All Episodes
Previous Next
Jan. 6, 2012 - Rush Limbaugh Program
38:06
January 6, 2012, Friday, Hour #2
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
The views expressed by the host on this program makes more sense than anything anybody else out there happens to be saying because the views expressed by the host on this program are rooted in a daily, relentless, and unstoppable pursuit of the truth.
It's Friday, folks.
Let's go.
Live from the Southern Command in sunny South Florida.
It's open line Friday.
And you know the drill.
Monday through Thursday, we only talk about things I care about.
On Friday, I broom all that.
And whatever you want to talk about is fine.
If I don't care about it, I will fake it, maybe.
Telephone number 800-282-2882.
The email address, ilrushbow at eibnet.com.
From the UK Telegraph, this story is back.
Men and women have distinct personalities.
I kid you not.
Previous research has claimed that average personality difference between men and women are small.
This is by Nick Collins, science correspondent.
A new analysis of a survey of 10,000 people.
Folks, this is, I kid you not, I forget when the Time magazine cover was, but there was a Time magazine cover.
We've talked about it in this program.
A cover story.
The editors at Time were so shocked at this news.
They put it on the cover.
Men and women are actually born different.
Did you hear what Stephen Hawking said the other day?
You know who Stephen Hawking is?
70 years old.
He has survived decades with Lou Gehrig's disease.
He's paralyzed.
He's this brilliant physicist at Cambridge.
Wrote a book called A Brief History of Time, which was actually a trick.
I thought a brief history of time meant that it was going to be a layman's explanation of what somebody like him knows.
So when I got the book, there was nothing layman about it.
And there was nothing brief about it.
I got tricked into buying that book.
Anyway, I read it.
Stephen Hawking is reputed to be one of the smartest guys out there.
He cannot speak, but they have rigged up a system whereby a computer sensor is able to translate ticks in his right cheek into words.
He is able to create ticks in his cheek that create the words he wants his computer to speak.
It can take him 10 minutes to formulate a sentence.
It is hard work for him to communicate a sentence.
He can't type.
It is a computer robotic voice.
But he came out the other day.
He said, he said, the biggest mystery in the universe is women.
That he's been married once, married twice, divorced once, I think.
He said, I don't care.
I'm paraphrasing.
Everything I know about the universe, everything I know about quarks and quantum physics, the biggest mystery, the one that no one will ever understand is women.
Stephen Hawking.
And I said, well, he obviously hadn't met Snerdley because Snerdley knows everything about women.
Snerdley is a resident female expert, knows everything.
You ought to see it.
Whenever women, as a discussion subject, comes up, Snerdley storms into the conversation as an expert.
There's no doubt.
There is no indecision whatsoever when Snerdley starts talking about women.
But Stephen Hawking, who is smarter than all of us put together, so no matter what he learns about the universe, he will never ever, however long he lives, understand the first thing about women.
So I find it fascinating.
So we've got two stories here.
This one being the most recent, UK Telegraph, men and women have distinct personalities, as though this is news.
Who in the world?
See, Hawking is right.
And any normal human being knows that Hawking is right.
Who are these people that think men and women are the same?
Who are they?
And how do they all end up in journalism?
Listen to this story.
A new analysis of a survey of 10,000 people found that each sex has firmly entrenched characteristics.
No kidding.
Now they tell us.
With women, let me do the summary.
Here's the summary.
Women scored higher in sensitivity, warmth, and anxiety.
Men got higher scores in emotional stability, dominance, rule consciousness, and vigilance, as in wariness.
They surveyed 10,600 or 261 people, 5,137 females, 5,124 males.
And the key differences are what I just went through.
Women score higher in sensitivity, warmth, and anxiety.
Men rule the roost in emotional stability, dominance, rural consciousness, and vigilance, or wariness.
Now, another way of putting it, if you don't like it in list form, another way of summarizing this is that while men are more stable, dominant, rule conscious, and vigilant than women, the article ends with a female professor casting doubt on the study.
The female professor claims that the scientific evidence still shows that contrary to stereotypes, men and women are quite similar on a wide array of psychological qualities.
But of course, a woman would say that.
This is the problem.
So you still have to wonder why is it acceptable to embrace stereotypes about the sexes, but not about various races or nationalities or even, well, there's a third sex involved here, homosexuality.
So we're supposed to accept these stereotypical differences.
And then a woman comes along at the end of the story and says, nope, nope, nope, nope.
Contrary to these stereotypes, men and women are quite similar.
So we're no clearer.
We're no further along at the end of this than we were when we started it.
The researchers measured behavioral traits in a broader fashion than previous studies did.
They argued these broader definitions provide a more accurate description of personality characteristics.
I don't know who these people are that want to talk about, well, to put it, to whom it's news that men and women are different.
Who are those people?
What are their lives like?
What do they do when they get up?
What do they do during the day?
I don't know how anybody in the world, you know, other than Alan Alda, how can you say that men and women are the same?
Do you think that's nerdly?
Have you ever thought men and women are this?
Can you treat a woman the way you treat a man?
You can't, I mean, you couldn't get close to it.
And women, I mean, the same question.
There's a story in The Economist, moving on to something else.
This is one of my pet peeves.
Talk about it frequently.
Now, The Economist is a British magazine.
The title of this story is called A Right Republican.
And the point of this story is, although the presidency is theirs for the taking, America's Republicans are in danger of throwing it away.
And you know what the point of the story is?
The Republicans aren't moderate enough.
No matter who they are, no matter who the Republican is, they're too extreme.
Talks about every famous Republican to come down the pike and how even Eisenhower, one way or another, are too extreme.
And it's finally struck me.
I constantly lament on this program that it's a trick that has been fostered on the Republicans that they believe, and I'm talking about establishment Republicans, they believe that, for example, conservatism is extremism and that therefore conservatism is going to force independence, the precious independents, to run away from the Republicans and back into the arms of Democrats.
It's widespread all over the place.
It's what's dominating the Republican presidential nomination from the Republican establishment point of view.
This outright fear of any conservative.
But what puzzles me is where is this notion that the Democrats are moderates?
Our great independents are going to flinch at conservatives as extremists, and they're going to hightail it over to Democrats who are the most extreme, mean-spirited, just despicable people.
And have you ever noticed in the process of all of this, never, ever is it said that a Democrat candidate must moderate his tone to avoid ticking off the independents.
It's only the Republicans, only the Republicans who have to be moderate.
The Democrats never have to be.
Take your pick, Maxine Waters.
Take care of any stupid, foul-mouthed, extremist Democrat.
They never have to moderate.
They never have to tone it down.
They never have to stop the criticism of Republicans.
This is such a trap.
This is such a one-way street.
And it's really frustrating how the Republican establishment has bought into this.
And the reason they have is because of Goldwater.
And I'm going to say this over and over again until it becomes accepted fact.
Because what animates the Republican Party today is the Goldwater landslide of 64.
That's what they associate with conservatism.
They don't associate Reagan's 1980 triumphs.
They associate the Goldwater landslide.
That is what they think will happen anytime.
And unabashed, full-fledged conservatives nominated.
Therefore, That's why the Democrats are able to get away and the media able to get away with this trick of telling Republicans and their media types that we've got to be conscious of the independent.
We can't be critical of Obama.
We can't be outspoken.
We can't be any because all that's mean-spirited and it's extreme.
And the moderates, they don't like that.
They don't like confrontation.
And they're going to run right back to Democrats.
We own the moderates right now.
We own the independents.
They voted with the Republicans at 2010 midterms, and we own them now.
And I don't mean in an actual ownership way.
I mean, they're fed up with the Democrats.
The Independents are fed up with Obamaism.
The Independents are fed up with what the Democrats have done to the country.
There's no reason to be defensive about this.
No reason to lack confidence here.
There's no reason to think that we are the continual problem.
So here comes this latest gunk in The Economist, the right Republican.
Although the presidency is theirs for the taking, America's Republicans are in danger of throwing it away by nominating a conservative is what the point of the story is.
I'm just waiting.
I want somebody.
I may get to the point where I will pay somebody to write a story in the mainstream media suggesting a Democrats better tone it down or else they're going to tick off the independents.
I just want to see that story one time.
It's Open Line Friday.
El Rushbo executing assigned host duties flawlessly.
Zero mistakes.
And that's possible because I am the one who assigns the duties.
And I cannot be wrong when I do what I want to do.
Therefore, zero mistakes.
Grass Lake, Michigan.
That's next.
And Shelley, great to have you on the program.
Hi.
Hi, Rush.
Mega Datos from Michigan.
Thank you.
I was listening yesterday and getting increasingly frustrated with a lot of people calling you to support Romney.
They seem to have a short-term memory when it comes to the behavior of the press just prior to the national election.
In the fact, we saw the press systematically support John McCain.
They praised him for being a maverick going against his party.
He was all buddy buddy with the press until right before the election.
And the New York Times came out with that hit piece that just have to do with Romney and the callers yesterday.
The fact that they keep insisting that Romney is the only one who is electable.
Yeah, but they're not, I don't think they're saying that because they think the press is going to treat him fairly.
You think they really believe he's the only one that's elected?
Yeah.
No, they really do.
They really think Romney's the only guy that's electable because he's the most handsome and because he sounds the smartest.
I mean, that's a lot of people on our side have really lowered their requirements this year.
I know, I know.
And it's sad that we have.
They're so fed up with stupid sounding Republicans that somebody who looks like a Ken doll and can put three words together grammatically correct is enough for him.
And so that means he's electable as opposed to Perry who sounds like a hick.
These people think that Perry can't win because he's from Texas and sounds like a hayseed.
They think that Paul can't get elected because he sounds like a lunatic bond villain.
They think that who else out Kane can't get elected because he can't talk.
I mean, that's what I hear.
I hear this.
Kane never had a chance because he can't talk.
Perry didn't have a chance because he sounds stupid and too much like Bush.
Santorum before Iowa never had a chance because he never got over 2% of the polls.
Who else am I leaving out?
Huntsman never had a chance because he's too phony.
Bachman never had a chance because she was too sing-songy.
This is what I heard from my friends and people I know that Romney was electable because the only guy that looked handsome and could speak.
It has nothing to do with the way the media is going to treat him.
Does it really?
I'm to the point where I'm wondering, does it even matter anymore?
Because if we get Romney in there, and frankly, I'm from Michigan.
Romney's probably going to take Michigan.
I do not trust him based on his history of voting.
Yeah, but do you trust him more than you trust Obama?
That's not saying much.
Oh, now, come on now.
No, I know.
I'm just, I am so frustrated.
Ah, Shelly, that's a bit, that's a bit much.
There's a huge difference in Romney and Obama.
And I will be at the voting booth on Election Day voting against Obama.
That's what I think everybody knows.
This is why I say let's get the best conservative we can since we already have so much anti-Obama sentiment.
Why settle?
Why not go for the whole ball of wax?
No, I am not kidding.
It's time.
It's time to strip this bear.
I just alluded to this.
I'm going to tell you again.
This whole business of electability, I've been hearing about it for weeks, months.
We all have our circle of friends.
I too have my circle of friends.
Contrary to what you think, my circle of friends are no smarter than you.
They're no smarter than you, but just because they're my friends doesn't mean they're smart.
They're not stupid.
But no, I'm just, what I'm saying is they're just like anybody else.
This is the point.
That's a good thing.
And I get frustrated at this electability.
That's how the Democrats chose John Kerry, by the way, who served in Vietnam.
When Howard Dean failed in 2004 in Iowa, they panicked and said, well, you got to get somebody who can win.
And they thought Kerry could.
This electability reason to nominate somebody is flawed from the get-go because the reasons that people think somebody can win are flawed.
As evidenced by what I just told you.
Let me tell you, folks, I wouldn't have one ounce of doubt about Rick Perry.
I've been hoping Rick Perry would catch fire, but I have people in my sphere who don't want to vote for Perry, and largely they're women because he sounds too much like Bush.
He's too stupid.
He's too hesitating in his speech.
And Obama will clean his clock of the debate.
And I look at him and I scratch my head.
Have you looked at what he's done as governor?
Do you look at what he's tax policy?
I don't care.
He embarrasses me.
Okay, fine.
Let's move on.
What about Santorum?
Too extreme.
Who cares about abortion?
Okay, let's see.
How about Kane?
He can't talk either.
This is what people around me say.
He can't talk either.
Okay, what about Bachman?
She's too shrill.
She's too short.
She's a woman.
She's only been in Congress for five years.
You have a prayer.
Okay.
Write her off.
What about, let's see, who else?
How about a Huntsman?
Yeah, it's like he's a phony.
Plus, the guy worked for Obama.
It was an ambassador to China.
Come on.
Let's be serious.
This guy's not a conservative.
You get to Romney, and these people all said, now, there's a guy.
Sounds smart.
He's seasoned.
He's been at this for a number of years.
He's composed.
He looks good.
And he could beat Obama in a debate.
And in every one of these instances, folks, what's been frustrating to me is not one reason rooted in policy has been cited as a reason to support or not support somebody.
It has been a very, it's been very frustrating to me to see how surface and undeep, if I may use that term, people are about this.
I know why it's the case, but it still burns me.
All right.
You know, I look forward to Friday as sort of a half day.
And frankly, I just, I've opened a can of worms now.
I knew this was going to happen.
I'm sitting here.
I'm getting frustrated as heck over things you don't even know about, folks.
I've got, I've got so many distractions going on today.
You can't possibly believe it.
I'm not believing on you.
I've got to tell you what they are.
But now I've opened a can of worms on this whole qualification business.
So let me just go all in.
All right.
Let me just bear it all.
I did not mean to leave out Newt Gingrich.
I was having trouble remembering everybody in the field.
Let me go through now without having to rush this because of the constraints of time.
This whole business of electability.
And the first thing I want to ask you is where does it come from?
And the second thing I want to ask you is why, in the name of Sam Hill, are we not talking about Obama's unelectability?
Now, the reason we're not talking about Obama's unelectability is because too many of us are scared and defensive.
And also because he's incumbent and that carries with it some re-electability power.
But in terms of performance on the job, if there's anybody ever unqualified to be re-elected, it's Jimmy Carter II, Barack Obama.
All right, now ever since this whole thing started, you know it and I know it.
Everybody has been out for me to endorse somebody.
The pressure's been on.
You choose somebody and it'll be over with.
And that's not how I operate.
So when I don't choose, I hear about it from people.
And like you, I have a circle of friends.
And as our candidates got engaged and the debates started happening and so forth, I started hearing, you know, everybody wants me to know what they think.
Everybody.
And everybody wants me to know that they're just as smart as I am and maybe smarter.
This is one reason why when I go places, I don't talk.
I just sit there and listen and then try to figure my exit plan.
But let's go down the list.
And this is not any particular order, Santorum, talking about Republicans, conservatives.
The objection to Santorum was no, and these are randomly remembered.
And by the way, when I go through this, I want you to be cognizant of something.
I want you to ask yourself, who or where did your definition of electability as applied to all these candidates come from?
Because remember now, the lady that called, she basically said we got ropodoped into McCain.
Her point was the media went on and on how much they love McCain, love McCain, love McCain, and admit it.
There are way too many voters on our side who still seek media approval of our issues and our candidates.
And so a lot of people thought the media loves McCain.
We have a chance.
So I'll support McCain.
It was a rope of dope.
Okay, McCain gets the nomination.
I told you it was going to happen.
His biggest enemies were going to become the media.
And it happened.
And he was blindsided.
He didn't believe it.
None of his people believed.
He thought the media was his base.
He's even out there joking about it on TV.
So my contention is that for most of you, there are going to be exceptions.
Collect myself here.
For most of you, your opinion of somebody's electability is not yours.
Not entirely.
Whether you know it or not, you are subject to what the media says about these people, whether you actively fight it or not.
I just want you to be honest with yourselves.
So for example, if I'm describing you, when I tell you of some friends of mine who didn't like Rick Perry, because, Rush, he sounds stupid.
He can't put three words together without pausing to think about it.
He sounds just like Bush.
He's from Texas, and I'm sick and tired of people on our side looking and sounding stupid.
Okay.
Who put that thought in your head?
Is that actually your assessment of Rick Perry or is it the media's?
Yes.
Yes to both?
It's okay.
All right.
So that's Perry.
Now me, see, I don't care.
I'm looking beyond this.
I don't, I, frankly, since I don't care what people think, I really, if there's one thing I could do for people, the greatest gift I could give people is to have you not care a whit what anybody thinks of you.
You do not know liberation until you are able to master that.
But I'm going to maintain that a lot of people are choosing or not choosing to align themselves with a Republican candidate for fear of what people are going to think of them when they say, for example, oh, yeah, I like Perry.
You do?
He's an idiot.
Okay, you're right.
Yeah, I don't.
I don't choose these people based on what people are going to think of me because of my choice.
I choose them because, do I think they're good?
Do I think they'd be a good president?
Do I think they're going to fight for this country, fight for things I believe in when they get there every day?
That's my sole criteria.
I don't care what I could do well in a debate or not because I don't think the debates matter in a presidential race.
And I don't get depressed after our guys.
Did George Britton Bush ever win a debate in your mind?
One out of how many?
Six?
He got elected twice.
I rest my case.
Slow down, Rush.
This stuff gets me really ticked off, folks.
I can't, I, I, Gerald Ford did not lose the presidency because of a bad debate.
I refuse.
That's not why Gerald Ford lost the presidency.
Gerald Ford lost the presidency because of Chevy Chase.
That's a whole different thing.
Gerald Ford lost the president because of Saturday Night Live because he was made fun of as a bumbling idiot who couldn't even go up a flight of steps without falling flat in his face.
I didn't mean to leave out Newt.
The people I know who objected to Newt objected to him.
I don't like him personally.
I don't like what he did to his wives.
What he did is, well, you know, delivering that divorce decree to his wife while she's in bed with cancer.
Well, I said it never happened.
Well, I don't care.
You don't care?
It didn't happen.
I don't care.
He still looks mean.
He never smiles.
Okay, all right, fine.
Could you tell me anything about Newt's policies?
It doesn't matter.
I don't like him.
This is what I quickly learned.
I'm being asked if these are principal conservatives.
Well, yeah.
I mean, they're conservatives.
They're donors.
They raise money.
They're active.
And they think they're very smart.
All those things.
Santorum, I went through.
Huntsman, I went through.
Just did Newt.
Bachman.
Oh, yeah.
The objection to Bachman, you know, she's really courageous, Rush.
I really like her.
But you see how short she is?
Nobody's.
Barely see her over the podium.
And her voice is sing-songy, and she just one-notes Samba how she's doing this and she did that and she fought Obama.
I just did great.
I'm just telling you what I heard.
Just eyes, he just doesn't look smart.
I tell you, folks, this whole business of our nominee either having to look smart, sound smart, whatever.
It's just, it has taken it has come to occupy an inordinate amount of importance or attention.
So you get to Romney, and the people that don't like Romney to me will say, I just, you know, he's not real.
He's like a Ken Dahl.
I don't think he's conservative.
People like him say, looks great, sounds smart, seasoned, and is the only guy that can win.
When we get to this electability business, I say, who put this notion into everybody's head?
Who became the expert on electability?
Who knows?
Here we are.
It's December the 6th of 2012.
Who knows who's electable and who isn't?
Now, you might think that candidate A you wouldn't vote for, but what kind of hubris do you have to suggest nobody else would either?
Yes, I did.
I asked a very salient question one time.
Do we want to watch?
There was a picture of a female candidate.
I flashed it up here.
Do we want to watch this woman age in office?
It's clear these things matter.
But this, see, what bothers me is, I guess they cut to the chase here.
I've met Rick Perry.
I know he's not stupid.
And it ticks me off that that's his image.
It ticks me off that people on our side think he is.
And I want to know who puts that.
Yes.
Well, Snerdley, isn't it his job to convince us he's not?
Stupid, you mean?
Yeah, but why is it that the sole basis for determining whether he's stupid or not is how he appears in a debate?
Why don't you look at what he's done as governor of Texas?
Pernod to do that.
Don't throw this on me.
Don't throw this on me.
I can't say that, Snerdley.
I cannot say this.
That doesn't matter.
I can't say it.
And this is, I know it's frustrating, these one-way conversations, folks.
Because now you say, what's Snerdley saying?
What's Snerdley saying?
I'll tell you what he's saying, and you don't understand why I can't put him.
He's saying that the only reason, I can't say this, sternly, my manners, I just, all right, put it, give him, turn on his mic.
Turn smite, he's hellbent on saying this.
You go ahead and say it, and after you say it, we're going to go to a break.
Just say it slow so people don't think you're stupid and so people don't think you can't talk.
It'll make people think you're not unintelligent.
Make it sound like you're smart.
I'm going to put the same load on you that you are putting on all these candidates.
Fine, I can do it.
This is a legitimate question that people are asking.
For 20 plus years, we have been listening to you.
We have watched liberals try their best to derail you.
And what you do day after day, year after year, is out articulate them.
You throw it right back in their face.
You don't take their guff.
You explain conservatism.
You articulate it.
And you persuade people to conservatism.
And we want the same once in our lifetime from one of our candidates.
Thank you very much.
Okay, we'll be back.
It is, I was being honest, it was one of my most fervent desires.
And by the way, I will agree with the notion that suckupism can often be the truth.
And there's no question, suckupism can often be the truth.
I don't dispute that.
But I really wish, and I know I don't have the ability because this has to come from within each individual.
But I really wish each and every one of you could get to the point.
And those of you who have know what I'm talking about, where you don't care what is said about you, where you don't care what is thought about you, particularly you don't care what is thought about you or said about you after you've chosen a candidate.
But if you're going to choose a candidate and be public about who your choice is based on what people are going to think of you, that's being in prison.
And I was there for a long time.
We all are.
We're all raised to be totally obsessed with what we're thought of.
Our reputation's wrapped up in it.
And so we think.
But I'm telling you, it's just a prison.
My contention, whether you agree with me or not, you may, a lot of you may think that your thoughts, analysis on who is electable and who isn't is entirely your own.
I am here to tell you that the media, not our friend, has played a role in it to one degree or another in your thinking, whether you know it or not.
It's subliminal.
You can't watch the news as often as people like you and I do and not be affected by it.
How many of you ended up and I look to be justifications for this too?
It's not totally wrong.
How many of you, after eight years, finally started buying into all that you were hearing about Bush?
Stupid Warren to Rock was a disaster, overstepped in the war on terror, causing a depression, causing a recession.
I submit to you, it's impossible to be immune to it when we were subjected to it every day for five years.
I submit that a lot of this requirement that we have a nominee sounds smart and can beat Obama in a debate is the direct result of the media telling us for so many damn years how smart Obama is when we know he's not.
And you just want somebody in the public arena who in comparison is as smart as Obama or sounds as smart because you're just sick and tired of being lied to about what a brilliant guy Obama is when you know he's not.
You're fed up.
My only point here is that the media plays a far greater role in shaping your thought on who can win and who can't than you may even be aware of.
Not your fault.
Even I, El Rushman, it's a daily effort to fight and beat these people back.
Look at media mind controls.
Go search on Google for Romney and electability.
You'll get 5,110,000 results.
Romney and electability in the media.
We have been beaten over the head with this, that only Romney can win.
And a lot of it has come from Republicans, meaning the Republican establishment.
You Google Perry and too much like Bush, and you'll get 1,500,000 results.
Who puts the thought out there first?
Did you first have the thought that Perry's too much like Bush or did somebody else?
Obviously, it's a media phrase because it's in the Google search database.
Michelle Bachman and Too Short, 1,840,000 results.
Do you have control over the Google search engine?
Do you?
You find it odd that maybe you might have an opinion that agrees with 1.8 million hits in the Google search engine about Michelle Bachman being too short?
And what the hell does that have to do with whether or not she'd be a good president?
But there are a lot of people that cast her aside simply because of that.
It's my only point.
Here I was looking forward.
I really meant this.
This is being like a half day.
All right, get this one.
Google Obama and Smart.
390 million hits, nearly half a billion hits.
Obama and Smart, 390 million.
This is my only point here, folks.
My only point.
I know perception is reality in politics.
Frustrates me too.
Really does.
We'll be back.
▲
Export Selection