What do you think of this, Gene?
It's interesting that people like Limbaugh, who always accuse the likes of me of playing the race card when I write about racism and its continuing presence in American society, are awfully quick to play that same card when they think it's to their advantage.
I assume that means that Russia's now going to change his position on affirmative action on a whole lot of other things in which race is involved.
I guess not.
I guess probably not.
What is he babbling about?
Does somebody want to translate that for me?
They can't handle it when their own technique is thrown back at them.
When their own technique is turned on them, they just can't stand it.
It's interesting that people like Limbaugh, who always accuse the likes of me of playing the race card when I write about racism, are awfully quick to play that same card when they think it's to their advantage.
I'm doing nothing based on any advantage whatsoever.
I'm simply describing what I see.
And there's no question that this is being done to a black conservative.
That the left doesn't like black conservatives.
The left doesn't like Hispanic conservatives.
The left doesn't like minorities who are conservative, who show an ability to rise to the top of any organization they're in.
The left doesn't like it.
That's right.
I have crossed the line because the charge of racism is theirs exclusively to make.
No one's allowed to make that charge.
And here I come making the charge and they can't deal it.
Except call a foul.
You can't do that.
That's what we do.
You're not allowed to do that.
You can't you can't call us racist.
You're the racist.
You can't do that.
Especially because it's true you can't call us out like that.
You're gonna blow up our whole game if you keep doing this.
You gotta shut up.
We're gonna start trying to make fun of you, and now maybe say you're in favor of affirmative action.
What an odd connection to make there, but it didn't stop.
Different show, MSNBC, Lawrence O'Donnell talking to a political writer, Maggie Haberman about me and the question.
Rush Limbaugh's out there saying these women are lying.
I have not said that.
I have never said the women are lying.
All I've said is we don't know what happened.
And on day five, we don't know what happened.
Because the accusers in the media have not told us what happened.
I did say, what if there's another version of this?
I have pointed out of you know uh instances where women have lied about this, but I didn't accuse these women of it.
So anyway, premise of the question is flawed.
But nevertheless, the question was asked.
Rush Limbaugh's out there saying these women are lying.
Rush Limbaugh, who doesn't know who they are, who believed every single word of every female accusation ever sent the direction of Bill Clinton, or any Democrat for that matter, but especially Clinton, firmly believes these unnamed women are lying.
In terms of the Rush Limbaugh piece of it, I think that you're seeing, you know, generally a lot of rallying in the conservative media around Herman Cain.
There has been a lot of criticism about the fact that this was reported on, uh, a lot of defense of Herman Cain, a lot of insistence that it couldn't be true.
Some of his loudest support has come from that direction.
It's not support of Herman Cain.
By the way, uh, although I can see where the media might take that, it is not support of Herman Cain so much as it is we've all had it with your tactics in the media.
We've had it with the double standard.
We've had it with people like you elevating Bill Clinton to superstar status.
We've had it with you looking the other way during the Tawana Broly.
We've had it with you and the Duke Lacrosse story.
We've had it with you trying to cover up for John Edwards.
We've had it with you lionizing Ted Kennedy and Chris Dodd of waitress sandwich fame at Labrasserie in Washington.
We've had it with you holding up as national heroes, reprobates like this, and we've had it with you trying to take our people out on the basis of no knowledge whatsoever.
We still don't know what you think Cain did.
And until you can tell us, as journalists with incontrovertible proof, we're gonna doubt you.
Because you have given us every reason in the world to not trust your reporting because it is biased against us and our side and our people.
That is inarguable.
That is as obvious and honest as the sun comes up.
Even Clinton has given up trying to deny the accusations against him.
Clinton doesn't even deny them anymore.
He knows he doesn't have to.
You've made him a hero.
And you continue to make him a hero by telling us that Cain is not handling this the right way.
And we know who you think did handle it the right way.
Slick Willie.
Bimbo eruption teams, send Carville and whoever else out to destroy Ken Starr as a sex pervert.
To destroy Paula Jones or Kathleen Willie is nothing but a bunch of traitor park trash.
You, supposed feminists in the media loved Bill Clinton and wished he would come to your head bedroom at night.
As he trashes these women who made these true allegations about him.
And you come along with innuendo and five days of smears, and we don't even know what he's guilty of.
We're standing up for our side.
We're standing up for each other.
We're circling the wagons around us.
You people were trying this against any of the candidates with the same lack of information that you've got, it'd be the same thing.
I sit here and I wonder, does you know you heard her soundbite?
She really closed off and insulated from what this is all about.
Do you really think this is just the conservative media defending Kane because he's a conservative?
She really think that even if Kane did it, we'd still be hanging out on the uh treating this the way we're treating it.
Sometimes I wonder, I I see evidence every day that leads me to believe these people are closed off and walled off in a little small area that they've called their own reality, and it's as distant from the real world as any place you could get.
So it could well be that Miss Haberman is clueless.
Genuinely clueless about what this is all about.
Which is to our advantage, by the way.
I remember I one time even defended Janet Reno.
And Bill Clinton, however to the left, told a joke at the White House Correspondent Center dinner and said, uh, hey, did you hear did you hear Rush uh defended Janet Reno's program the other night?
That's only because she was being attacked by a black guy.
The media in the room did two things.
There was a and then wild laughter, as the president of the United States went racist.
And they applauded it.
Miss Haberman, we don't know the details of this story because you refused to publish the details, and I'm beginning to think that the details of the story might get in the way of the rest of your agenda.
So the details are going to remain anonymous in the Herman Cain story.
Here's a montage of the drive-by media going full bore on Cain's real problem.
Is Herman Cain handling this very badly?
Cain handled this so badly.
This is a campaign that is falling apart, not ready to handle this at all.
how to handle one of these stories.
Not the way to handle this kind of situation.
He didn't handle it right.
How a candidate and his team handle pressure, handle crisis.
It's not a way to handle this.
Voters are looking at how candidates handle matters.
You have ten days to get ready for something like this.
This is how you handle it.
That's Dana Perino, by the way, joining in from the Bush team, uh, jumping all over Herman Cain.
Uh, I wonder how many of these journalists could take 30 seconds of what they dish out.
It's happened now and then, and they all start crying wolf.
Wait a minute, you can't do that.
I I who I am doesn't matter.
I'm not the story, I'm the journalist, I'm the reporter.
You you can't you can't delve into my life and find out how many affairs I've had and whether I've smoked.
Nope, you can't do that.
Oh, you can't.
Well, we're gonna do it.
You can't.
I'm your jury.
You can't do that, it doesn't matter.
I'm not the story.
They can't handle 30 seconds of what they dish out.
Jan Crawford, early show, CBS today, stunned that Kane continues to do well.
People are really sticking behind Herman Cain.
His supporters are.
That's reflected in a lot of the reporting that we've been doing, talking to voters, particularly out in Iowa, where supporters of Kane say they just think this is going to fade away.
They think these charges are, quote, sketchy, one person told us, and it's just not really that pertinent.
And interestingly, the campaign is still still raising lots of money.
And then finally, I think look at talk radio.
I mean, you know that is very important with conservative voters, the conservative talk radio hosts like Rush Limbaugh, they are really rallying to his defense, and that could end up being a huge help to him if they stay with him.
You know, I folks, I apologize.
I've I that bite I did not read the entire transcript.
I did not know I was also mentioned in that bite.
I I don't I well, but uh just this show is I know it's my show, but it's that I'm not doing I'm not playing any soundbite just because they mentioned my name.
I just I I didn't read the transcript far enough to know that she uh did.
Where are the calls for the restaurant association to release the results of their investigation, which Cain says cleared him?
You know, the media will not even mention that.
The media won't even join this call for the NRA to release the results of the investigation.
They just want the women to come forward.
And the women don't want to.
Wonder what's up with that.
The official network of the Democrat Party has found a new Herman Cain scandal.
Recently reported on it just early this afternoon has nothing to do with sex.
The details will come up shortly after we resume in the next busy broadcast hour here on Open Line Friday.
▲
Export Selection