All Episodes
Previous Next
March 23, 2012 - Rush Limbaugh Program
36:51
March 23, 2012, Friday, Hour #1
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Welcome to today's edition of the Rush 24-7 podcast.
Yes, America's Anchorman is away today, and this is your undocumented anchorman sitting in no supporting paperwork whatsoever, coming to you live from the sanctuary city of Deadmoose Junction in far northern New Hampshire.
Great to be with you.
Rush is boycotting himself today to protest his outrageous decision to continue associating with himself, but he will end his boycott and return for a full week of all-American excellence in broadcasting, starting 12 noon Eastern on Monday.
Next week, Rush back, he's just boycotting himself for today to protest himself, but he will return live Monday, 12 noon Eastern.
In the meantime, it's the end of the week, and you know what that means.
Live from New York City, it's Open Line Friday!
We're not live from New York.
Let's just live from Ice Station EIB.
It's Open Line Friday.
Yes, this is.
Honestly, this is what happens when you outsource the idents to that factory in Zhuangdong.
It's terrible.
They just never get it right.
Never get it right.
No, we're not live from New York.
That round of applause was live from New York, but we are actually coming to you from Ice Station EIB.
I think it's a balmy 42 degrees today, so I'm doing the show in my bathing trunks.
It's Open Line Friday, 1-800-282-2882.
You know what that means?
Monday to Thursday, the show's content is determined by a highly trained broadcast specialist.
But we do not have a highly trained broadcast specialist here today, so you can talk about whatever you want to talk about.
Call me up, give it your wildest shot, whatever it is you want to talk about.
And if you get on the air and you give it a go, you'll get to determine the content of the Excellence in Broadcasting Network.
1-800-282-2882.
Families cancelling vacations.
Fishermen watching their profits burn up along with their boat's gasoline.
Drivers buying only a few gallons of gas at a time because they can't afford to fill the tank.
This is how John Rogers begins his dispatch for the Associated Press.
What's interesting about this story is that as he gets deeper into the piece, his line is that nobody knows who to blame for this.
It's mysterious.
The president has little control over gas prices, according to Chris Kaufman, who spends $120 a week on gas to travel the 60 miles between his two jobs at the University of South Dakota in Sioux Falls and at a hotel in Vermillion, South Dakota, Dakota.
He blames the price spike on threats from Iran to cut off oil shipments through the Straits of Hormuz.
But he believes it's nothing.
The president has really nothing to do with it.
It's commodities traders.
Trucker Corey Neeson of Ruther Glen, Virginia, agrees.
The president is nothing but a fall guy, Nissan said as he took a break from his rig at a stop in Wilton, New York earlier this week.
Yeah, I get what you're trying to say, but he's a fall guy who happens to agree with the fall he's taking.
He is in favor.
When you've got a choice of which party to blame, do you want to blame the party that is in favor of American energy, that is in favor of drill baby drill, that is in favor of domestic sources of energy?
Or do you want to blame or do you want to say they're the ones to blame?
Or do you want to blame it?
Does it make more sense to blame it on the party that is opposed to new drilling, that is opposite?
opposed to new sources of energy in the United States, that thinks you can run the world's leading economy for a year, whatever year or more that America still gets to hold that title, that you can run the world's leading economy on algae.
That's the president's view.
The president says you just have to put algae in your tank.
His, what is the guy?
His Nobel Prize-winning energy secretary, Stephen Chu, says he would be in favor of oil prices being what they are in Europe.
So in other words, if you don't like gas at $4 a gallon, $5 a gallon, get ready for it at $10 a gallon and $12 a gallon.
That is what Stephen Chu, the Nobel Prize-winning energy secretary of this administration, is in favor of.
He likes that.
He likes the idea of that.
The president thinks that we should go with the Chevy Vault.
7,500 Chevy Volts were sold last year.
Nobody wants to buy a Chevy Vault.
Rich Larry at National Review calls it Obama's Edsel, and he's right.
That's exactly what it is.
But Obama says, okay, no, no, there's no problem.
We just need new energy-efficient window treatments.
The president wants to rescue the American economy on window treatments.
Sorry about that.
Reminds me of the Kevin Klein line.
Have you ever seen that Kevin Clyde film, Inned Out, where he's a closeted gay man, and he's got this audio cassette teaching him how to talk butch.
And in fact, the guy sounds, it sounds like Johnny Donovan up there when he does live from iStation EIB.
And so this voice is teaching him how to talk butch.
And in the middle of it, he says, what an interesting window treatment.
And Kevin Klein goes, what an interesting window treatment.
And it turns out that that's a trick.
That's not how to talk butch.
But President Obama, when he talks butch, says, no, no, all we need, that was his response to the BP Gulf spill a couple of summers back.
He goes, all we need to do is more energy-efficient window treatments.
All you need to do is put algae in your Chevy Vault.
The Chevy Vault runs on algae.
All you have to do is if you can get it from one piece of seaweed-infested water to another, maybe you can run it.
You know, all those lakes that have got the Eurasian milfoil and zebra mussel, put some zebra mussel in your Chevy Vault.
It'll run on that.
So President Algi Solyndra, as I like to think of him, I like to think of him like that because he makes him sound like a gigolo from a 1930s screwball comedy.
President Algi Solyndra, President Algi Solyndra thinks that as long as we just put the Eurasian milfoil in the tank of the Chevy Vault, that all will be fine.
Why does trucker Corey Neeson of Ruther Glen, Virginia, taking a break from his rig at a stop in Wilton, New York?
And by the way, Corey, if you're listening to the show, call us in, call in and 1-800-282-2882 and explain this to us.
Why do you think, why do you think the president is nothing but a fall guy?
He is not in favor of American energy.
Now, as Rush was talking about yesterday, he's suddenly decided to loosen up the regulatory process and he's going to approve the Keystone Pipeline.
Now, that's great news.
You know, the Keystone pipeline bringing all that wonderful, fabulous oil from Alberta down to the Gulf.
No sinister oil shakes, no Iranian mullers, no nothing, no Hugo Chavez's.
This is just Canadians.
Your oil can't get nicer than that, can it?
It's like Canadian oil.
Nobody's being brutalized for this oil.
No sinister members of the House of Saud are involved in it.
It's Canadian oil.
You can't get any nicer than Canadian oil.
And he, having nixed, having 86 the Keystone pipeline, he says, now, okay, we're going to build it.
We're going to build the Keystone Pipeline.
But just the bit, just the bit from Oklahoma to Texas.
As Rush pointed out, they're next door to each other anyway.
There's not obviously any burning need for a pipeline from Oklahoma to Texas.
They abut each other.
You can step, you can actually walk from Oklahoma.
If you stand on Oklahoma's southern border, it's amazing this.
Try it for yourself if you're in the neighborhood.
You can stand on Oklahoma's southern border and take one step south, and you'll be on the northern end of Texas.
That's how it works.
There's not really a burning need for this pipeline from Oklahoma to Texas.
But Obama's saying, no, I get the crisis.
I'm fast-tracking this little piece of the key.
Would it kill you, Mr. President, to maybe put the pipeline where the oil is, like that's up at the Canadian border?
And so the oil could at least actually get into the pipeline.
All that good Canadian oil up there, if you put the pipeline, the start of the pipeline where the oil is, it might help.
I'm just, you know, I'm not a Nobel Peace, Nobel Prize-winning scientist like Energy Secretary Stephen Chu, but I'm just thinking that if you've got a pipeline, an oil pipeline, it helps for the pipeline to start where the oil is.
I mean, just call me crazy.
Maybe there's something about this I'm missing.
Maybe I'm not just not getting it.
But this is the president's view of energy.
And yet, according to this Associated Press story by John Rogers of the AP, Americans do not know whom to blame, who to blame for the high gas prices.
It's not very difficult.
You've got a party that thinks like the Sierra Club and thinks that it thinks basically that America is the Sierra Club, that it's a kind of non-profit institute.
It's a non-profit institution, that America should act like a non-profit institution and it should basically declare itself a kind of wildlife park.
And although it has some unfortunate eyesores lying around the place, like oil derricks and mills and factories and dams, that we can blow up the dams and return those to the prestigious bits of wildlife that like them, mosquitoes, like you have, if you blow up the dam, get the water flowing again.
You can take down the milled, well, you don't have to take down the mills, you can convert them into a nice therapeutic massage place, plus a little place that sells like lattes and granola bars.
And that's far healthier.
So we've got an administration that thinks like the Sierra Club and is now expecting to get congratulated for putting in a pipeline from Oklahoma to Texas.
This is the famous Canadian Keystone Pipeline.
Neither Oklahoma nor Texas.
I'm just going from, as you know, I'm a sinister foreigner myself, so I'm not entirely clear on the map of the United States.
I know they've got like New York over on the right-hand side and Los Angeles over on the left-hand side.
And it's like the bit between is all a bit of a blur to me.
But as far as I know, neither Oklahoma nor Texas borders Canada, where the oil is.
So he's now saying, well, don't worry about it.
We fast-tracked, we fast-tracked this little bit of the Keystone pipeline.
So it's like now the big dig in Boston.
It's like the big dig in Boston, circa the year 2027, which is when the Congressional Budget Office predicts the entire total collapse of the U.S. economy.
By the way, that's his numbers, by the way, not mine.
I think it'll happen a lot sooner.
But he's saying 2027.
Just thinking about this, if you've got like one of those CD type accounts that's coming to maturity or whatever at a certain point, if it's coming to maturity beyond 2027, you probably might as well forget about it.
Take it out now and take the penalty because there ain't going to be a 2027.
That's according to his numbers.
But he's saying he now wants the congratulations for putting in this little bit of pipeline.
The environmental group Clean Air Watch, Clean Air Watch.
Say, absolutely, this president has been a disappointment, said Frank O'Donnell, president of the environmental group Clean Air Watch.
When Obama was elected, I think public health and environmental advocates thought a number of unresolved problems would be dealt in short order.
And we learned that environmental protection did not prove to be a first-tier activity for the White House.
What do you want, Frank O'Donnell?
He's sunk bazillions into Solyndra.
The Chevy Vault is his marquee vehicle.
His great plan for the Keystone pipeline is to tell the Canadians, oh, you can have a little, little bit of the pipeline.
The pipeline is going to go from deep southern Oklahoma to far northern Texas.
You can have that little bit of the pipeline, but nothing else.
But no, that's still not enough for Frank O'Donnell, president of the environmental group Clean Air Watch.
So who's to blame for $4 gasoline, $5 gasoline?
And Stephen Chu, the energy secretary, wants European priced gasoline.
$10, $12 coming your way.
Mark Stein in for Rush on the EIB network.
Open Line Friday.
More in a moment.
Mark Stein in for Rush Limbaugh on the EIB network.
It's Open Line Friday.
You know what that means.
You can talk about whatever you want to talk about.
You want to talk about the economy.
You want to talk about healthcare.
You want to talk about campaign 2012.
Do you want to talk about ballet?
Actually, should we have more funding for ballet?
We haven't talked about that in a while.
Give me a call.
1-800-282-2882.
Any cricket fans out there?
You want to talk about cricket?
I know the affiliates love that.
The big in-depth discussions on Australia versus Sri Lanka test matches.
1-800-282-2882.
Something else I want to get to today, by the way.
This business that mysteriously, mysteriously, Obamacare is now going to be costing twice as much as it was predicted to cost.
You recall that when Obamacare passed, the costs were estimated to be $938 billion, $938 billion, which is just below a trillion, because it was felt that it would be politically problematic for it to be $8 trillion.
So a means, a figure just underneath $1 trillion was come up with.
And the question was: how do you get to that figure of just under a trillion?
Because the CBO costs everything in 10-year projections, decade-long projections.
So Obamacare was constructed with no benefits for four years, no lollipops for the first four years.
So the cost of Obamacare was $938 billion.
And what do you know?
The first two years have now gone by.
And so the latest CBO 10-year costing is mysteriously, Obamacare has now doubled in cost from that $938 billion to $1.8 trillion.
Now, so the T-word, everyone thought, oh, well, that's great, this Obamacare.
It sounds so affordable.
It's under a trillion.
And there's very little, there's very few things that are under a trillion dollars in Washington today.
But this is only $938 billion.
Now, two years later, mysteriously, the cost of Obamacare has doubled to $1.8 trillion.
And you know something else?
In two years' time, it's going to be boomf-up again to some other incredible sum.
Because, in part, because it was constructed as an accounting trick to get past Congressional Budget Office accounting.
I think, you know, Paul Ryan's plan, we can talk about Paul Ryan's plan, by the way, if you'd like, 1-800-282-2882.
I'm happy to talk about Paul Ryan's plan.
But one of the things I would like to see proposed is that we abolish the Congressional Budget Office.
In fact, that we blow it up and we salt the ground so that nothing grows there ever again.
Because this particular accounting device, 10 years, 10-year cost projections, is unique to the United States.
They don't do it even in crazy countries like Greece and Spain and Portugal and Ireland and Italy, the so-called pigs of the European Union, Portugal, Italy, Ireland, Greece, Spain.
They don't have this 10-year phony baloney accounting trick.
I mean, for a start, it's ridiculous.
Senators' terms are six years.
Congressman's terms are two years.
President's terms are four years.
The idea that anyone's in a position to say what anything's going to cost in 10 years is absurd because it's one of the most basic principles of free societies that a parliament can't bind its successor.
So to cost things on the basis of what's going to be happening in 2022, 2022, right?
2022.
That's 10 years' time.
It doesn't seem like a lot of time.
2002 doesn't seem particularly like a long time ago, but think about 2002.
Did you honestly think the United States would be in the hole it's in in 10 years time?
In 2002, in the spring of 2002, that's going back to just after the Taliban had hitched up their dresses and skedaddled out of Kabul.
Did you think that the United States would be in this hole 10 years later?
No, none of us knows what's going to be happening in 2022, which is why the entire CBO accounting trick should be blown up.
That should be the line one of Paul Ryan's plan.
I'm going to abolish the Congressional Budget Office and get the United States back to an honest accounting system.
Mark Stein in for Rush on the EIB network.
Lots more still to come.
Yes, live from the soon-to-be-thawed out wastes of New Hampshire.
This is Mark Stein in for Rush.
Rush is boycotting himself today, but he will return on Monday.
Don't forget, don't forget, that Rush is giving away a new iPad every day to a randomly selected person who is following him on Twitter.
He bought supplies of these new iPads himself, and he's engraved the back with the EIB logo, the same logo you can see on the golden EIB microphone.
That it will be on the back of these exclusive Rush iPads.
And the only way to get one is to win one.
And the only way to win one is to follow Rush on Twitter.
You don't have to tweet him or anything, but you just have to follow Rush at his Twitter handle, as the tweeters say, his Twitter handle limbo or rush limbo with no space.
So you take Rush and you take Limbaugh, and then you take the little space between it and eliminate it and close it up and just put Rush Limbaugh, all one word, or the handle Limbaugh.
It's that easy.
And if you follow Rush on Twitter, you can win one of these new iPads that Rush is giving away every day.
Even days like today when he's boycotting himself, he'll still be giving an iPad away.
And if you go there as well, you'll be able to enjoy the tweets that Rush is sending from his Twitter account.
I've checked in with Rush since he started tweeting.
All you have to do to win the iPads is to follow Rush.
I notice, by the way, I want to see the next developer of this.
Rush has got a kind of unique Twitter account at the moment because he isn't actually following anyone.
So I want to see at some point whether Rush follows somebody.
I think Rupert Murdoch, who is one of my favorite tweeters, follows people.
Rupert, I think, follows about eight people.
He's been tweeting up a storm since he discovered Twitter, Rupert Murdoch.
But he's selective about who he follows.
And I think Rupert Murdoch follows about eight different people.
But that's eight more than Rush is currently following.
So you never know.
If you follow Rush, you might win one of these new iPads, but you might also become the first person that Rush follows on his Twitter feed.
So go to the handle Limbaugh.
That's his Twitter handle.
And you could, just by following Rush, you don't have to send him a tweet or anything.
You don't have to say, why aren't you boycotting yourself on Monday or anything like that?
Just go to his regular, just go to his Twitter thing, announce you're following him, and you could win one of these exclusive EIB iPads, entirely unavailable in any stores.
You could win one just for following Rush on Twitter.
Mark Stein in for Rush.
It is Open Line Friday.
Let's go to Grant in Comfort, Texas.
It's a comfort to know you're listening to us in Comfort, Texas, Grant.
Great to have you on the show.
Hey, Grant, you're live on air.
Let's try.
I don't know what happened to Grant.
Let's try Patrick.
Are you there, Grant?
Let's try Patrick in Sacramento.
Patrick, you're live on the Rush Limbaugh show.
Great to have you with us.
Yeah, how you doing?
Can you hear me?
Yeah, I can.
I can hear you loud and clear from the formerly golden state of California.
Wow, California's California.
There really isn't a definition for how to describe it outside of California.
No.
Don't go west, young man.
Yep.
Let's go in regards to the gasoline thing you guys talking about with Europe paying $10, $12 and Americans bitching about the $4 or $5 that we're about to be paying now.
And it brings me back to the JFK incident of him trying to open up all the oil banks here and make the oil companies here pay for it.
And at the same time, it's the taxes that we're paying for extra.
We pay at the pump.
We also pay as Americans.
We pay city, state, federal taxes to build and maintain roadways and thoroughfares.
And in Europe, they don't.
They don't pay those taxes.
They pay $10 a gallon at the pump.
If you drive, you pay for those roads.
Here in America.
Everybody pays for it regardless if you drive or not.
Yeah, that's information because they don't let us know the entire truth about why they're paying what they pay.
No, no, obviously, oil costs what oil costs.
The reason it costs three times as much in certain European countries as it does in the United States is mainly because of taxes.
It's not because those countries are being charged more for their oil or anything like that.
And you're right when you say that that is supposed to go to the cost of highway maintenance and all the rest of it.
In practice, a lot of that money just goes into the general fund.
In a way, the Europeans look on oil the way a lot of American states look on cigarettes, that it's something wicked that you shouldn't be doing, and they're going to impose big taxes on it to discourage you from doing it.
And Americans traditionally, in the modern era, in the era of the automobile, have not looked on automobile usage like that, Patrick.
As Americans, we have Cadillac and suburbans.
Go to other countries, they've got bossons.
Yeah, no, I always love the look when you land at, say, Charles de Gaulle airport in Paris and you go to the car rental counter and there's like some big fella from Texas or California ahead of you and he goes out and he's reserved his car from back in the United States and they take him out to the lot and they show him this thing that's like the size of the cup holder in his Chevy suburban.
He has to bend up, he has to fold himself up like a staple to get into the thing.
Yeah, I don't think.
And by the way, Patrick, you know, these small vehicles and the difference between this is this actually gets back to one of the biggest questions of all.
You know, Europe is dying because it's got these incredibly low birth rates so that it hasn't got enough young people to fund its old people.
Like in Greece, where 100 grandparents have 42 grandchildren, it's an upside-down family tree.
There aren't enough grandchildren to pay for grandchildren who are going to grandparents who are going to be living on public pensions for 30 years.
And one of the reasons is, is if you have these small, virtuous cars, if you have the Chevy Volt that Obama wants us to drive, you can't actually have big families.
You can't actually put enough kids in that car to have enough children paying for baby boomer retirements.
So small cars, the SUV, the great evil American SUV that is regarded as a symbol of bloated America, you know, the huge great Chevy behemoth that shears the top off the drive-through lane when you're going to get your Dunkin' Donuts,
that is regarded by environmentalists as a symbol of American excess, in fact, is one of the reasons why America is not yet in the demographic death spiral that Germany and Italy and these other countries are in where they're all driving around in these tiny little cup holders.
So it's not actually a small point, Patrick.
It's actually the number of kids you can fit in your car can actually be an existential crisis for the nation.
Very good point.
Very good.
I hadn't thought about the angle of, you know, your children are the next generation and so are theirs and so forth.
Yeah.
No, yeah, I mean, that's part of what that's part of, that's one of the big differences between here and there, Patrick.
As one suburban.
And doesn't that just bring the fuel cost right back to where it was?
If you have to have three cars in place of your original one suburban, it kind of defeats the purpose.
You're putting more cars on the road for a same-size population.
Yeah, that's right.
You have to have three.
You can't have, if you, if you've got a small car, you can't have three kids, particularly now.
When I was a kid, they just tossed us all that.
There weren't any seat belts or any baby seats or anything.
They just threw us all in the back, and we all rolled around.
We went around a sharp bend, and the window was open.
One of us would tip out and we'd be hanging on, hanging on to the running boards.
And we'd go around the corner and slide back into the vehicle.
They didn't have all this stuff.
Now, I believe in your great state of California, you've got to be in a child seat till you're 37 or something.
Isn't that right, Patrick?
So you can emancipate the state.
That's right.
I think, yeah, that's the well.
I think if you're a government worker, you could be in the child seat till you're 50 and then you retire at public expense.
I think that's how that works.
Thank you for your call, Patrick.
Yeah, that's the way it was.
You could crab any number of kids.
In your Model T, you could just toss them all in the rumble seat, and who cared?
Now they've got all these seat belts and baby seats until you're 37 in California, whatever it is elsewhere.
That actually is actually gets to this strange war on humanity that the Obama administration is waging.
You know, this idea now, they're going to have, what is it?
They've got free sterilization for college students.
This is part of Obamacare.
I hadn't noticed this.
There's all kinds of wacky things in Obamacare.
Obviously, if you've got a medical need for sterilization, like you've got a tumor in the womb or something and you've got to be sterilized, that's usually covered by normal health insurance.
But Obamacare is actually setting up a separate sort of express through way of sterilization for college women, you know, for all these college women who are revolted by the Republican war on men.
And they're terrified that one of the Republican war on women, they're terrified that one of us conservative types waging our war on women might pick you up in a singles bar one night and you might be carrying the hideous spawn of some conservative within you.
The best way to avoid that is just be sterilized.
Just swing along to the old Kathleen Sebelius clinic and she'll give you a shot and boom, you won't have to worry about it.
You won't have to worry about being impregnated by some hideous conservative waging a war on women.
And the justification for this, this is incredible.
The justification for this is that basically sterilizing, preventing pregnancy is a healthcare saving because then that baby doesn't need to be born and he won't be clogging up space in the maternity ward and he won't be having to have all those little shots we give the kids and then he won't grow up and need a massive supply of free government condoms.
So it's easier if he's just never born in the first place.
In that case, why doesn't Kathleen Sebelius just put something in the water and sterilize all of us?
This is the kind of logic that has led to Europe's demographic death spiral.
You can have a welfare state and you can have a crippled birth rate, but you can't have both.
Somebody has to be born to pay for all the government programs.
And when you have Kathleen Sebelius essentially defining babies as a cost burden that she's going to prevent now by sterilizing the co-eds of America, then you're looking at the demographic arithmetic upside down and you're basically big government liberalism is basically like operating like the shakers.
The shakers, if you recall, weren't allowed to breed and they had to win people over to their point of view simply by converting them.
That's basically Kathleen Sebelius' model for big government liberalism.
Mark Stein in Farush, lots more ahead on Open Line Friday.
Mark Stein in Farush on the EIB network.
You can get a little punchy, get a little punchy out on the campaign trail.
And I think Rick Santorum maybe ought to rethink the remarks he made about maybe Barack Obama being preferable to Mitt Romney.
I don't think so.
You never get the guy you want.
And well, you do occasionally.
But even if you do, he turns out to have feed of clay.
I mean, that's just politics.
That's the nature of the people who are attracted to politics, the nature of the people who run, all kinds of factors flow into it.
If you're in the Messiah business, you should be voting for Barack Obama.
You actually want to correct course.
Uh, then actually not having Barack Obama taking the oath of office next january is critically uh important, whoever is the guy running against him, and I think that's uh.
So I think Rick Santra, I you know uh, Rick is, to a certain extent, he was projecting, I think, this the sort of uh thinking of, of uh other election voters making their own calculations, the the the, the.
There's people who've been dissatisfied and the centrists and moderates, and they're like irrational people anyway.
Who the hell knows which way they're going to go?
I mean, we haven't yet reached that stage where they have the CNN.
I always love that point in the CNN presidential debates, where they then cross to a carefully finely calibrated, demographically accurate selection of centrist independent voters who haven't made up their mind.
They're sufficiently interested in politics that they want to go on CNN and provide post-game analysis for the presidential debate.
But they've been following it for two years and they haven't made up their mind.
And it's now the third week in October.
And Obama versus Romney or Obama versus Santorum or whatever it is.
They've just sat through two hours of the presidential debate.
And the guy, the first guy they go to, usually, it's usually a woman, the first woman they usually go to, says, well, I didn't hear them talk a lot about issues of concern to me.
Oh, dear, maybe if you just mailed in the script beforehand, what is of, sorry they were busy talking about the Iranian nuclear program.
I know that doesn't seem a big deal to you, at least not until you wake up one morning and look at the big mushroom cloud outhanging over Main Street.
I know it's not a big deal.
They didn't talk about issues that aren't of concern, that are of concern to me.
Nobody can tell how those centrist, moderate, squish guys are going to go.
But for most people, on the right or center-right, and for a big chunk of independents, real independents, all those people who artfully told themselves that this was that in 2008,
that this guy was a prudent, fiscally responsible centrist, all those guys who twisted themselves up in a pretzel to do that, they have learned the hard way that they cannot afford the costs of their preening moral virtue in voting for Obama, and that they're going to have a...
You think what this guy has done, by the way, just in an election year.
In an election year, when Catholic voters are supposedly important to the Democratic Party, he's just said, nuts to you.
We're boom, full steam ahead.
What do you think he's going to be introducing?
What do you think he's going to be introducing if he gets re-elected in February and March of 2013?
You look at what he's done facing his election.
He nicks the Keystone pipeline.
That is literally a no-brainer.
That is something that doesn't even involve anyone.
As I said, it's Canadians.
It's like the nice, I know I'm biased in this regard, but it's like who could be opposed to Canadians?
He's taken Canada.
Canada's now going to ship that oil, going to build a pipeline over to Vancouver and ship the oil to China.
He did that in an election year.
He did that facing re-election.
What do you think he's going to be doing in January 2013 when he doesn't have to worry about election ever again?
And that's why, with respect to Rick Santorum, whatever the context of this, I think he just needs to come out and make it clear that, you know, leaving aside any differences and, you know, the large amount of personal contempt certain Republican candidates seem to have for the other Republican candidates, leaving aside all that, whoever has got the R after his name this November is going to be a better bet than Obama, because you really do not want to see what an Obama second term will bring.
Mark Steinin for Rush, 1-800-282-2882.
Mark Steinen for Rush, they're building this new pipeline.
He's just given permission to build the pipeline.
The Canadian oil pipeline will start in Cushing, Oklahoma, which is, I gather that's just like a couple of miles south of the Canadian border.
So he's asking Trans-Canada, which wants to build the Keystone pipeline.
He's saying, well, no, no, we've said you can't build the whole pipeline to get your oil from Alberta to the Gulf, but we're going to let you build a little sliver of it starting in Cushing, Oklahoma.
The pipeline to nowhere.
The pipeline to nowhere.
That we can agree to.
▲
Export Selection