All Episodes
Previous Next
Dec. 12, 2011 - Rush Limbaugh Program
29:07
December 12, 2011, Monday, Hour #3
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Welcome back, folks.
Great to have you here as I, Rush Limboy, your host and guiding light.
Am having more fun than a human being should be allowed to have as America's real anchorman, truth detector, and doctor of democracy.
All combined in one harmless, lovable little fuzzball.
Our telephone number, if you want to be on the program.
800-282-2882, the email address lrushbow at EIBnet.com.
If you're just joining us, we just had a call from a nice guy, Malibu, want to know, well, you know, you keep saying Mitt Romney's not conservative.
Or is a moderate?
What is it?
It makes him a moderate to you.
And I cited a couple things, but I said the thing that really got me was back in June when I heard him answer a question about global warming.
And I just did, I cast it aside.
Here it is.
By this time, I got so many loose pieces of paper around here.
No, it wouldn't be possible to put it all on a computer monitor.
That's why this still has to be done with paper.
Anyway, he was in New Hampshire in Manchester, former Governor Mitt Romney, at a town hall meeting.
And during the Q ⁇ A, a member of the new Castrati who got in there asked him a question.
Mr. Romney, nearly all the other candidates said, yes, that there's no scientific consensus on climate change.
And some of them have said that it's not even occurring.
And we cannot even have a meaningful discussion, sir, about the Luthans until there's agreement with the problem.
Will you, sir, state now that under a Romney regime, global warming will be accepted as reality and that this reality will form the foundation for all climate and energy policy?
It's obviously a setup question.
It's obviously somebody from New Castrati got in there and here's the answer.
I believe the world is getting warmer.
I can't prove that, but I believe based on what I read that the world is getting warmer.
And number two, I believe the humans contribute to that.
I don't know how much our contribution is to that because I know there have been periods of greater heat and warmth in the past, but I believe that we contribute to that.
And so I think it's important for us to reduce our emissions of pollutants and greenhouse gases that may well be significant contributors to the climate change and the global warming that you're seeing.
Now, it wasn't through.
He went on to say the following.
He said, I'm told that we use almost twice as much energy per person as does a European and more like three times as much energy as does a Japanese citizen.
We can do a lot better.
I remember first commenting on this when it happened.
And I had people say, but Rush, come on now.
You know, he had similar climate policies when he was governor of Massachusetts.
It's a liberal state, Rush.
He's got to say these.
That's my point.
If he's going to say what his audience requires, what does that tell you?
Do I ever do that?
I'm just going to tell you, I never once asked myself what I think you want to hear.
It never even crosses my mind.
But a politician who does is essentially saying that they make calculations and they will deviate from their core if necessary in order to have an audience hear what they want to hear.
Now, maybe that's what you have to do to get votes in politics.
Maybe that's what some consultant tells him he's got to do to get votes.
The region.
Well, of course, there's the possibility he just being honest, too.
He might really believe this.
Could very well be that he believes this, too.
Yes.
In which case, I mean, the question answers itself.
That is all I'm saying.
I'm looking for a story of this.
I've got a stack here that talks about some condition here about, oh, it's a story in the Dead Sea.
A story of when the Dead Sea died.
You know the Dead Sea is.
Well, there's a big geographic story here on when the Dead Sea died, and it talks about the excruciating heat of 120,000 years ago that brought about the death of the Dead Sea.
And I said, wait a minute, there weren't any man-made chlorofluorocarbons.
There weren't any CO2 emissions.
None of the so-called rot gut that we are being accused of of causing global warming.
It got so hot 120,000 years ago, it killed the Dead Sea.
Really?
This is all a hoax.
It is a hoax.
It is learnable.
It's demonstrable it's a hoax.
I'm sorry if somebody doesn't see that.
I have a problem.
I can't do anything about that.
I've got a problem with it.
It isn't hard.
It isn't hard to call liberalism a hoax.
It isn't hard to accurately characterize liberalism.
It isn't hard or difficult to accurately characterize Obama or any other liberal.
It's very easy to do.
A reluctance to do so on somebody's part gives me pause.
Makes me uncomfortable because it's so obvious.
The failures, the failings, the problems, the destructiveness of liberalism, socialism, Marxism.
Why anybody wants to adopt their language, even from time to time?
I don't understand it.
Mr. Limbo, you must have, this is why you can never be a politician because people are just different.
All of it are going to have to say, think that turning people want to get their money and they'll get their votes.
No, you don't.
Not really.
I mean, look, is Thibault compromising?
I'm just throwing it out there.
No, he's not trying to do anything but win games, and he's inspiring people by being himself.
He's not trying to fake it up or phony it up.
He's not trying to be somebody he isn't.
He's not trying to do things he can't do.
But what he's doing, it really isn't that complicated.
Every player on the offense and defensive side of the ball of Denver Broncos think they're going to win.
Even when they're down 10 points in a fourth quarter or three minutes, they think they're going to win.
Not by just standing by doing nothing, waiting for somebody else to do it.
They think that they're going to win.
It's a confidence thing.
Oh, my.
12 points of I know it really isn't this complicated.
Politics is made way more complicated than it needs to be.
And I'm going to tell you what it is, folks.
I'm going to tell you the problem we run into.
Problem we run into is that every one of our candidates think that to win, they have to somehow get a majority of the 20% who admit they don't know what's going on.
The independents, the moderates, the undecided.
We have an entire group of career people known as political consultants who tell people that's where you win.
And these same people tell our candidates that the fastest way to offend the people you need to win is to be conservative.
Really is no more complicated than that.
Our consultants think that conservatism scares independents away because they're shaped, molded, and formed by the Goldwater campaign.
I know you may not believe me.
It's true.
They don't look to the Reagan years as inspiration.
They look at the Goldwater years, and that's the formative event in a lot of Republicans' lives.
This happened, I just remember this.
Happened Saturday night.
Me, we are at Nick and Sam's having dinner, Catherine and I, with some good friends.
And it's noisy in there.
Know that going in.
Place jam-packed.
It's hip.
It's happening.
I mean, it's a wonderful place.
And a lot of Giants, New York Giants people showed up for dinner.
We got there at eight.
The Giants people showed up, sort of radio media people, Howard Cross and Carl Banks.
And former players, Carl Banks, former number 58, great linebacker.
And as they walked in, they stopped at a table because they knew our guest.
And Carl Banks leans across the table, shakes my hand, and starts, and I can't hear a word of what he's saying.
Not a word.
I could have said, I can't, there was nothing he could have done.
He would have had to get around the table and speak right into my ear.
It was that.
There was nothing he could have done.
He didn't know that.
I don't even know if he knows I've lost my hearing.
So I just had to take a stab.
Since he reached out, shook my hand, I figured that he was saying something nice.
So I said, thank you very much.
When he walked away, Catherine said, that was good.
He was telling you he enjoys your radio show.
I didn't hear a word.
I would never.
Now, suppose he had said, you're the biggest SOB in the world.
Thank you very much.
That still might have worked, but anyway, I'm going to go to the, we're going to start with some of the debate sound bites.
I don't know how many of you saw it.
Snerdley didn't see it.
Did you watch it, Don?
You watched half of it.
The people I talked to who did thought it was one of the best.
That everybody in it did well on balance.
Well, you disagree with that, Snerdley?
Oh, he's upset.
Of course you would miss the best.
A lot of people, I haven't heard anybody tell me they thought it was bad.
But here's a question from Stephanopoulos.
This is interesting.
This is just quick goes my six seconds here.
Should voters consider marital fidelity when making their choices for president?
Right.
Now, here's the guy who worked the Bimbo Eruptions War Room for Bill Clinton.
Here's the guy who worked the Bimbo Eruptions War Room for Clinton with James Carville asking this question.
And these guys will gladly, our guys will gladly go to a debate moderated by Stephanopoulos or Diane Sawyer.
I did listen to some.
Oh, the questions, the tone of, oh my goodness.
Her questions went twice as long as some answers while she's lecturing the candidates on sticking to the time limit.
But these guys, they don't want to go to Trump's debate, but they'll let Stephanopoulos ask him this stupid question about fidelity from the guy who covered them all up for Clinton.
Well, I mean, let's go back.
This is from the film, The War Room.
And this is Stephanopoulos talking about taking somebody or talking somebody out of making an allegation of infidelity against Clinton.
Think of yourself.
I guarantee you that if you do this, you'll never work in Democratic politics again.
Nobody will believe you.
And people will think you're scumming.
The alternative is, don't do it.
Causes you some temporary pain with people who tomorrow aren't going to matter.
And you have a campaign that understands that in a difficult time he did something right.
That's Stephanopoulos from the war room, the movie made about how he and Carville fended all this stuff up.
And he's talking to a potential bimbo eruption.
And he's threatening her.
You don't do it.
You don't do it.
And now he gets to turn around.
He gets to ask our guys whether it ought to matter.
No, Clinton told the girl to put some ice on it.
Stephanopoulos didn't do that.
Here's Newt on the infidelity question.
Stephanopoulos said, Speaker Gingrich, what do voters need to know about this issue?
Infidelity, from your perspective.
I think it is a real issue.
I think people have to look at the person to whom they're going to loan the presidency.
And they have the right to ask every single question.
They have to have a feeling that this is a person that they can trust to the level of power we give to the presidency.
I've said up front openly.
I've made mistakes at times.
I've had to go to God for forgiveness.
I've had to seek reconciliation.
But I'm also a 68-year-old grandfather.
And I think people have to measure who I am now and whether I'm a person they can trust.
All right.
That's the answer.
Not much you can do with that question.
I mean, it is what it is.
I don't have any experience at it, so I don't know how I'd answer it.
Look, I know the people I talked to thought everybody in this debate handled it well.
Here's the bet business.
This is, let's see, Rick Perry says, I read your first book.
It's over to Romney.
I read your first book.
And it said in there that your mandate in Massachusetts should be the model for the country.
And I know it came out of the reprint of the book.
It's not in the reprint of the book, Mitt.
You know, I'm just saying you were for individual mandates, my friend.
You know what?
You've raised that before, Rick.
And you're saying it was true then.
It's true now.
Rick, I'll tell you what.
$10,000?
$10,000 bet.
$10,000.
Rick, you're just wrong.
I never came out for the individual mandate.
$10,000.
Now, what Romney should have remembered is this from Perry on September 12th in Tampa.
Yes, sir.
The company was Merck, and it was a $5,000 contribution that I had received from them.
I raised about $30 million.
And if you're saying that I can be bought for $5,000, I'm offended.
I'm offended for all the little girls and the parents that didn't have a choice.
That's what I'm offended for.
Okay, so Perry admits he can't be bought for $5,000.
Romney should have known 10 wouldn't do it.
I think this bet was hyperbole.
I think it was a toss-up.
But the media doesn't.
The media, Perry should have taken the money.
But there were the reactions.
Perry's reaction was, what?
You got 10 grand to throw around?
That's not what regular people, Mitt, regular people don't have $10,000 to throw around.
And the truth is that Mitt Romney does have $10,000 to throw around and not really miss it.
That's why some people are like, if you're going to bet something, it's me, bet one of your houses.
You really mean this.
Anyway, we got a break.
We'll continue with this when we get back.
And we are back.
Great to have you on the EIB network.
Get this, folks.
According to the Wisconsin Journal Times, teachers in four out of 11 scruels in Racine County, Wisconsin have decided to disband the unions they paid dues into for years.
Becky Seitz, the former union president, stated, in the 30-some years that we were part of the American Federation of Teachers Union, we never had to use their services.
There were never any grievances that warranted that.
She said, explaining teachers found it unnecessary to keep paying monthly dues of about $50 when they weren't using union services.
So at $50 a month, a 30-year teacher paid $18,000 for services that were never used.
So they're disbanding the teachers' union in four of those.
What is it?
Four out of 11 schools in Racine County.
Is it Racine or Racine?
What is it?
Racine County.
That's not one of these isolated insignificant stories.
Teachers' unions, unions in general in Wisconsin big news.
Teacher disbanding one.
Here is, by the way, we are at audio soundbite number 14.
This is a media montest.
As soon as the debate was over on ABC, the analysts were chomping at the bit to talk about Romney's $10,000 bet.
The fact that Mitt Romney was trying to wager a $10,000 bet in a debate in Iowa, the median income in this country means that $10,000 is roughly three months' income.
Not too many caucus goers here in Iowa would ever place a $10,000 bet, even if it was a sure thing.
It really is Mitt Romney who made most of the headlines, and not all of them were very good.
Obviously, the $10,000 bet being the top one here.
So the media consensus after the debate was that Romney had committed a tactical error by betting an amount of money that the average Hawkeye cauckey attendee will never see and certainly would never wager and therefore failed in the important area of relating to the Hawkeye Cauckey attendee.
So forth.
That was their.
Now here's Perry on the bet.
We've got, I guess, Sunday at Fox News and Iowa Public TV's conversations with the candidates.
This is a montage of Perry talking about Romney's wager of $10,000 in the debate the night before.
Driving out to the station this morning, I'm pretty sure I didn't drive by a house that anyone in Iowa would even think about that a $10,000 bet was possible.
Holy mackerel.
That's just a lot of money for most people, and I guess not for Mitt.
Well, it's not a lot of money for Mitt.
But holy mackerel, it is a lot of money for Hawkeye Cauckey attendees.
A lot of money for most people, especially to bet.
Now, to say that most people wouldn't bet it even if it was a sure thing, that's go a little far.
We got gamblers throughout this country.
I mean, every time you vote for a Democrat, it's a giant gamble with your own money.
Let's see here.
And we've got more.
This is Fox and friends this morning.
Romney's on there.
Brian Kilmead says, you wanted to bet him 10 grand.
Do you think you sent the wrong message to the people of Iowa?
This was an outrageous number to answer an outrageous charge from him, and it's been proven wrong time and time again.
He keeps raising it.
And I said, okay, let's put something outrageous out there.
It's like saying, hey, I'll bet you a million bucks, X, Y, or Z. Afterwards, my wife came up and she said, Mitt, it was a great debate.
You're great at a lot of things, just not betting.
So we're over with that.
Oh, okay.
So if wife didn't like it, see, no more bets.
Not happening anymore.
Michelle Obama spends 10 grand in tips on hotels in Spain.
Michelle Obama probably spends $10,000 a tow getting a pedicure.
And look at everybody's all up in arms here about Romney wagering $10,000.
That's I just, folks, I just, I literally, I find all this stuff interesting.
Now, Newt's comment on the Palestinians.
Ho ho ho!
Has that ruffled some feathers?
This is Newt.
We go to Friday on the Jewish channel, cable network correspondent Stephen Weiss interviewed Gingrich, and this is what Newt said about the Palestinian people.
There was no Palestine as a state.
It's part of the Ottoman Empire.
And I think that we've had an invented Palestinian people, who are in fact Arabs and were historically part of the Arab community.
Oh, fuck, that is lighting dynamite.
That's lighting dynamite and throwing it in a crowd of liberals.
Oh, I know it's 100% true.
Golden Mayer said the same thing.
Numerous statesmen and women have said the same thing, but the conventional wisdom is something different now.
The Palestinians are a historical people, and they are living in an historical place stolen from them.
I mean, that's, well, they should go to Jordan.
They should go to, yeah, not just Jordan, other places too.
But there never was, there's not a race of people called the Palestinians.
There never has been.
And Newt's right about this.
But they exist as a foil for the other.
I mean, I'll tell you who sells the Palestinians out all the time, the other Arabs.
What happens to the Palestinians, basically what they do to themselves is what the rest of the Arab terrorist world points to and says, see, that's why the Jews are so bad.
Look what the Jews are doing to our people.
And of course, you need that to keep happening if you want to keep blaming it all on the Jewish.
So Gingrich and Romney spar over his remark.
Newt starts off, this is in the debate Saturday night, Newt starts off explaining that he was right about it.
Is what I said factually correct?
Yes.
Is it historically true?
Yes.
Are we in a situation where every day rockets are fired into Israel while the United States, the current administration, tries to pressure the Israelis into a peace process?
Somebody ought to have the courage to tell the truth.
These people are terrorists.
They teach terrorism in their schools.
They have textbooks that say if there are 13 Jews and nine Jews are killed, how many Jews are left?
We pay for those textbooks through our aid money.
It's fundamentally time for somebody to have the guts to stand up and say, enough lying about the Middle East.
Okay, that's one of these, I mean, dead-on truth again, but the truth's politically incorrect because it's so threatening to people.
Upsets apple carts.
Here's Romney's reply.
Anything I say that can affect a place with rockets going in, with people dying, I don't do anything that would harm that process.
And therefore, before I made a statement of that nature, I get on the phone to my friend Bibi Netanyahu and say, would it help if I said this?
What would you like me to do?
Let's work together because we're partners.
I'm not a bomb thrower.
Rhetorically or literally.
Okay, so Romney, instead of saying that, what I do, I call Bibi.
I call my buddy Bibi.
They got into an argument over who knows Bibi the better.
I call my buddy Bibi.
I say, look, I'm thinking about saying this.
Do you think I should say it if they, you know, and I won't say it.
I want to do whatever I can.
We need to work together.
Okay, so Newt, Newt then replied, after Romney said he's not a bomb thrower, literally or rhetorically, said he would call his buddy Bibi Netanyahu and say, let's work together.
I want to tell the truth about the Palestinians, but I won't if you don't let me.
Here's what Newt said.
I think sometimes it is helpful to have a president of the United States with the courage to tell the truth, just as it was Ronald Reagan, who went around his entire national security apparatus to call the Soviet Union an evil empire and who overruled his entire State Department in order to say, Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall.
Reagan believed the power of truth restated the world and reframed the world.
I'm a Reaganite.
I'm proud to be a Reaganite.
I will tell the truth, even if it's at the risk of causing some confusion sometimes with the timid.
Confusion with the timid.
Newt's a Reaganite.
Should I remind him, Mr. Snirg?
Should I remind him?
When the chorus began, the era of Reagan is over.
Newt was right in there with it.
Just saying, just saying, but you can't deny these answers, statements in this debate are Grand Slam home runs.
He didn't say he called Bibi for permission.
Let's talk about it.
Let's work together.
Let's figure out what's going on here.
Yeah, I'll tell you what's absurd about this.
We're supposed to be upset here that something Newt Gingrich says is going to whip up the Palestinians.
They're already whipped up.
Nothing Newt says is going to make terrorists even more terroristic.
That's what's you're going to really that's we're trying to have peace with these people.
How dare you tell the truth about yeah, Newt's gonna that that's what's he's right can't tell a truth too many times in our culture today.
It's a problem.
Newt Gingrich has responded to a candidate pledge circulated by an Iowa social conservative group, the family leader.
And Newt essentially has pledged not to cheat on his latest wife.
And he hadn't signed it yet, but in a long written statement responding to it, he said, I pledge to uphold the institution of marriage through personal fidelity to my spouse and respect for the marital bonds of others.
So Newt's going to sign the I Won't Cheat Pledge.
I pledge to uphold the institution of marriage through personal fidelity to my latest spouse.
No, he didn't put a timeframe on it.
He just said he's going to do it.
They're not going to do it in this case.
He's going to pledge not to cheat.
I thought you did that in your wedding vows, but what do I know?
I've only done it three times myself.
Vows.
Vows.
Not the other.
Bruce Muskegon, Michigan.
Welcome to the EIB Network.
Good afternoon, Newt.
How are you?
Newt, I'm sorry.
I was listening to you talk about Newt.
Raj, honored to speak with you.
How are you, sir?
I have a theory which I'd like you to comment on.
I'll tell you, Newt's going to lose a lot of Democrat voters with that pledge.
They're going to lose a lot of moderate independents.
They love cheating.
They don't want anybody.
Newt, I would have advised him not to take the pledge, but that's just me.
What's up, Bruce?
Well, I have a theory.
Call me cynical, but I think that Kagan has recruited herself from the decision to take the.
I have a theory on why I believe Kagan has recused herself from the decision to take the immigration case.
I think she's doing it because when Obamacare comes around, she will be able to be, she'll be in a position, at least she thinks she'll be in a position, where she's going to say, say, I'm honest.
I have integrity.
I have no conflict of interest.
Because she'll say, if I did, of course, I would recuse myself just like I did on the immigration case.
You might have a point there.
I wouldn't put it past these sneaks.
But this one, she was actively involved in this immigration business as solicitor, just as she was with healthcare and the emails are to prove it.
But this could be a way of saying, oh, I recuse myself when it's warranted.
See, I did it.
There's no call for it here in healthcare.
By the way, I asked the question earlier night.
I know the answer.
I just didn't answer it.
What happens in a tie?
Supreme Court decision, it's 4-4.
The lower court decision stands.
Whatever it was.
The last court decision in the chain stands if the Supreme Court ties on a 4-4 race.
This is why Tim Tebow has him confounded.
Tim Tebow, my teammates make me look a lot better than I am.
And when he says it, he means it.
He's not saying fluff to sound good.
He really means it.
My teammates make me look a lot better than I am.
Now, you contrast that with Obama today, with Malachi.
Obama taking credit today for the fact that Iraq is ostensibly Democratic and that our troops are now coming home.
This is all the George.
If you know, if Obama were really a unifier, says he is, he really wanted to make a big deal.
He'd bring Bush in there for a joint appearance here for this thing because everybody knows this is Bush's deal.
But here he is trying to hog the credit for it.
And look who is universally respected for not doing it.
Tebow.
▲
Export Selection