All Episodes
Previous Next
April 26, 2012 - Rush Limbaugh Program
36:37
April 26, 2012, Thursday, Hour #1
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Welcome to today's edition of the Rush 24-7 podcast.
Yeah, I know.
I guess a little bit late getting the switch turned on there, but there it is.
Ditto Cam's up and running.
I'm up and running.
Sitting here in the distinguished and prestigious Attila the Hun chair of the Limbaugh Institute.
Why are you frowning?
What are you frowning about?
Well, I just, well, because I'm reading some stuff here.
Show prep never stops.
By the way, I need to know something.
Starting with the spring fling, you know, when my buddies are, I bet 10 people had 10 guests for the weekend starting Wednesday night last week.
And they all arrived.
He said, are you okay?
And I said, yeah, yeah, never better.
Are you sure?
You're okay?
I got a note from Joe Scarborough this morning.
You okay?
I'm getting emails.
Are you okay?
What's going on out there that I don't know about?
I haven't had a TV on a couple days.
Is there some new assault on me that I don't know about?
What?
There isn't?
Why is everybody asking me if I'm okay?
I mean, they're coming.
Are you okay?
Like I'm about to like they think I'm about to wilt, crumble, and like the wicked witch melt away.
What?
What is it?
Because Romney won.
People ask me if I'm okay because Romney won.
Well, Romney won.
Well, you know, that's a whole nother thing.
I guess I should get into that at some point.
I've got to be very careful about this.
I'm just not panicked about that.
I think this election is going to be about Obama and Obama and Obama.
And at least on this program, this election is going to be about Obama.
In a sane world, the Democrats would have gotten rid of this guy and put Hillary in there with her new Spanks.
Have you never heard of Spanks?
I hadn't heard of Spanks either until today is a story in the New York Post about Hillary wanting to meet the manufacturer of Spanks.
It was at the time magazine, 100 Most Influential People.
Well, 99 or what, because I wasn't there.
And of all the people, no, no, it's not spanking anybody.
It's Spanks.
It's S-P-A-N-X.
And Hillary and Huma were at the time 100 most influential bash.
No, no, no, no.
Not getting spanked.
Hillary and Huma were, if you just, look, I know where my sentences are going, if you let me say them.
Hillary and Huma are at the time bash, the 100 most influential people, and there's all kinds of really influential people there.
And of all the that's right, Wiener's Huma was there.
Wiener wasn't there, but and Huma's not one of the 100 most, she was just Hillary's, oh, I don't know, guest escort.
I don't know.
Anyway, Huma, Wiener's Huma, and Hillary are at the time 100 most influential people bash.
And there's a lot of influential people there.
Bin Laden would have been there if he weren't dead.
And if Hillary had a chance to meet all these people, anybody, and she wanted to meet the woman who invented Spanks.
Now, I'm reading this today.
I never heard of Spanks.
Let me read to you the story.
Hillary Clinton aide Huma Abaden asked for a meeting with Spanks creator Sarah Blakely after the Secretary of State spoke at the Time 100 gala.
Hillary was the keynote speaker, by the way, at the time 100 thing.
The event to celebrate Time Magazine's 100 Most Influential People in the World issue was packed with moguls, leaders, newsmakers, including Jeremy Lynn, Timothy Cardinal Dolan, Jack Dorsey, the Twitter guy, Harvey Weinstein, Rihanna.
I mean, these are the Rihanna.
Well, even, I mean, Jeremy Lynn, 100 most great basketball player for three or four weeks there, but 100, I'm telling you, this is a party list.
That's how they put this list together.
At any rate, all these influential people were there, Jeremy Lynn, Timothy Cardinal Dolan, Jack Dorsey, Harvey Weinstein, Rihanna.
But it was Sarah Blakely who Abidden most wanted to meet before she and Hillary left the Time Warner Center.
So an event organizer was dispatched to Blakely's table.
What was Blakely doing?
The inventor of Spanks was one of the 100 most influential.
Hang on a minute.
I'm going to.
Just a second.
I got a.
I'm going to send a text to Catherine here.
Katie, have you ever heard of Spanks?
Okay, dictated it to send it out there.
And I should have asked her first.
I asked Dawn.
Dawn said that she knew what it was.
It's new girdles, nerdly.
It's a new girdle.
It's interesting to note that Hillary didn't go over to the inventor.
Hillary sent Huma.
Now, Huma doesn't need a Spanx.
I wouldn't think.
So they sent somebody over to Blakely's table to get her and come back over to Huma and Hillary's table.
And the New York Post says that the event organizer was dispatched.
Blakely came over, and the Spanks sensation was soon seen in deep conversation with Clinton.
A discreet Blakely, 41, the world's youngest female self-made billionaire, after founding Spanks in 2000, didn't tell us if Clinton admitted to wearing Spanks, but said she told me she read my story in the issue and she liked it.
So now, the Blakely story is a great story.
I think it is.
Very American.
She invents a product.
People wanted to buy it.
There were no government handouts.
There were no slush funds.
There were no subsidies.
Hillary actually could learn a lot from Sarah Blakely.
But, okay, to tell you what I was just told.
Even women who don't need a girdle-like thing, this Spanks is, wear them anyway because of why?
Okay.
Okay, it's more professional.
It makes a woman look more professional because there's no sexy jiggle.
The Spanks keeps everything firm and taut, and there's no jiggle.
Okay, well, I've just lost interest in it then.
Professional or not.
Anyway, I mean, that's a big story in the New York Times.
Anyway, folks, people asking me, are you okay?
And I'm fine.
And Brian thinks people think I might be depressed because Romney would.
No, this election is about Obama.
And what I was going to say is, in a sane world, the Democrats would have gotten rid of this guy and put somebody else in like Hillary.
This is such a disaster of a presidency, such a disaster of an administration.
This country, the unemployment numbers are out there, and the media has not even trying to cover this up anymore.
Let me see.
Let me give you some of the headlines that the media ran on the unemployment.
First, Christopher Ruegeber, AP, U.S. unemployment aid requests near three-month high.
Now, this is a change in tone from the AP.
Let me give you the numbers here.
The number of people seeking U.S. unemployment benefits remained stuck near a three-month high last week, a sign that hiring has likely slowed.
A labor department said today the weekly applications dipped 1,000 to a seasonally adjusted 388,000, little change from the previous week's figures.
This figure is misleading.
59, I think those are the right numbers, 59 out of the last 60 weeks, the unemployment number has been revised upward the week after it has been released.
Now, if businesses tried this, CEOs would be in jail, or they certainly would be charged.
If CEOs put out numbers that were never right, and a week later, when nobody was paying attention, they changed them and made them accurate and therefore worse, this CEO would be in trouble.
59 of the last 60 weeks, I think that's the number.
59 of the last 60 weeks, the unemployment number has been revised upward or gotten worse the week after it was released.
Let me explain it as it's specific to this week's number.
Now, the AP headline, U.S. unemployment aid requests near three-month high.
They could have, if they were true to form, they could have had a headline that says unemployment down by 1,000 claims.
They could have run a story like they have been doing for the last year or year and a half to try to convince readers that the unemployment situation was getting better.
But they didn't.
Unemployment aid requests near three-month high.
In actual fact, this week's number only went down because last week's number was revised up by 3,000.
So if you compare apples to apples, today's unrevised number is actually up 2,000 from last week's unrevised number.
But this is another game that the Obama Labor Department, the Obama news media play week after week to give us an entirely false impression of the jobs market.
But still, the shocking thing here is that the AP seems to be getting tired of playing the game.
There's no unexpected.
There's no surprised.
There's no any of the usual words that are found in these unemployment stories.
Okay, that's AP.
Here's Bloomberg.
More Americans than projected filed jobless claims last week.
More Americans than forecast filed applications for unemployment benefits last week, a sign that the labor market is taking time to improve.
Well, what is that?
Just a couple, three weeks ago, the labor market was booming When the number went down by three or four thousand, when it went when it finally dipped below 400,000 applications, why we were back.
We had turned a corner.
We had hit the wall and we were on the rebound.
And now, U.S. unemployment aid request near three-month high.
More Americans than projected filed jobless claims last week.
And here's Reuters jobless claims stay elevated as labor market gains stall three consecutive drive-by news stories on how bad the unemployment picture is.
And I'll tell you something else.
The media is beside itself over the government's performance at the Supreme Court yesterday on the Arizona immigration law.
We've got audio sound, but Jeffrey Toobin, somebody get him away from high places.
Somebody take the belt off of his slacks.
Jeffrey Toobin is beside himself.
He thinks they're going to lose the health care thing, and he thinks that the debacle yesterday on the Arizona immigration law, these media people are showing wide-eyed amazement that they display during the oral arguments over health care, and they are gobsmacked that the justices might actually uphold the Arizona law.
They are so wedded to this regime, they can't believe anything going against it in any other branch of government.
And they literally are beside themselves.
They have been hit upside the head.
They do not know what hit them.
None of this is working out as it was supposed to.
So we have three drive-by news organizations who have headlined and detailed the unemployment news truthfully, negatively, honestly, and now almost in defeat, throwing up their hands over the government's continued lackluster performance in oral arguments at the Supreme Court.
It's almost like before yesterday, the idea that the Supreme Court would find for Arizona in its immigration law never even crossed their minds.
Just like it never crossed their minds that the Supreme Court would find Obamacare unconstitutional.
They live in such a cloistered world in and among themselves that they do not even consider that their worldview might not occur.
What's interesting, the Arizona law is basically, well, it's not harmless, but it's let me describe for you.
All the Arizona state law does is require Arizona law enforcement officials, that would be police for those of you in Riolinda, to enforce federal law on immigration.
There's no conflict between the Arizona state law and the federal law that anybody can cite.
Not even Mr. Varilli, the government lawyer could not find and could not cite any conflict.
So there's nothing unconstitutional about the Arizona law.
It should be allowed to stand.
But the news media, all they can do is echo Obama and claim that enforcing the federal laws on immigration is mean.
It's just mean.
It's mean to send people back.
It's just mean to identify people who are here illegally.
We shouldn't be doing that.
But isn't that always the case with laws?
Aren't laws supposed to be mean to lawbreakers, depending upon the severity of the law?
But I mean, the court could not come up with a single rational reason to strike it down.
These people were beside themselves.
We'll explain all this in great detail with the audio sound bites and other things as the program unfolds before your very eyes and ears.
And I will complete my thoughts on Romney and all these other things that I'm thinking I might get in a lot of trouble for saying with friends of mine, but I'll do it anyway.
But I think if what Dawn told us that Spanks stops the jiggles, and if therefore we have a more professional look, well, I'll tell you what, it isn't old El Rushbo that's killing the women's movement.
It's Spanks.
It ain't me.
You know, I mean, what is Hillary doing at the time 100 most influential bash?
Exactly how influential is Hillary Clinton?
What has she ever accomplished as Secretary of State?
You look back on kind of Lisa Rice, other secretaries.
I mean, the Middle East is falling apart.
The United States is weakening itself.
We are apparently going to give away a whole lot of nuclear weapons.
What in the world is this like the rest of the administration?
What about this is great?
Where is the greatness?
Where is the influence?
Where is the standing up for America?
Where is the defending America as a superpower?
It doesn't exist.
So this was just a bash by Libs for Libs with Libs with a couple of conservative circus act guests thrown in to give it balance.
Yeah, I mean, you could almost say, folks, Mrs. Clinton worked very hard throughout her whole life, and she stuck by her husband while he, we all know what it is, humiliated her, embarrassed her.
Affair after affair after affair.
And now Hillary has reached the pinnacle.
And all she is is a secretary.
She's the secretary of defense.
State, state, whatever.
But still a secretary.
I don't know.
The left has the strangest definitions of success.
No, don't say that.
They're still trying to get me to keep talking about Spanks.
And I don't know.
I know people might be better served if there was a product called Spankles.
But that is just me.
You heard about this guy at the EPA who admitted that their purpose is to crucify big oil and big gas.
We have the video, the audio coming up.
Don't go anywhere, folks.
Just getting started here.
Happy to have you with us, my friends.
Already Thursday, fastest week in media.
800-282-2882 is the telephone number if you want to be on the program.
Look, I know I'm a lone wolf.
I'm really a lone wolf on what I'm going to tell you.
Some of you may be where I am, but within the circle of friends that I have and beyond that, people I know, I'm telling you, I'm practically alone on this.
And I'll illustrate it for you.
I had 10 friends in, well, five couples in for the annual spring fling.
And it's a blast.
It's a combination big, chill weekend.
Plus, it's like-minded people.
It's some of the finest intellectual stimulation.
That's what my guests tell me.
Some of the best intellectual stimulation they get all year.
They're with friends.
They know it's self-contained and private.
They're free to say whatever they want to say.
And unless I talk about it, nobody's going to hear about it.
Every night at dinner, well, actually, the whole weekend, it's not that just at dinner do we discuss these things.
It's afternoon out by the pool.
It's in the morning at breakfast.
But specifically, one night at dinner, somebody, and a lot of these people, a lot of the guests are immersed in politics professionally.
I'm not.
This is a key.
I am not a professional politician.
I'm a broadcaster.
I, as you know, pay very little attention to political consultants.
Political consultants, to me, all exist to accomplish one thing, and that is to sell their candidates on the idea that they and they alone are the only ones who can tell a candidate how to go out and win the independence.
Every presidential election is about the independence.
You know the theory.
You shore up your base during the primary, and then after you win the nomination and head into the general election, then you move to the center where you have to pick up the independence.
And what this ultimately leads to is an election where if the consultants have their way, campaigns tailored to winning a majority of 20% of the voters in this country.
Well, I'm sorry, that leaves me cold.
I've never understood it.
I've never liked it.
I've never intellectually understood what the point is in trying to win a majority of 20% of the population who takes pride in telling you they don't think anything.
Now, this is not a put-down of you independents.
I don't want you to misunderstand here.
Independents and moderates are two different things.
But independents, by definition, don't have any opinions.
Independents, by definition, are not tied to either ideology.
Sorry, I don't believe that.
Whether people know it or not, they are either conservative or liberal.
They're not squishy sponges.
If you're not conservative, you're not liberal, you are just existing, and you are totally unaware of anything other than your own pleasure.
And there's nothing wrong with that.
But aiming campaigns at them is something that does not interest me.
I am totally aware that there are a lot of people whose life, whose lives are totally devoted to their sibiritic pursuits.
But to base presidential campaigns on that has always puzzled me and left me cold.
Because I believe you want to win elections on the basis of specific policy that gives you a mandate after you win.
And I believe that cheerfully articulated conservatism wins every time it's tried.
Consultants do not, particularly Republican consultants.
Well, leave out the liberal consultants because they, of course, never would believe in conservatism.
And so the quest every four years is to go out and get the majority of 20% of these people.
And people wring their hands over it and they worry what the independents are going to do.
And look at the trap that we Republicans or conservatives have allowed some of us to fall into.
And that is any criticism of the left, any criticism of a Democrat, the Democrats, or Obama will force those independents running right to the Democrats.
So we tie our own hands behind our backs because independents, they don't like confrontation.
These independents, all they want is conversation.
They don't want confrontation.
They don't like raised voices.
They don't like passion.
The independents don't like opinionated people.
Oh, no, no.
The independents like squish.
They like mush.
I'm sorry, I just don't buy it.
But every consultant goes out and tries to get the gig by selling candidates on how he or she or their team knows how to get those independents.
So I say all this just as an illustration that I am not a professional politics person.
I am not a political scientist.
And I will admit this may not.
Let's put it this way.
When looking at the presidential race, I don't say, okay, well, such and such has to win Ohio because this has got to win.
If you don't win Ohio, you have to win Florida.
I know it's the electoral vote tally and all that stuff matters, but not to me.
As far as campaigns are concerned, as far as winning them, because when you start divvying up the country this way, when you tell a candidate, you're going to have to win Ohio.
Okay, what do you do to win Ohio?
Well, you go to Ohio, you figure out what Ohioans want to hear.
Sorry, that defeats my purpose of having across-the-board conservatism for everybody, which I believe is wonderful and great and is the best thing that's ever been devised for human beings as a means of managing their affairs and their lives, securing prosperity and freedom and so forth.
Conservatism's it.
And I'm all for teaching it to people who don't understand it rather than pandering to the people that don't understand it and give them what they claim they want.
So if Ohioans, just to pick a state, if Ohioans are interested in the mating habits of the Australian rabbid bat, and that's the thing that's going to determine their votes, then a consultant's going to come along and give a candidate the best way to go out and get people who care about the mating habits, the Australian rabbit.
Sorry, I'm just not interested in that.
And I don't think it works anyway.
And even if you do win doing this, it's not real.
And as you know, I live in Rielville.
I believe in conservatism.
I believe in shouting it.
I believe in passionately teaching it, passionately explaining it, passionately living it.
And I've got the evidence on my side.
This country is the evidence.
Our founding is the evidence of the greatness of that particular ideology.
It triumphs over all others, communism, socialism, Marxism, independentism, moderatism, you name it.
That is a lengthy, and I apologize for it, setup to the dinner conversation that I want to describe to you.
The question was asked around the table, do you think Romney has a chance to win?
That was the question everybody at the table was, does Romney have a chance?
I appreciated the question.
It's a great question to get discussion going.
But at the same time, I was admittedly a little appalled by it.
Can Romney win?
The question is, can Obama, in my world, the question is, can Obama win?
But I understand Obama's the incumbent.
He's got a lot of power.
There's a lot of things an incumbent president can do that a challenger can't do.
He can forgive mortgages.
He can forgive student loans.
He can give away the country.
I understand that.
But conservatism has overcome that stuff when properly articulated, properly utilized in a campaign.
Conservatism works pretty much every time it's tried, particularly against this kind of liberalism.
Never before in my lifetime have we had the opportunity to draw a greater contrast.
Anyway, so a couple of the guests are professional politicians.
They have been involved in running campaigns.
And they start answering the question in that context.
Well, you got 235 electoral votes here.
You need 270.
North Carolina could be big.
Ohio.
Romney's going to all of this consultant esoteric.
And I'm just listening to it.
And it sounds impressive.
And it is.
It sounds like the person answering the question is a lifelong expert in this stuff.
Very impressive if that's your business.
And then everybody else took their turn at answering the question.
And almost everybody was filled with insecurity.
A lack of confidence over whether or not Romney could win.
And finally, somebody said, well, Rush, what do you think?
And I said, well, I went through my little, look, I'm not a professional with this.
I'm not a political scientist.
Counting votes, security, that's not my business.
My business is attracting an audience, holding the audience for as long as I can so I can charge confiscatory advertising rates.
And that's not the same thing as getting votes.
That being said, I think Obama's going to lose in a landslide.
And their mouths fell open.
And these are all us folks.
And this is, by the way, don't misunderstand.
None of this is criticism.
If anything, I'm trying to tell you how out of the mainstream of thought at this particular dinner I was.
Nobody else at the table thinks that Romney is going to win in a landslide or Obama's going to lose in a landslide.
I didn't say it's going to happen.
I say it could.
The way I look at things, Obama could lose this big.
And I went through my riff of the problems the White House is having, the polling data that they have that shows them scared.
I illustrated my belief that they're scared by citing examples of what Obama's doing and how he's doing it and where he's going and what he's saying.
How he can't run his record.
There's not one positive thing that's happened in this country since he took office that he can cite.
So in a sane world, in a just world, which isn't the one we have.
We don't have a just world.
We don't have a sane world right now.
But if we did, Obama would be laughed out of office.
I also said there's a big, big vote out there lying to pollsters.
Pollster calls you on the phone.
You don't want the pollster to think you're a racist, so you'll tell them that you approve of Obama's job performance, and you might even vote for him.
I said, I'm not predicting it, but I won't be surprised if this is a blowout.
And I cited the 1980 campaign as an example.
And I said, effectively, we're going through Jimmy Carter's second term here, only worse.
And I'm mentioning this to you only because I believe it.
And also, I'm mentioning it to you because it explains why I am not wringing my hands over Romney and his flip-flops.
Look, at this point, it's academic anyway.
Romney is the nominee.
There's nothing that can be done about that.
If you don't like it, if it disappoints you, and I understand, look, the Tea Party big 2010 midterms that have been great if we've had a full-fledged conservative that could have gotten his nomination, but that didn't happen.
I told these people I think Romney's going to end up surprising a lot of them.
A lot of them were negative on Romney, but his tendency to flip-flop, his baggage of things he said in the past.
I said, I've seen some evidence of Romney running a much, much different campaign than McCain did that will have many more attacks on Obama and his record than McCain ever had the desire or guts to engage in.
And I think you all are going to be surprised, I said.
Anyway, I got to take a break here, folks.
I'm way long.
Broadcast engineers in a state of panic.
So sit tight.
We'll be back and continue in a moment.
Ladies and gentlemen, Mitt Romney, with all of his material advantages, he has not spent the last four years, six years of his life in seedy rundown motels only to roll over for Obama after Labor Day.
John McCain was content to be nominated.
That's right, Limboy.
That's right.
Look great anyway, you may.
That's right.
Romney is determined to be elected.
This is not a faux campaign.
That is going to make a huge difference.
We've got polling data out here, and I've got it coming up, the audio soundbites.
Remember all this war on women stuff?
And this is just to put these consultants in their place.
Remember this war on women's stuff.
Remember, I mentioned to you that the Republican establishment wanted me to shut up about all this war on don't go there.
And they wanted me not to talk about the socialists.
Don't do it, Rush.
Please.
It's going to scare the independents.
Well, during this whole past six weeks, the war on women and all this phony stuff that the Democrats mounted, Romney is leading huge in independence right now.
So we have an opportunity to dispel a myth, and that is that criticizing Democrats sends independents running right back to Obama.
Folks, there is no reason for people, this is not a standard normal run-of-the-mill every four years presidential election.
We are losing this country.
People are losing their freedom, and they know it.
They are losing their opportunity for economic advancement, and they know it.
They see the debt piling up.
They know what the tax rates for themselves and their kids and their grandkids are going to be, and they don't like it.
This is not an average run-of-the-mill every four years presidential race.
We are losing the country, and people know this, and they don't want to lose the country.
The days where independents would get mad at Republicans for being critical of Obama and run to the Democrats, there's no reason to run to Obama.
The only people Obama is going to have are the people he's already bought and the people he's going to be able to buy between now and elect.
But there's nobody that's going to run to Barack Obama who's not already there because of policy, because of track record, because of competence, because they want more of it.
Not one single person wants any more of this.
Not one.
Another break.
I went long in the last segment.
That's why this is short.
I apologize.
Okay, I take a top-of-the-hour break.
I realize here that I have done a little bit more than scratch the surface.
I can see by the phone calls we have here that I've hit a bunch of nerves out there.
So we'll get to the phones, and I've got a great audio soundbite roster, too, that I'm going to struggle and endeavor to get in as well.
▲
Export Selection