All Episodes
Previous Next
Dec. 22, 2011 - Rush Limbaugh Program
35:48
December 22, 2011, Thursday, Hour #3
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
It's hour number three on this Thursday.
The week almost done, but Russia's vacation underway.
A vacation that will last until Tuesday, the 3rd of January.
Boy, the head very nearly explodes when thinking about the enormity of Tuesday, January 3rd.
Imagine what it means for America.
The return of Rush at the beginning and middle of the day.
And actual Iowa caucus voting at the end of the day.
It will be 2012.
The next time Russia's actual voice is at these microphones.
Till then, those of us in the fill-in brigade are pleased and proud to be here.
If you're just joining us, we've spent a couple hours doing some 2012 talk, a little year in review, some economic talk, some payroll tax showdown, a little this, little that.
I got a few more things up must leave topically to add on here as we work our way toward the end of this Thursday.
Mark Stein is in tomorrow and a bunch of folks next week.
I am not one of them, so this is our last time together.
I just want to thank you and your kindness to me when I fill in.
And even if the kindness extends to telling me that you don't like me very much or that you think I'm crazy about something, that's fine.
Any talk show host will tell you, you know, agree or disagree, just listen to the show.
And Rush appreciates that too because he wants the fill-in folks to not bleed their ratings too badly.
So much appreciated.
It's been a wonderful, wonderful year.
And I know everybody else whom you'll be hearing from, Brother Stein and others next week, share my appreciation for you and for the entire EIB operation for letting us hang out when Rush is away.
All righty, 1-800-282-2882.
Let's get back to your calls and see what people have been attaching themselves to topically while the top of the hour came and went.
We are in Riverside, California.
Dave, hey, Mark Davis in for Rush.
How are you?
Well, I'm doing great.
And how are you today?
Very well.
Thank you.
Okay, thank you.
Merry Christmas to you and good morning or good afternoon, wherever you're at.
The time zone thing.
I'm in Texas, so it is actually afternoon.
Okay, well, I'm still in morning.
So anyway, the main thing I've got to say on this economy thing here right at the moment, one big thing is the oil prices.
When the oil prices are severely raised, way up near $100 a barrel, they're probably over $100 a barrel now as far as I'm concerned.
People don't have the money to put in their gas tank if it is reduced down to, say, $2 a gallon, $225 even.
People have more money, more money to spend.
People will spend that.
They will hire people.
People will pay taxes.
There is your tax increase that people are yelling and screaming for.
The people will get employed, and that is your tax rate.
I don't know where the hell these people come up with some of this stuff, thinking that $100 a barrel is a boondoggle for the oil company.
It sure it is, and for probably the people that have the stock in it.
But when the people don't have the money to put into it because of the jobs and the economy, there's no money to spend.
Well, when the price of oil is determined by dozens of global factors, and the only thing we in America can do through our laws and through our participation in the oil marketplace is make decisions that create a better market for energy made in America and used by Americans.
We can conserve, and that's lovely.
And if people are not driving hybrids, that's great.
That's a way to use less gas and save money.
That's wonderful.
But the way to bring actual prices down in America is to devote ourselves to the discovery of more American energy.
And you can call it Drill Baby Drill.
You can call it Keystone XL Pipeline.
You can call it whatever you want.
But we have to battle to the political death these environmental extremists who would cripple that effort until something can be found that runs our world as well as fossil fuels.
It's going to be fossil fuels that run our world.
There are plenty of other things that seem to work.
Great.
The hybrid worked, great.
The electric car, maybe not so much.
But if there's something that can be found that works without any government subsidy, it's not needed.
If America will embrace greener technologies or alternative fuels, that's totally fine.
But until then, we need American fossil fuels.
No, I understand what you're saying, and I agree with you there.
At the same time, housing and the oil companies or the oil prices right at the moment are, to my what I feel, are crippling the economy right at the moment.
When you have home improvement stores that are doing a boom in business, there is literally a domino effect there along the whole hiring situation of every facet in the country.
I don't know when people have the money to spend, they're going to spend it and people will get hired.
Well, that's a general economic truth.
Give me 60 seconds on the whole housing thing, because obviously housing prices right now are a fraction of what they once were.
I'm living proof of that.
What's your, I mean, that's certainly a buyer's market at the moment, but again, not a lot of people have enough money for a down payment, which is the market gives and it takes it away.
And I'm right at the moment, I am upside down on my mortgage.
And I would love to get refinanced at these lower rates, but I can't qualify to do it.
I'm a good, my credit score is in the highest 700, but I can't qualify to get a refi because my mortgage is upside down here, which is a lot of people in Riverside County are looking at the same situation.
If they would do that, I would go out and spend the money that I would save in the economy.
And I know Barbara Boxer, I guess it's Barbara Boxer, Senator Boxer, brought up something saying that she was going to try to get this upside down underwater mortgage thing passed where people like me who pay my bills on time, who don't have a good credit score, would have a chance to get in on this.
Well, I haven't seen that yet.
But here's the thing.
And with every proper empathy toward you in your situation, it is not government's job to make banks give you a refi.
Right.
I understand that.
It's just not.
I mean, I'm very sorry, but it's not.
I mean, and that doesn't sound like you're whining about that at all.
You sound very responsible.
And you are in a boat with a whole lot of other people.
What we need to do is get some of these reforms and some of this crazy Dodd-Frank nonsense off the backs of banks.
All banks want to do is make money.
All banks want to do, in some ways, banks are like any other business.
They want to make money.
And if they find you, a guy with a good credit score, upside down on the mortgage, and a refi that's likely to actually pay the note every month, that is something that should be attractive to them.
And if we take the boot of overregulation off some of our banks, your world may improve.
Dave, let me thank you.
Best in Riverside and elsewhere in California.
Let's head to Lincoln, Nebraska.
Stephen, Mark Davis, in for Rush, how are you?
Hi, Mark.
Thanks for giving me a chance to talk to you.
I love when you're on.
And I'm hoping that if one of you guys don't run for president, one of you right-thinking talks to your host, that one of you will please be a press secretary.
We need people to articulate like you guys do.
You're very kind.
Way too.
You know, all of this is rooted in a worldview.
The reason that we are Republicans and conservatives is because of our unwillingness to compromise.
How we got here as a Republican Party is because we had compromised in the past and we've learned from it.
And hopefully, if I say it right, then that will tie in some of the racism, racism charges, the constitutional and even the faith questions that Perry and Romney are being discussed about.
You know, the whole worldview that separates us is the idea of a republic, that we believe that natural rights come from God, not the government.
That's what started us.
You know, our founders have learned from history.
Much like we're learning from history, we're watching Spain fail because of green energy policies, Greece fail because of government, big, big government, and we watched the UK almost fail because of national health care.
You know, our founders had learned from Leviathan and Plato, and they'd read the prints, and they were very familiar with how governments around the world had worked and what had failed.
And, you know, we started on compromise.
Our whole idea of us, excuse me, I'm out of breath.
It's all right.
Take your time, my son.
Our Constitution was formed in the middle of huge compromise.
The whole, the first thing we get accused of racism within the Republicans is a three-fifths compromise, where the northern, you were, where we had some southerners.
You know, our founders actually wanted to end slavery during the Revolutionary War.
They'd spoken about it, and King George was unwilling to let that happen.
And the founders that had come into a world where the whole world was dominated by slavery and the idea of a social order, a class system.
I remember the history.
I'm having a good time.
I need to kind of move the ball a little bit here.
So, on the subject of compromise, it's funny that has taken on a negative connotation.
It depends on what.
If you have party A and party B, and party A wants to do something, and party B wants to do something else, and they meet in the middle, there's a way for that to be okay.
If, in fact, if I'm a member of party A, if it doesn't involve me compromising on my core values, some things are things we can either do, a tax cut or a tax increase.
You know, I mean, I'm all about cutting taxes, I think they're too high.
It's you know, a compromise over the sale of a house, you know, meet somebody in the middle, that's fine.
Most of the issues that we're talking about these days are about the core values of the right and the core values of the left, though.
And on that, there's that's why I say that this hunt for common ground in that arena is largely pointless.
Somebody's got to win, somebody's got to lose.
Compromise those things because we don't agree.
Our compromise is the Constitution is believing that the First Amendment, the Second Amendment, the Tenth Amendment, you know, the Civil Rights Act and the Women's Suffrage Act, you know, the 13th, 14th, 15th, and 19th Amendments, which Republicans passed, giving blacks the right to vote and women the right to vote, and that we would have had 100 years earlier with the blacks the right to vote if we'd had power.
You know, these are things that we believe that natural rights come from the government.
I mean, from God, not the government.
So, that's where our refusal to compromise is.
We believe that it's not, we're not interested in how we feel as a majority.
That's democracy.
Democracy says that if the majority of people believe murder is okay, then it will become law.
Right, but as it believes that we are not a democracy, exactly.
We are not a direct democracy.
All right, Stephen, I got a fly.
Democracy, we are not, as many will remind you.
We are a republic and not a textbook democracy where everything is done by a show of hands.
And I am grateful for that.
All right, sir.
Thank you very much.
Mark Davis in for Rush on the EIB Network.
It is the Rush Limbaugh Show.
Mark Davis filling in from Texas, talking a little Iowa, a little New Hampshire, a little year gone by, a little year to come.
Holy cow.
It is a fertile field for talk show topicality.
So let's see what's going on in the public mind here as we head next to Stanfordville, New York.
Will, Mark Davis in for Rush, how are you?
Hi, Mark.
Pleasure to talk to you.
Thank you.
Hey, Time Magazine's person of the year this year.
They picked a protester.
Yeah.
Which just goes to show you how far left Time magazine has gone.
Who had a bigger accomplishment this year than Navy Field Team 6?
You are right about that.
Listen, absolutely right.
If this were a token of admiration, absolutely right.
Let me give you a little bit of the Time Man of the Year, person of the year logic, though, and work our way through this a little bit.
You do know that both Hitler and Ayatollah Khomeini have been Times Man of the Year.
Yeah, actually, I didn't know that.
The thing is that it is like who affected the world the most?
Who affected the news the most?
Not who warms our hearts the most.
So let's take a clear-eyed look here at a couple of things.
Because first of all, I think in the top few, I mean, Paul Ryan was in there.
That was very cool.
There were all kinds of ones.
And through the years, there have been many.
I think, first of all, giving it to Rudy Giuliani in 2001 was lovely.
I think that was a kind of Rotary Club Kiwanis type honor rather than what the thing is supposed to be, which is who affected the news the most.
I would think in 2001, there's only one choice, and that is the double cover of George W. Bush and Osama bin Laden.
I think they would have gotten a lot of protests for that, so they didn't do it.
Now, in this year, let me just ask you this: there's nothing I loved more this year than the death of Osama bin Laden.
But did it affect the news as much, even affect the war as much as all of what did the cover say from Greece to the Arab Spring, from Occupy Wall Street to Moscow?
All these folks taking to the streets.
I mean, let's just kind of face it.
That pretty well was the biggest thing a year, wasn't it?
I'm going to respectfully disagree.
I thought that Field Team 6 going into the middle of Pakistan and getting him.
Oh, it's the most amazing thing.
It's the most incredible thing.
It's the most uplifting thing.
It's the thing of which I am most proud.
But that's not really what the Time person of the year is.
I suppose.
I mean, listen, it's kind of funny.
I think they've certainly given it.
As a matter of fact, let me use this as a point of departure.
Thank you enormously for the call because I can sit here and define what Times Person of the Year is or supposed to be using their own words.
Let's examine how many times they have failed to live up to it.
I mean, it's either something huge that happened in the news or some enormous trend that has affected our lives tectonically.
I mean, last year, Facebook dude Mark Zuckerberg, okay, for the degree to which Facebook is a big part of so many of our lives.
2008, or 2009, rather, Ben Bernanke.
Whatever.
2008, President Obama, because he won.
I get that.
2007, Vladimir Putin.
2006, you know who it was?
2006, Times Person of the Year?
It was you and me.
That cover with a mirror representing the individual content creator on the internet.
Yeah, okay.
2005 was the Good Samaritans.
You had Bono, Bill Gates, Melinda Gates.
That's pure admiration.
They did that one for pure admiration.
04 was George W. Bush.
He just won re-election.
03 was the American Soldier, which made people fall out of their chairs since it was Time magazine.
02 were the whistleblowers, whatever.
01 was Rudy Giuliani.
2000 was George W. because he had just won.
1999 was Jeff Bezos, the Amazon guy.
98 was Bill Clinton and Ken Starr.
No argument there.
97 was Andrew Grove, a microchip guy, right?
96 was David Ho for AIDS Research.
Those were admiration things.
95 was Newt.
It used to be his new billboard campaign, the only presidential candidate who's been Times Man of the Year.
94 was Pope John Paul II.
93 was the abomination of all Time Man of the Year covers.
The Peacemakers, Yitzhak Rabin, who surrendered far too much in the security of his nation of Israel.
F.W. de Klerk for South Africa for some progress there.
Okay, whatever you want to do.
And the bloodthirsty terrorist Yasser Arafat on a Time magazine cover for Man of the Year for the Peacemakers.
Really?
Really?
92 was Bill Clinton.
Understand that.
He had just won.
91 was Ted Turner.
1990 was George H.W. Bush for although the many, many accomplishments as the Berlin Wall began to fall.
80.
I love this.
89, Mikhail Gorbachev.
Yeah, right.
You know that was admiration on their part.
1988, The Endangered Earth.
Gorbachev again in 87.
Come on, man.
Corey Aquino in 88.
Deng Xiaoping in 85.
Golly, they love the communists for that stretch there.
Peter Uberoth in 84 for Olympic reasons.
Back to the commies.
Yurian Dropov in 93, but he shared 1983, excuse me, shared 83 with Ronald Reagan.
1982, they went goofy on us again.
The computer was machine of the year.
Great.
1981 was Lek Vawenza.
1980 was Reagan since he had just won.
1979, Ayatollah Khomeini.
Listen, got to tell you.
I mean, please, if it's about affecting the news, I mean, for good or ill, because again, go back to 1938, Hitler.
Back to the commies in 1978 for Deng Xiaoping.
1977 was Anwar Sadat.
76 was Jimmy Carter.
He had just won.
1975 was one, this was great.
In 1975, the folks at Time magazine must have been banging their heads on the wall.
What do we have to do?
They thought this is great.
We'll do something great for womanhood.
So they did American women, the people of the year, whatever you want to call it.
American women.
And feminists went nuts because there were 12 of them.
12 of them.
Betty Ford, Barbara Jordan, Billie Jean King, some other folks that maybe you've heard of somewhat less.
And the letters began immediately.
Are you telling me it takes 12 women?
I don't think the lady sounded like that.
I won't do the high-voice version.
They essentially said, it takes 12 women to equal one men.
Thanks a lot, Time Magazine.
So anyway, therein, a short history of Times, man slash women slash person of the year.
All righty, well, we got a half hour of show left.
Let's see where else we go.
A lot of that's up to you.
1-800-282-2882.
I'm Mark Davis in for Rush from Texas right here at WBAP Dallas-Fort Worth.
Back in a moment on the EIB Network.
It's the home stretch.
Our final half hour before we tie a bow around this Thursday.
A little sprightly Christmas tune.
One could almost clog.
I said almost.
All right, I'm Mark Davis here in Dallas-Fort Worth.
And tomorrow it'll be Mark Stein and a whole bunch of folks next week.
And then Rush is back on Tuesday, January 3rd, Iowa Caucus Actual Voting Day.
Holy cow, what lies ahead.
And that has been much of what we've talked about today and various other things.
Looking back at the year gone by and ahead to the incredible dramas that are splayed out in front of us.
So with that, let's head back to your calls and see where we go.
We are just down the road from you.
We're in Fort Worth.
Sam, Mark Davis, in for Rush.
How are you?
Hey, Mark.
Good talking to you again, my friend.
Hi.
Hey, let me preface my comment by first saying that you know that I support the president, and I think no matter who the Republicans would have been involved, but sitting back and doing an assessment as to who the best candidates are in the Republican field, if you do an objective assessment, it's obvious that Mitt Romney is the best candidate and probably the toughest one that the president will run against.
So I hope you guys actually nominate Mitt Gingrich because I think the president will dispatch him easily.
Now, the reason why I believe that you guys won't nominate Romney, and it's going to hardly know what to do, is because of his religion.
I mean, there is no other reason as to why this man is not at the head of the field right now.
Sure, there is, because he's insufficiently conservative to many.
We'll talk about the religion angle here in a minute because I just don't know that.
It's impossible to know whether Romney has topped out because of objections to or squirreliness about Mormonism.
There's no way to go back and make him a Baptist or a Lutheran and see if he would do much better.
It's just impossible to know.
I will tell you this: evangelicals, whatever that means anymore, were polled in 2008 about, you know, could you ever vote for Romney?
And the percent who said no has decreased mightily.
So I have a feeling that those objections, whatever they may be, are waning.
Now, to your point about who's the quote-unquote best candidate, what is the definition of that?
Is it purely numerical who has the statistical best chance of beating Obama?
Or is it possibly the candidate who is a little more conservative, a little more of a risk-taker, a little bolder, who might still beat Obama anyway and do better things?
What is the definition of the best candidate?
Who has had the most success throughout his career?
That would be Newt.
Hands down Newt.
What?
Newt was kicked out of office by his own party.
Come on.
After changing Washington.
That Darren negates everything he's done professionally.
Absolutely not.
Newt Gingrich changed Washington.
Tell me the long list.
And listen, I'm not a detractor of Governor Romney at all.
But just please tell me what the things are in Mitt Romney's life, the political things.
I mean, he's obviously successful in business.
I salute him for that.
But what is the list of magnificent things Mitt Romney has actually done, please?
Well, okay, he was a successful governor, for one, right?
Really?
Yeah, he was a successful governor.
He was a popular governor when he was there.
The Olympic experience, when he turned that game around, that give him the Olympics.
You can't dismiss that accomplishment.
I do not.
I give him the Olympics.
Absolutely.
You can't dismiss his business experience.
You can't dismiss that.
I said I stipulate that he's a successful businessman.
What is the list of political accomplishments that glows so mightily?
I think he says a lot of the right things.
He was great on Charlie Rose the other day, and his beliefs seem solid.
I have faith that he would be a very good president in many ways.
But this notion that Mitt Romney's resume is one-tenth of what Gingrich is in is crazy.
Okay, but hold on.
Just think about what Gingrich's own party and the people who work with him, who work for him and work with him said about him.
Let's think about what all of them are.
You know what that's called?
It's called being a leader.
It's called being a leader.
And I love Coburn and I love Peter King, but if their panties are in a wad because of some run-in they had with Gingrich in 96, they need to get over it.
It's because they said that this man is not a leader.
He's a hypocrite, is what they said.
He's a hypocrite, and they should know they work for him.
How many people, Sam, how many people?
How many people?
What are you talking about?
Let's do some math.
How many human beings worked closely with Newt Gingrich over 20 years or so?
Thousands upon thousands.
How many of them are fussing and moaning about him?
Maybe six.
I hope I come off as well.
There's a lot more fussing in that you still hear about.
I mean, so, I mean, you don't know that.
You see, I know you don't know that.
I'm sure there are a lot who work with him who aren't in front of a microphone, so you don't know that.
Maybe.
I don't know.
They'd probably find their way to one if they wanted to if they wanted to.
I mean, listen, if you're afraid of Cobra Manning, and he said he would have a hard time supporting Newt Gingrich.
He's one man.
He's one man.
He's one important man who has a reputation for being truthful, for being honest, and for being conservative.
Well, how about the for every Tom Coburn?
I can find you 50 truthful, reliable conservatives who have nothing good things to say about him.
I mean, that's a losing argument.
You found one guy, yay.
Maybe two guys, maybe three, maybe six, yay.
Well, it's like, I hope and pray that Newt is the nominee because I think we'll have a field aid.
First of all, just think about this one thing before you let me go.
And that is having the first lady of the United States as a homewrecker.
Could you imagine that?
She'll be the first homewrecker who's the first lady in the United States.
I mean, could you tolerate that?
Could you deal with that?
I would suggest to you that if Newt winds up being the nominee and people are willing to overlook what Newt did, that they are certainly not going to badger Callista much.
I mean, boy, it's a big if.
It's an embarrassment all over the world to have a first lady as a freaking homebrewer.
I was going to say, it's a big if.
If they make it through the turnstile of that, ain't nobody going to be worrying about Callista.
However, what you described may be the reason.
What you described.
Listen, you've drawn attention to one thing that is a pretty good point.
Of all the candidates, Newt is the one who takes away the ability for it to be almost entirely about Obama and have it be a referendum on Obama.
The one problem with the Gingrich candidacy is if Newt's the candidate, a lot of it winds up being about him.
Sam, thank you, man.
Appreciate it very much.
Got a roll.
Appreciate you.
1-800-282-2882.
We are in Satellite Beach, Florida.
Mark.
Hey, Mark Davis in for Rush.
How are you doing?
Hi, Mark.
How are you doing today?
Hi, good.
Hey, as I would like to talk about the payroll tax cut, but just as a side note, you know, the women of the year, when they were nominated, their nickname was the Dirty Dozen.
I don't know if you knew that or not.
Oh, God.
Not to anyone with counsel.
Hey, on the payroll tax cut, the problem that we have with that issue is that the wrong terminology is being used.
It's not a payroll tax cut, what they did last year for us.
What they did was they took 30% of the 6% that they extract from our paycheck to pay for Social Security.
That is a funding.
That is not a tax.
And unfortunately, it gets captured under the payroll taxes.
It's kind of like a square is a rectangle, but a rectangle is not a square.
True, and not all of one is, you know, all Corvettes are Chevrolets, not all Chevrolets or Corvettes.
You bet.
Correct.
And what happens here now is that now they're starting to talk about it as though, hey, it's a tax cut, so therefore, if you're against it, you're a bad person.
And the Republicans need to get the handle back on that for what it is.
It's a defunding of your Social Security benefits payments that took place last year.
And what they want to do is reestablish it because it doesn't make sense to defund something that's underfunded.
It's like not funding your 401k.
It's ridiculous to do that.
Yeah, well put.
Appreciate it.
And Mark, thank you.
And like a lot of other calls and a lot of other members of Congress who are making that very same point, this is what I guess Karl Rove meant and what some others mean when they say we're going to lose this battle.
Because to the vast majority of Americans, if all of a sudden more is being taken from their paycheck, that's a tax increase.
And we can nuance it and spin it and explain it and be right all day long.
And yet people are going to go, dude, it's a tax increase.
So we are left with a decision to make.
A strategic decision, a political decision, a decision based on principle.
And again, maybe I'm just energized by my chat with Jeb Hensling earlier who said, do the right thing and let the chips fall where they may, well, that's my words.
Do the right thing, let the chips fall where they may.
His word was, I want to cast a vote for doing the right thing and not worry about the politics of it.
Cast the right vote first and worry later about the politics of it.
I don't think you'll ever be wrong.
At least at the very least, you'll sleep better at night.
1-800-282-2882.
Mark Davison for Rush on the EIB Network.
It is the Thursday Rush Limbaugh Show.
Mark Davis filling in.
Mark Stein tomorrow.
Rush back January 3rd, Iowa caucus day.
To the phones, to the phones at 1-800-282-2882.
We are in Fort Myers, Florida.
Charles, hey, Mark Davis in for Rush, how are you?
I'm well, thank you.
How are you?
Doing great.
Thanks.
Thanks for taking my call.
I wanted to agree with and expand on something a caller a few minutes back discussed, and that was the basic absence or apparent unawareness of politicians to understand that by merely opening some oil grounds for exploration,
that mere fact alone would send oil prices and therefore gasoline prices in a downhill spiral.
It would have that effect.
It's going to be the last decade.
It doesn't have to.
You don't have to wait till the oil comes online.
Nope.
It's just the threat of it.
And that happens.
The markets depend.
What happens if everybody in the United States had a dollar less per gallon of fuel?
They could put that money into the economy.
Maybe that would be $100, $200 a month.
What would that do to our economy?
That is plenty.
Charles, you're right.
Thanks.
Appreciate it.
Yeah, markets, everybody looks at oil markets as, you know, why does prices go up?
Why do prices go down?
It is so many different things.
But a lot of it, as with all kinds of markets, like the stock market and housing market, a market is like a living, sentient creature that wonders what's going to happen.
It looks around in its environment and says, and wonders, probably doesn't actually make that noise, but it wonders what's going to happen.
And if there, for example, if there is tension in Libya, if there is the notion of Iran shutting down the Straits of Hormuz or something like that, the markets will respond, they will constrict, and the price of oil will skyrocket.
If the markets are soothed by the notion that America is going to create more oil, is going to find more oil, discover more oil, refine more oil, the addition, the promise of the addition of that added supply, even if it's months, years down the road, will have a depressive effect on the price of oil.
This is how markets work.
And so the price of oil is made, is kept higher by an administration that is hostile to American energy exploration.
All righty, we are in Naples, Florida.
Boy, a lot of Florida business today.
Boy, you think we're talking to Florida now.
About a month from now, let's see what's going on.
In Naples, Florida, Tom.
Hi, Mark Davis in for Rush.
How are you doing?
I'm doing fine, Mark.
Thank you for taking my call.
My plan.
I believe that the best defense is a good offense, and that relates to what's going on, whether it should be a two-month or a one-year extension.
There's a simple way to take the defense and make it an offense against the president.
All the leader, you know, Boehner has to do is just ask him one question.
Mr. President, why do you want two months instead of one year in the extension of the tax cut?
We believe it should be one year.
But if you give us a logical explanation, we will take it under advisement.
And if it's anywhere near reasonable, we'll probably do it.
Except it's all the other thing.
Go ahead, obviously.
Ask the president.
Nobody's asked him why does he want two months?
I would be really interested in hearing the president's answer.
One thing that might make that Republicans off the defense and put them on the offense and put the president on defense because then he owes not only the House an explanation, he owes the American people an explanation.
Well, you'll have a lot to explain for it.
Tom, thanks.
One of the things that might make the answer a little more interesting is it was President Obama who said that he wanted the year solution, the 12-month solution.
But the 12-month solution that the House Republicans delivered went straight into the axis of some of the sacred cows of the left, and so that became something they could no longer stand for.
I wish it were that simple.
Sometimes maybe it is.
Ask somebody, hey, why did you do that?
Or why do you believe those things?
And if the answer is somehow unsatisfying or underwhelming or not persuasive to the American people, then you've scored a political point or two and maybe brought people closer to your view.
As we head into this showdown, though, I think it's just a whole lot of sniping back and forth and a whole lot of gambling going on.
Democrats feel like they're gambling that they have a winning hand, that this, hey, we passed something and the House just won't do it.
They're gambling that's a winning hand.
House Republicans are gambling, hey, there was something we were willing to do and the Senate won't come back and compromise with us.
They're gambling that that is a winning hand.
Ultimately, though, we get to December 31st and nothing is resolved, then you see a further drop of congressional approval going into negative numbers.
But I'll tell you this one last thing for this segment.
Republicans, even Democrats for that matter, should not be driven by how low people's opinion is of Congress.
They should be driven by doing the right thing.
And if you do the right thing and the other side does what it wants to do and there's deadlock and you don't give, if Republicans do not give in, I mean, Republicans could make the public opinion of Congress go up a little by giving in.
So should they give in?
No.
No, they should not.
It's a recurring theme of today's show.
Let people think of you what they will while you go about the business of doing the right thing.
Let people think of you what they will as you go about the business of doing the right thing.
All you got to do is figure out what the right thing is.
Sometimes easy, sometimes not.
But if you lean on core values, it's not so tough.
1-800-282-2882, Mark Davison for Rush.
Final segment.
Well, the week has one more day.
The year, a handful more.
All to be handled by those of us who have the continued blessing of being on the Rush Limbaugh bench strength team, Mark Stein, Mark Belling, Walter Williams.
You're getting a collection, a mixture of those guys.
Brother Stein tomorrow, which is always fun.
Always love him.
And a bunch of guys next week, none of which will be me, none of whom, because I'm out of here for the holidays.
And headed to Iowa, by the way.
So next time we speak in a fill-in basis, I will have done that.
But the most important thing is that Rush himself will be back in the chair on Iowa Caucus Day on January 3rd.
I want to thank him and to him and Catherine, the best of Christmases, and to Bo and HR and Mike and Ed, and the folks I've had the chance to hang with all year doing this.
Just best of Christmases.
God bless our troops and our country.
I'm Mark Davis.
▲
Export Selection