All Episodes
Previous Next
Jan. 24, 2012 - Rush Limbaugh Program
36:51
January 24, 2012, Tuesday, Hour #2
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Yes, America's Anchorman is away today, and this is your undocumented anchorman sitting in, Mark Stein.
Honored to be here.
No supporting paperwork whatsoever, but thanks to Mitt Romney, I am now on the path to self-deportation.
They'll all be trying to get a piece of it soon.
I'm from the Foreign Exchange student wing of the Limbaugh Institute for Advanced Conservative Studies.
Great program.
Guys like me get to study here, and in return, Canada gets to ship all its oil to China.
So it all works out for everyone.
Rush is away today.
He will return tomorrow to take you through the end of the week with full strength excellence in broadcasting.
He said at the end of yesterday's show, he said that I was going to be here and I was going to beat up on Newt, and then I was probably going to beat up on Mitt as well.
And here's the thing: you know, this is what it has come down to.
Whoever wins the nomination after this process is likely to be a flawed candidate who has to be dragged over the finish line.
And that doesn't matter.
We're not the party that believes in messiahs.
You know, we don't believe that some guy is the one.
We're not like that idiot movie director, Spike Lee, who was saying after the nomination of Barack Obama that henceforth they will divide all human time into before Obama and after Obama.
We don't look for messiahs.
We don't look for a guy to descend from the heavens and bestride the world like a colossus.
So the guy, it's going to be one of these four.
My friend Bill Crystal, a great man in many respects.
He's the editor of the Weekly Standard.
You see him on Fox News all the time.
He's now calling for, I forget, who is it he's calling to jump in?
Mitch Daniels.
He's calling for Mitch Daniels to jump in.
Some people are calling for Bobby Jindal to jump in.
Some people, all these guys, exactly.
This is the point.
They want these guys to come in.
They want the white knight on a charger to ride in and rescue us from the four dwarves or whatever these guys up on stage are meant to be.
And it's not.
Bobby Jindal is the white knight.
Bobby Jindal is the white knight for Louisiana who's going to ride in.
Mitch Daniels is going to be.
Paul Ryan is going to be.
These guys didn't run.
And you remember the way it was last summer after the Iowa Straw Poll?
Everyone said, whoa, whoa, scary.
Michelle Bachman won the Iowa Straw Poll, which doesn't mean anything anyway, because it means, as far as I know, the Iowa Straw Poll means in Ames, means you pass around enough $10 bills or gift certificates entitling you to free beer if you go and stand in the Michelle Bachman 10.
Who knows what it means?
But they said, oh, this is worrying.
We need to get Rick Perry in here.
And Rick Perry came in and he self-detonated 48 hours later.
And then Herman Kane came in.
Everyone was hot for Herman Kane.
We are not the party of messiahs.
We're not the party of white knights on charges.
It's going to be a flawed candidate that is going to have to be dragged across the finish line.
And that's just the way it is, and we have to deal with that.
And the important thing now is that we've got to get there.
We've got to make sure the Senate and the House seats and all the state and local races and everything else way down the bottom of the ticket.
There's big turnout for those.
And those chips all fall the right way too.
But, you know, who's to say?
Who's to say?
Obama is the luckiest guy in the world.
The only reason he's president is because he was a senator.
And the only reason he's a senator is because he had no opposition in Illinois.
And he wound up running against Alan Keyes, who was parachuted in from out of state.
And the only reason he's a senator from Illinois is because he was a state senator in Illinois.
And whatever it was, mysteriously, he managed to get his opponent's divorce records unsealed.
He's the luckiest guy in the world.
And who knows?
He may get lucky again this November, and it'll be a Reagan Mondale 49 state blowout.
Who knows?
Who knows?
But these are the four guys we have.
Nobody's going to jump in.
Mitch Daniels, Bobby Jindal, Mike Pence, Paul Ryan, they could all jump in.
And then, you know, 20 minutes later, mysteriously, ABC News would reveal that they'd wanted an open marriage in 1973 or whatever the hell it was.
So there's no point even going down this path.
These are the four guys.
And they've all got good qualities.
If you took 25% of each of them, you'd have a hell of a candidate.
If you took the 25% of Mitt that turned around the Winter Olympics, which was looking like the United States economy, Mitt turned it around and made money off of sports people don't even like.
Nobody likes curling here.
Nobody likes the two-man luge.
What is that kind of what is the nobody's interested in any of these sports?
Mitt made Mitt made Mr. Mr. Snirdley is standing on his mad hood now.
Real men don't like the two-man luge.
Oh, you know, you could get into it.
Don't you think it's like it's so touching when you see them go down the hill?
You can see the guy on top likes the other guy because he's arching himself, his body upwards so he doesn't crush the Stanley cup of the guy underneath him.
You know that.
You know that, Mr. Snirdley.
He's very insecure about these things.
Real men like the two-man luge.
Come on.
Anyway, Mitt made money off of these sports.
Mitt made money off sports nobody likes.
Nobody likes curling.
Nobody likes curling.
I did play-by-play curling once, years ago.
I was about 1920, something like that, filling in for some guy.
Did play-by-play curling up in Canada.
They got a curling channel in Canada.
Yeah, I did play-by-play curling.
What can I tell you?
I was desperate.
I was sleeping in a dumpster around the back of the stockyards.
It was the only available work.
The curling channel.
They got a curling channel up there in Canada.
I don't care what cable package you have here.
7,000 channels.
You don't get the curling channel.
Nobody gets the curling channel.
Now, if they got the side of Mitt that turned around, that if he did to the United States economy what he did to what he did to the Winter Olympics, that would be a great achievement.
If you were to take the side of Ron Paul that is opposed to the Federal Reserve and fiat money, fiat money, as he calls it, which is a phrase I always like.
I mean, God bless the man for using the phrase fiat money in presidential debates.
It sounds like what they used to bail out Chrysler with, but God bless him for actually introducing it as a debate concept.
If you took that side of him, because he's right about that.
He's right about the Federal Reserve.
The Federal Reserve spent last year buying 70% of American debt.
The Treasury issues the debt.
The Federal Reserve buys the debt.
How long do you think that's going to work?
Ron Paul isn't wrong about that.
If you took the side of Rick Santorum, that's right on the social issues.
He's right about those.
That if you've got dysfunctional families, if you've got the family as the basic building block of society, and it doesn't matter how many, how big a government, how many welfare payments you have, if you destroy the family, you can't have a strong economy.
In the end, an economy is built by citizens.
You took that side of Rick Santorum.
And if you took the big picture side of Newt, the side that thinks outside the box, he gave this speech on brain science.
What other Republican candidate gives a speech on brain science?
He's looking because exactly, says Mr. Sir.
Look, here's what he thinks about brain science.
I know you don't care what he thinks about brain science.
I'm going to explain why it's important.
Here in the Western world today, in the Western world today, people are living longer and longer.
They're living to the age of 97, spending the last 20 years with dementia, Alzheimer's, all this kind of stuff.
That's expensive.
Now, you think of the expense of this.
If you're like in Greece, where everyone retires at 52 and they spend their last 25 years on dementia, being kept in a facility at taxpayers' expense, Newt is actually thinking about these big picture issues.
If we could cure Alzheimer's so people would be mentally competent, particularly when we've got so many non-agenarian senators or whatever.
I mean, you know, what was it?
Well, Mr. Snerdley wants to know if Newt is so smart, how come he didn't see Freddie Mac was going to be a problem for him?
Now, it's true.
He's got a few.
But I'm just looking – I'm saying if you took 25 percent of each candidate and put them all together, you'd have a – that guy isn't running.
So the guy – so the – So the way to think about this is we're going to get a guy that a good half of us are not going to be happy about.
And we're going to have to drag him across the finish line.
I have no problem in saying this.
I think there's all kinds of baggage.
Baggage with Newt.
No, no, no, no, no, no.
It's not lame at all.
It's not lame at all, Mr. Snerdley.
Actually making money off the Olympics is an achievement.
Do you know Canada held the Olympics in Montreal in 1976 and they didn't pay.
Montreal taxpayers only finished paying off the debts from the 1976 Olympics on their 2005 property tax bills.
That's what having a non-Mitt Romney-run Olympics can do.
And that's a, you know, Mr. Mr. Snerdley is now resorting to cheap Kinadophobia.
And we are not going to go down that.
We are not going to go down that route.
You know, I say there's too much hate out there.
I'm going to take the high road.
If you took all these candidates and you came up with, you took all their best points, then you would have a great candidate.
But it doesn't work like that.
We're going to disagree.
And the point is that any one of these guys would be better than Barack Obama.
And we've got to keep ourselves focused here.
Obama tonight is going to be talking about fairness.
What he means by fairness is a huge government that mediates relations between the citizen.
Fairness, when a government official uses the word fairness, what he means is more state power.
Because fairness means the government regulation of relations between individual citizens.
So when he has that poor woman, the most famous secretary in America, Warren Buffett's secretary, sitting up there, he's going to use her as an emblem of what's not fair.
The fact of the matter is she may be a very nice lady and all the rest of it.
But what Barack Obama is arguing about is for a massive government where certain people will have privileged relations with that government, like Warren Buffett, for example.
It turns out he's, who knew?
He's the surprise beneficiary of the cancellation of the Keystone pipeline.
Because now he's going to, a lot of that, insofar as any of that oil gets into the United States and doesn't go to China, it's going to be coming on the Burlington and Santa Fe Railroad, which he happens to own.
So very conveniently, very conveniently, the less oil that goes down the Keystone pipeline has to come on trains owned by Warren Buffett.
I mean, that's the country you're going into.
Fairness.
When a politician uses the term fairness, what they mean is government management of relations between individuals.
Mitt Romney shouldn't be arguing on that turf.
You're going to have a bigger government, a broker government, and that's why we shouldn't be talking about sugar beet.
That's why we shouldn't be talking about Terry Shaivo.
That's why we should be talking about the real issue here, which is that this government and government of the size that Barack Obama wants and that he will implement in his second term is going to drive this country deeper into the abyss than it's ever known.
So if you didn't like the first Obama term, you're not going to like the second Obama term.
Any one of the four guys on that stage should be better.
Yes, there's problems.
So what?
I'd love it if Calvin Coolidge won the ticket, but he's not running this year.
He didn't want to get into the race.
He didn't want to throw his hat in.
I know he's been dead for 70 years.
I'd write 80 years.
I'd rather Calvin Coolidge dead than any of those four guys up there alive.
But he's not on the ticket.
I'd like a constitutional amendment so that even though he's been dead for 80 years, he could be allowed to run.
We've got to make do with one of these four guys, and whichever one of them it is, it's better than Barack Obama.
And that's what matters.
1-800-282-2882.
Mark Stein for Rush on the EIB network.
Let's go to Joel in Yakima, Washington.
Joel, thanks for waiting.
You are live on the Rush Limbaugh Show.
Thanks, Mark.
I can't believe I'm actually going to defend NBC here.
I think your analysis of the line of questioning last night was completely unfair.
Sugarcane, Cuba, and Fidel Castro, NASA funding, not Mars, NASA funding.
No, NASA, yeah, NASA funding.
Yeah.
Is very relevant to the state of Florida and the electorate for the upcoming primary in the state of Florida.
Well, let's just look at that.
Sugar funding, right?
These guys are running for President of the United States.
And the citizens of Florida, there's no such thing as citizenship of Florida.
There's citizenship of the United States.
So there's U.S. citizens who happen to live in Florida.
There was plenty of talk about taxes and the federal government at large.
I just wanted to ask questions that were relevant to the voters in Florida.
You know what the relevant thing about sugar cane?
Sugarcane?
The total sugar subsidy.
So this is for cane sugar and beet sugar, as Newt Gingrich would say.
The total sugar subsidy in the United States is something like $60 million, right?
$60 million.
Okay?
Do you know what the United States government, the government of the United States, currently spends that it doesn't have every single hour of the day?
In other words, what it spent during the first hour of the show, money it doesn't have, what it borrows.
Do you know how much that sum is?
According to the 2011 budget, $188 million, a fifth of the billion.
This government spends a fifth of a billion dollars it doesn't have every single hour of the day.
So a $60 million total United States sugar subsidy works out at about 20 minutes of federal borrowing.
In other words, as long as it took them to give the period they discussed the time they discussed sugar beets and sugarcane for is as long as it takes the entire United States government to borrow that sum.
$60 million is about the equivalent of three refurbished border posts in the middle of the Vermont, New Hampshire and North Maine woods.
$60 million is peripheral to the fate of the United States and the good people of Florida who will be exercising their votes as citizens of the United States who happen to be residents of Florida should understand that spending 20 minutes talking about 20 minutes worth of federal borrowing is completely irrelevant to their future, their children's future and their grandchildren's future.
Look, I don't particularly care about sugarcane, but it is obviously relevant to the people in Florida.
I don't think Cuba are relevant to the nation.
Let's go through them.
I'm up for that.
I'm not a lot of questions.
No, I'm up for that too.
Cuba, Brian Williams, Brian Williams asked this question.
If China were Cuba, what then?
This is a preposterous question.
Obviously, if China were, as Rick Santorum said, if China were 90 miles offshore, things would be, we'd react to China very differently.
Yes, so what?
If Belgium were Cuba, we'd react to Belgium very differently.
If Papua New Guinea was Cuba, we'd react to Papua New Guinea very differently.
It was an absurd question, a pointless hypothetical, and a complete waste of time, even if you want to talk about Fidel Castro.
What was the third one you said?
NASA.
NASA?
Yeah, now here's the...
Or NASA.
Yeah, NASA.
NASA.
The Space Administration.
Now, Mitt gave an answer about the Space Coast.
He goes, people are hurting on the Space Coast.
And so in other words, we ought to invest in NASA so that people on the so-called space coast of Florida will have jobs.
So in other words, going to Mars should just be the ultimate in economic stimulus.
It's interplanetary economic stimulus.
And after we've done that, we can go to intergalactic economic stimulus.
So I accept your point that NASA may be a critical employer on the so-called space coast of Florida.
But the space program does not exist for the benefit of stimulating the Florida economy.
So in other words, even to discuss it in those terms does a great disservice to the purpose of NASA and to the point of space exploration, Joel.
Well, I respectfully disagree.
I just think that you were completely unfair about it in the beginning of the show.
Well, you've made your point, Joel.
And I hope, by the way, it's Joel, not Joel, isn't it?
I did get that right, did I?
Because my other fascinating point about Brian Williams is that he said he doesn't say weekend, he says weekend, which you hear people saying in clubs in Mayfair in London.
And I don't think I've heard anyone ever say on this side of the Atlantic before.
But thank you very much for your call, Joel.
No, I stick to what I said.
$60 million of sugar subsidies, waste of time.
And talking about if there's a justification for the space program, it's not because it improves the jobs market on Florida's so-called space coast.
And if there is an issue with Fidel Castro and the fate of Cuba, it is not because, as he put it in this hypothetical, absurd hypothetical, what if China were Cuba?
Would we take it differently?
Obviously, we would.
If Russia were where Cuba is, we'd treat it differently.
If India was where Cuba is, we'd treat it differently.
It isn't.
Cuba is where Cuba is.
China is not in the Caribbean.
It's a pointless hypothetical and should never have been asked.
Hey, great to be with you.
Rhythm Nation.
Janet Jackson, she's got the sugar beet.
She's got the sugar beet.
You know, when you're that into the sugar beet, you risk having a sugar malfunction at the Sugar Bowl.
This is Mark's time for Rush.
By the way, Rush will be back tomorrow.
Don't worry about it.
1-800-282-2882.
You can go to RushLimbore.com, be a Rush 24-7 subscriber.
It's like he's never gone away.
You need never be troubled by third-rate guest hosts ever again.
Go to RushLimbore.com and it will be like he's never gone away.
Here, vignettes from Obamaville, 2012.
Lynn, Massachusetts.
Authorities say a Massachusetts woman bought $64 worth of soda using a stolen welfare benefits card and then immediately fed the full cans into the supermarket's automated redemption machine for the nickel deposit.
So she's bought $64 worth of soda.
So like $64, $64, that's about 60, let's call it 60 cokes.
And she feeds every full can into the redemption machine and she gets three real dollars to grow the economy with.
Although obviously she's increased Coca-Cola's carbon footprint by feeding all that hideous sugary beverage into the landfill.
I don't know how this works.
This is vignettes from Obamaville.
Tina Caffarelli of Lynn pleaded not guilty Monday to charges including larceny, property destruction and receiving stolen property.
She was ordered held on $250 bail.
I don't even understand this.
This is a woman who steals.
By the way, when they say the welfare benefits card, this is basically the food stamps card, isn't it?
Because you don't need to.
They don't have the food stamps anymore.
It's like a kind of credit card.
It's like the whatever they call it.
It's the food stamps credit card.
Don't leave home without it.
It says more about you than cash ever can.
So they're using the food stamps card at Price Chopper, $64 worth of soda.
She feeds them all into the automated redemption machine.
So all the aluminum, it's all going into the aluminum recycling, and that's all being confused because it's contaminated by the Coca-Cola or 7-Up or whatever's in there.
So she's damaged the planet.
She's worsened global warming, but she does get $3 in cash.
Now, how often does she do this?
Because they're demanding $250 in bail from a woman who uses a stolen food stamps card to feed a bunch of cans into a machine and get $3 worth of cash.
popular saying in Massachusetts, Lynn Lynn, the city of sin.
You never come out the way you went in.
That's what they say in Massachusetts.
You have a wild time there.
I'll bet you know, sometimes Mitt Romney likes to go on an almighty.
You know, people say he's Mr. Clean Cut Mormon.
I'll bet you in Massachusetts, he likes to go on an almighty bender, just like somehow just like fire up the car, drive into Lynn, maybe beat some, mug some guy in an alley, take his food stamps stamp, and then steal all the Coke because he doesn't drink, so he wouldn't, he gets all the Coke with the food stamps, and then you just shovel it into the redemption machine, and then you drive away with $3 in nickels.
Now, if Mitt has to declare that on his tax return, that's capital gains, isn't it?
Because it's not income.
It's not income.
So it's on his investment.
He invested in a stolen food stamps card and he got $3 of nickels out of it.
This is the Obama economy.
They're now stealing your food stamps credit card to price of Coca-Cola, $64.
The return you get from the automated redemption machine, $3.
Using somebody else's stolen food stamps credit card, priceless.
That's the Obama economy.
Congratulations.
Let's go to John in Cincinnati, Ohio.
John, it is great to have you on the Rush Limbaugh show.
Hey, Mark, it's jolly good to talk to you today.
Jolly good to talk to you, too.
I do hope you're not taking the Mickey out of me there.
What's on your mind, John?
No, no.
I've been watching all these debates.
And first, I got a statement and a question for you about this Romney tax thing.
You know, first, it's clear to me that the media and the liberals, and unfortunately, even some of the Republican candidates, think that enough of our great country is just so ignorant that they don't understand the difference between regular income tax and capital gains tax, and they're just going to keep blurring the lines and playing this.
And I'm just wondering if you think that that's true, that a large part of our country is just really that ignorant, or if this is just going to go away and backfire at some point.
No, I think you're going to see the president actually making the argument you talked about in the speech tonight.
His whole issue now is fairness, fairness, fairness.
And what he thinks is he thinks he can present it in a way.
He'll point out Warren Buffett's secretary sitting in the gallery, and he'll say it's outrageous that she pays tax at three times the rate of Mitt Romney.
And I would imagine that when you watch ABC and CBS and NBC, they will report that and they will take it at face value.
And that will be how the issue is framed.
But I don't, you know, I think out there there's enough people who understand that the problems facing the United States are not that people do not give enough in taxation to the federal government.
The problem is that the federal government is spending.
It's spending way too much.
It's spending way more than anything useful it's doing.
And that when a guy like Mitt Romney, who doesn't actually have a job, he's judging from these tax returns, Mitt Romney is officially unemployed and living off investment income.
In other words, living off, in a sense, living off a 401k or a savings account or whatever.
And if he happens to, and if he's giving over $3.5 million to the United States Treasury, that's more than enough.
I don't think, I mean, I think this issue, if Mitt is smart, he can drive a stake through the conventional portrayal of this issue.
And you think Americans are smarter than that too, John, is that right?
I clearly do.
I think that they're just playing this card, and it's just frustrating that the liberals and the media clearly do assume that a large percent of the country is that ignorant.
And I don't think that's the case.
And I think it's going to backfire on them.
And I think they could easily turn it around and start asking Obama how much he's paying in capital gains tax, and if he considers that fair.
I mean, why not ask him for those records?
Well, oddly enough, the media never do ask Obama for anything.
But where they might be onto something, John, is look, there's not a lot of people like Mitt Romney.
Mitt made $20 million or something last year.
And he's paying a rate of whatever it is, 13.9%.
So he's giving $3 million and whatever to the United States government.
For a start, as Rush has pointed out, he's already paid tax on that.
Because the money you invest is the money from his salary that he had left after he's paid tax on it and after he's paid for his living expenses that he has left to invest in another company.
So in other words, the money that he put into ACME investments in order to get the income that he's reporting in this tax year, he's already paid tax on.
And now he's paying an additional 15% tax on it.
The question here, the question here is a really basic one.
Is the issue revenue or is the issue taxation?
And is the issue spending?
And I think most Americans understand that the issue is not revenue.
You could take everything that everyone like Mitt Romney has, and it wouldn't matter.
In other words, even if you took all the wealth of the if you taxed all the income of the wealthiest 1%, It would pay for maybe one Obama stimulus package.
There's not enough Mitt Romneys in the country to run the federal government on.
We're getting to the stage, in fact, where there's not enough money on the planet to run the United States government on.
And I think there's a large, every day there's more and more people who understand that, John.
I do as well.
And I'm hopeful it's going to keep turning in that direction, that the bigger picture is what matters as this debate goes on and these smaller issues go away.
But you just keep seeing the media play these cards all the time, and it just makes you realize that they have such a low thought of the American public that they can just keep doing that.
Well, you know, here's the response to that.
What do you want the corporate tax rate to be in the United States of America?
It's 35% now.
It's like 16.5% in Canada.
Canada, which most Americans think of as a socialist basket case, has a corporate tax rate half the rate of the United States.
So why do you think, by the way, why do you think that this company that wants to put the pipeline in from Alberta down to Houston is called Trans-Canada?
Trans-Canada owns every single dam on the Connecticut River.
In my part of New Hampshire, I went to, I was driving down Main Street in Wells River, Vermont, and saw a Trans-Canada truck parked outside the laundromat only the other day.
You see them all over.
They own every dam on the Connecticut River.
Why?
Because it's more profitable to be in the dam operating business as a Canadian company than it is as a U.S. company.
At a certain level now, at a certain level, the United States is just driving its economy into a flatline economy.
Unless you're a crony capitalist, unless you're Warren Buffett and you've got the hotline to the Oval Office, there will be increasingly less point to operating a business in the United States.
And I think people do understand that.
The problem is not the tax rates.
The problem, when you've got the highest corporate tax rates in the Western world, when you've got higher capital gains tax than most parts of the Western world, the issue is the spending, not the taxation.
Mark Stein for Rush, more ahead.
Mark Stein in for Rush.
Dick Army.
Dick Armey says, quote, Newt had problems, but I don't think that it was accurate to say he resigned in disgrace, unquote.
If you know anything about Dick Army's relationships with Newt, you'll know that for Dick Army, that is the equivalent of kissing him smack on the lips and running his hands up and down his back for 20 minutes.
That's the warmest thing that Dick Army has ever said to Newt about Newt Gigrich.
Newt had problems, but I don't think that it was accurate to say he resigned in disgrace.
Rush was talking about Newt yesterday, and he said, what was it?
He said, Newt is a vessel.
Yeah, Newt is a vessel.
Yeah, I mean, I could agree with that.
My worry is that the vessel he is may be the Costa Concordia.
That's the problem.
But no, I mean, no, no, let's be serious for a minute.
Rush is absolutely right on this.
Rush is right on this.
When you want someone who is arguing with conviction, conviction on big picture conservative principles, the way Rush has done for 20 years, Newt and at least on the domestic front and one or two other areas, Ron Paul are the only guys doing that up there.
And Mitt is not doing it.
Of the two frontrunners, Newt's doing it and Mitt is not.
And the most pathetic moment in that sad little excuse for a debate last night was when the candidates were asked what they'd done for conservatism.
And Mitt Romney said, well, I've married and I've raised however many children, you know, 17 children and 123 grandchildren.
And I've run a business.
There's all kinds of people who've got 17 children, 127 grandchildren, and it doesn't mean they've done anything for conservatism.
This is pathetic.
It's insufficient.
It really is insufficient.
And people, you know, here's the thing for here's the thing for Mitt Romney.
In South Carolina, he was 20 points ahead two weeks ago.
20 points ahead.
And he finished 12 points behind.
He lost 33 points in two weeks.
You know, that's a guy with really soft support, pathetically soft support.
And it's soft because when he's asked about it, when he's asked a meat and potatoes question like that, when he's asked one where you want real raw, dripping, red, bloody meat, you want a big hunk of fresh roadkill to toss to the crowd, he says, well, I married a good woman.
I've been dating since high school.
And it's not enough.
Who cares about that?
At some point, Mitt Romney, more than anything else, by the way, Mitt Romney, I think, needs a really big idea.
I mean, this is the point.
He can't run on anything he did in Massachusetts.
His whole thing now, I'm not going to apologize for my success, is that's a cute line.
But when most people, when they get the precy of your success and it involves words like Cayman Islands and Swiss bank account, that is not going to be a sellable line.
You need to have a big, and by the way, it's not good enough to say people on the space coast are hurting.
That's what he does everywhere he goes.
When he was in, when he went, I can do this and I'm a foreigner.
When you're in Iowa, you go, people in the Hawkeye state are hurting.
When you're in New Hampshire, you go, people in the granite state are hurting.
When you're in South Carolina, you go, people in the Palmetto State are hurting.
When you're in Florida, it's a big state.
So you break it out into regions.
You go, people on the Space Coast are hurting.
People in the padhandle are hurting.
People at Palm Beach, they're not hurting so much.
I'm a foreigner and I can do this stuff.
Come on, man.
Get real.
Can't, you've got to connect with the people.
You've got to connect.
You've got to connect, well, a guy has got, that's why Newt is, Mitt is never going to be Mr. Warmth, Mr. He's.
He's never going to be sitting in a diner and some schlub is going to be explaining why their social security disability check was 12 days late and they wound up getting kicked out of their trailer and then their ex-wife had the account froze.
Mitt is never going to be able to connect with those people.
He needs a big idea.
He needs a big idea and he needs to get it quickly because otherwise, Rush is absolutely right.
But when it comes to actually to conviction, to conviction, when Newt starts talking about all those big picture issues, he was brilliant on the pipeline in South Carolina.
He said, there's no excuse for this pipeline not being built.
This pipeline from Alberta to Houston.
There's absolutely no excuse for it.
And TransCanada will probably sue the federal government and win over it.
And he said, we have driven Obama's genius is to have driven a conservative pro-American prime minister into shipping the oil to the Chinese.
It doesn't do anything for the environment.
The safest way to transport oil in the world is by putting it in American pipelines.
Instead, America is not going to be getting oil from Alberta.
It's going to be getting it from the Middle East, which will be coming in tankers, which will be leaking all over the pristine oceans of the planet.
That's in the Atlantic.
So the oil coming into the country will be devastating the Atlantic.
And the Albertan oil that will is now going to have to be shipped to China will be traveling in leaky containers across the Pacific, contaminating the Pacific.
Environmentalists opposers.
Posers, if they cared about the planet, this is a complete no-brainer.
You bring it in the pipeline from Alberta to Houston, and the Americans get the oil.
Instead, you ship it in containers from the Middle East, leaking all the way across the Atlantic to America, and you ship it from Canada to China, leaking all the way across the Pacific.
Environmentalists opposers.
Opposers.
And Newt is the only one up there explaining this stuff in primal terms.
And Mitt needs to get with the program on this.
He needs a big idea.
He needs Able to articulate it.
And saying, I'm not going to apologize for my success.
I'm not going to apologize for my Cayman Islands account.
That isn't going to be enough.
Mark Stein for Rush.
More to come.
Mark Stein in for Rush on the EIB network.
We're talking about the presidential so-called debate last night.
There was no such thing.
1-800-282-2882.
Newt is going to insist that from now on, the audience gets to express itself as it wishes.
He's right, and he should have insisted on that last night.
▲
Export Selection