All Episodes
Previous Next
May 24, 2012 - Rush Limbaugh Program
36:42
May 24, 2012, Thursday, Hour #2
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
By the way, all of you that are on the phone on hold, please stay there.
I'm gonna start on phones here in a second segment of this hour.
Yo, TAM is coming.
Welcome back.
Music lovers, thrill seekers, conversationalists all across the fruited plain.
Broadcast excellence, Rush Limbaugh, the fastest week in media, 800-282-288-2.
If you want to be on the program, TMZ, celebrity gossip site, has a photo.
I'm looking at the picture right now, taken in Monaco at the hotel of a casino there, that shows Bill Clinton posing between two famous porn stars.
He's standing between these two lovelies.
It's at the hotel.
It's a hotel in Monaco.
This is uh, yeah, it could be well, I'm I'm being asked this the president sandwich.
No, because the girls have their clothes on.
That's the thing I noticed about this.
The girls are fully dressed and there's no cigar in the picture.
But one of these babes just won the porn industry's equivalent of the Academy Award for the best sex scene.
Did you know the porn industry has its own award show?
Well, the rumors you've heard are true.
They do.
And one of the I don't know what shape the statue is.
I've never seen what the porn star statue is.
Don't know what it is.
I uh the photo is funny.
I don't know what struck me funny about it.
As I said, the only surprising thing is the women have their clothes on and nobody seems to have any cigars.
Uh if you can get it, there's another picture of Clinton.
Apparently he hosted a fundraiser somewhere in France for the Clinton Global Sex Initiative, whatever his foundation is.
And it was a bomb, apparently.
A lot of people couldn't get in.
The air conditioning wasn't working, the walls were sweating, it was so dingy and dungeon-like.
There's a picture of him with Gwyneth Paltrow.
An honest, I don't know how to describe this.
There are dark lines about a half inch, three-quarters of an inch thick, like a mask over his eyes and down under his nose and so forth, uh, like he's been wearing a mask or like he'd been looking through a hole in a wall.
You can't miss it.
This stuff on his face like sunburn, but you can't what was he doing that gets sunburned only on this small area?
And then there's this bump on his lip.
There's something weird looking on his lip, and he's standing here next to Gwyneth Paltrow at his uh at his charity fundraiser.
It's a weird weird picture.
Okay, um Victor Davis Hansen.
Oh, this this Michael J. Fox stem cell story at Lifeline News, life news.com.
I'm gonna, this is really big.
You realize we wouldn't have Claire McCaskill in the United States Senate from Missouri were it not for this stem cell debate.
And Michael J. Fox doing those commercials for it back in whatever it was.
Michael Steele might have won a Senate seat in Maryland, if it not been for these what turns out to be bogus TV spots for stem cell research.
At any rate, though, if you're just tuning in, the story is that Michael J. Fox is admitting that stem cells are not going to ever cure his Parkinson's disease.
Embryonic, embryonic stem cells are not going to cure.
Remember, embryonic stem cells were that was the magical licer.
Embryonic stem cells were gonna cure and fix everything.
Alzheimer's, Parkinson's, everything.
And nothing.
Nothing from them.
There hasn't ever been anything, and there's not going to be.
Not in the near future.
Adult stem cells is a different ball of wax.
But embryonic zilch zero nada.
All of which you and this audience were informed of back during the heat of the debate.
Anyway, Victor Davis Hanson, the power of cool.
When Barack Obama two years ago joked at the White House Correspondence Dinner that potential suitors of his two daughters might have to deal with predator drones, the liberal crowd roared.
That failed joke, and the joke was, boys, don't get any ideas, two words for your predator drones.
You'll never see it coming.
So Obama telling a joke about boys that want to date his daughters, he'll shoot them down out of the sky.
The liberal crowd roared.
That failed joke would have earned George W. Bush a week of headline condemnation from the New York Times and the Washington Post.
First.
Last week, 28-year-old 17 billion dollar rich Jeans clad Mark Zuckerberg took Wall Street for a multi-billion dollar ride, making his original buddies instant billionaires and his loyal larger circle millionaires.
Note there is no Occupy Wall Street protest at Facebook headquarters, just as there are no Occupy Wall Street protests at Oprah's house, or the residents of Leonardo DiCaprio, despite their take each year of between 50 and 100 million dollars.
No one has suggested that Hollywood lower movie ticket prices by asking Johnny Depp or Jennifer Lopez to walk away with ten or twenty million dollars less a year.
Steve Jobs found ways to dodge taxes comparable to those deployed by any Wall Street fat cat, but he was iPad cool.
And so his iPhone billions were exempt from the Occupy nonsense.
Cool capitalists are immune from the neo-Marxist critique of capitalism.
A racket that forty billion dollar rich Warren Buffett learned late in life but well enough with the Buffett Russ.
This is my point.
These liberal rich guys all come out publicly for tax policy that would take money away from them.
And they're cool.
They're hip.
They're insulated from all criticism.
Rich Hollywood people.
All they've got to do is be good liberals and do it loud and do it often, and they are exempt from any attack on wealth.
And they are exempt from any blame.
That their wealth is leading to poverty elsewhere in the country.
It's liberalism.
You gotta be a good, loud, frequent liberal and you're exempt, and then you're also cool.
We simply do not mind that Google and Amazon rake in billions, but we hate Exxon and Archer Daniels Midland for doing the same thing.
It's not that we need social networking and internet searches more than we need food and fuel, but rather we have the impression that cool zillionaires in flip-flops are good, while uncool zillionaires in wingtips are quite bad.
I'm sure that the tax lawyers who helped Richard Branson and Mick Jagger are no less skilled at shorting the treasury than those who work for Rush Limbaugh.
But the profits of Richard Branson and Mick Jagger are okay, while Limbaugh's profits are obscene.
Limbaugh is a misogynist for using the word slut and apologizing for it.
Bill Marr is a feminist for using slurs we can't even print, and for which he did not apologize.
Marr is cool, limbaugh uncool.
As was a cynical and sarcastic David Letterman, who implied the 14-year-old daughter of Sarah Palin had snuck into the Yankees' dugout for quick sex with Alex Rodriguez.
That was cool.
Letterman's a liberal.
The power of cool is evident in politics.
State quite correctly that you can see Russia from parts of Alaska.
You can.
And you are Ditzy White Trash Sarah from Wasilla.
State falsely that Franklin Roosevelt addressed the nation on TV in 1929.
And you're just good old Joe Biden.
John Carey's second married into fortune probably dwarfs the fortune that Mitt Romney made himself.
John Carey's married into fortune is probably ten times larger than the fortune Romney actually earned himself.
While we heard in twenty twelve that Romney won Romney wanted a car elevator in one of his many houses, we never heard much in 2004 of Carey's various mansions, boats, assorted playthings, or how he proved to be a keen investor as a senator, helping to set U.S. financial policy.
Carey, you see, was cool.
He windsurfed, he wore spandex as he cycled.
He found his exemption by championing the poor that he rarely saw.
Same was true of John Edwards of two America's fame.
Do we now recall how he ran to the left of both Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton despite the five hundred dollar haircuts?
The self indulgent mansion, replete with John's room, a hideaway with all sorts of adolescent toys, Edwards, remember, earned those riches by charming juries in his smarmy style, nearly destroying the practice of obstetrics in North Carolina through his flurry of malpractice suits, no matter Edwards was liberal, Kennedy esque, cool.
He earned prophylaxis in the manner of JFK himself, of whose White House orgies we did not learn until fifty years later.
Likewise, we've been taught that there is no power imbalance or insidious asymmetry when a mentor had sexual relations with his young intern as long as he is a feminist like Bill Clinton.
Clinton is cool.
Clinton can be celebrated for having his photo taken with two porn stars at Monaco.
For using a cigar with Monica Lewinsky and staining her blue dress and lying about it.
Clinton is cool.
He's a liberal.
His fingers are so long.
He makes you feel like you're the only one in the room when he's talking to you.
Who cares the kind of depravity he engages in?
I added that that Victor Davis Hansen didn't write that last.
What then exactly is this cool that allows you to earn whatever you like without censure and then to spend it as you please without fear of public scorn?
It would seem that the disconnect is liberal politics, the coin by which one buys a sort of medieval indulgence from liberal gatekeepers in the media, academia of the arts and the foundations that permits one to continue the pursuit and enjoyment of lucre and to indulge the baser appetites without harassment, in the manner that the medieval moneylender or sexual zealot still got to heaven by buying marble for the cash strapped cathedral.
That twenty billion dollars rich George Soros was a money speculator who almost destroyed the small depositors of the Bank of England and was convinced or convicted in France of insider training that doesn't matter at all because he funded media matters.
He's cool.
John Corzine, MF Global, cannot explain what he did with over a billion dollars of other people's money.
But there never will be a Corzine law.
Who cares what George Clooney makes an hour or how exactly his close friends can afford to pony up forty grand a plate dinner?
When the takings will help Barack Obama feed the children.
If Halliburton were wise, it would buy the shutdown cylindra plant, make solar panels at a loss, write the cost off as a lobbying and public relations expense.
So cool is not obtained just through liberal politics.
Images and intent are critical too.
The stuffy tea party crowd looks like the plain suburban guys and gals who sell us houses, cars and insurance, and so of course they must be racist, even though their demonstrations give no proof of any such fetish.
Their only oddity would seem to be a certain desire to ensure that they leave no litter in their wake.
For poorer custodians to clean up but occupy Wall Street, while that movement has produced thugs, thieves, rapists, would-be bombers, rioters, street urchins who pollute their surroundings and cause mayhem.
They act pre modern, but they earn no scorn because they're cool.
They sport a sort of elite grunge that suggests the iron environmental studies major at Brown empathizes with those poor for whom grime is not makeup.
Identity is key here.
In general, to win exemption from the left-wing critique of America, the affluent must construct cool identities as far distant as possible from the white Christian heterosexual male, who is the guy most culpable for creating our present affluence from ill-gotten gains.
It's the white Christian heterosexual male is the real thief, the real enemy, the real reprobate.
The multimillionaire Elizabeth Warren and her husband make nearly a million dollars a year.
They live in a home beyond the reach of 99% of America.
And she may well have plagiarized and been dishonest about her own heritage.
But no matter, she washed away both her privilege and her sins by reinventing herself as a Cherokee who fights Wall Street oppressors.
So too, Barack Obama.
It was Obama himself, not the fringe berthers, who first made the case that he was born in Kenya.
Not because he was, but because to say now and then that he was added an exotic touch of cool to Barack Hussein Obama, uh a cool that buried Dunham, born in Honolulu and prepped at Punahu or Punahou would have lacked.
So you say you're Barack or Barrack Obama from Kenya.
You're cool.
You're hip.
Poor George Zimmerman.
If he'd only called himself Jorge Zimmerman, he might not have been written off as a white Hispanic vigilante.
Network news anchors anguished over whether George W. Bush had tried cocaine while thousands of African Americans languished in jail for doing the same.
But they snored when Obama boasted that he had done that and much more.
Push down a gay student 50 years ago as a teen, and if you are straight-laced Mitt Romney, then you always were a homophobe.
Push away a little girl decades ago, and if you're Barack Hussein Obama, you were struggling with identity and coming of age.
In short, millions of well-off Americans, from the entering college student to the full professor of law, from the billionaire thief to the president of the United States himself, endlessly chase cool.
And why would they not?
Cool is now America's holy grail that allows the elite and the rich not just to pursue and enjoy s enjoy nice things, but to damn others who do the same.
So it's all about cool.
It's all about liberalism, it's all about saying the right things, image, all of these things.
This is why there's a tea party, by the way.
These gross inequities, injustices, or what have you.
Got to take a break.
Phone calls are coming up right after this.
Okay, to the phones, we're going to start Pittsburgh.
It's Jim.
Great to have you on the program.
You're up first and welcome, sir.
Great rush.
Um, I called Rock Snutting, Rex Snutting uh Tuesday night in Pittsburgh.
He was on a talk show on that article, and I called him on it.
Um first thing I said they use baseline budgeting.
He goes, What is that?
I explained it so much.
Wait, wait, wait, wait.
Hold it a second.
Hold it.
You Rex Nutting was on a show in Pittsburgh last Tuesday.
You called the show.
This Tuesday, too.
And I knew enough by listening to you about baseline budgeting and everything else to challenge him.
Okay.
And this guy He didn't know what it was.
I had explained it to him.
Wait a second.
Wait, we're gonna digest this.
You're you're you're flying by this.
Don't worry.
I'll hold you over.
Okay, good.
All right.
As long as I know more time than I just want to make sure people digest this.
The guy who wrote the piece claiming that Obama is not a big spender, that Bush really spent all that money.
You had a chance talk to him on the Radio Pittsburgh last week.
He did not know what baseline budgeting is.
You had to tell him.
Yes, exactly.
Yes, he did.
Did he understand it after you explained it?
Yes, he did.
Here's the amazing thing about it, Rush.
He did, and he uh admitted they probably use it.
This is what this is how crazy it was.
And I even said to him, Rush, I said they they offloaded Obamacare to the 2014, and after that I cut off because the host even admitted that the Twitter uh his Twitter account was going bonkers.
No one called him on it, because no one knew enough, like I knew enough to challenge him on it, okay.
Uh but uh the guy really doesn't have half of a brain.
I mean, yeah, I don't know.
Well, this is why this is why, Jim, that I am convinced that this guy was inspired by a chart that Pelosi's office put out a year ago.
I'm I'm with your story, I am more convinced than ever that that's what's happened here.
Look, I uh we have the break.
I want you to hold on.
Okay.
We'll talk about this take some breads uh at the same time.
Okay, we're back with Jim in Pittsburgh, who ended up talking to Rex Nutting on um uh it was a radio talk show, I guess, Tuesday in uh in Pittsburgh last week, and he had not heard of baseline budgeting.
You had to explain it to him.
Nutting is the guy who has this piece out about Obama not being a profligate big spender.
But you said that um uh you pointed out that the Obamacare was offloaded to 2014, all of the spending, the quote unquote benefits so that that wouldn't show up uh before Obama had a chance to be re-elected.
But then you said that um Twitter account was going bonkers and nobody called him wh whose Twitter account was going bonkers.
Well, it was the guy on KDK um who uh Robert Mangino, he has a six attendance.
Oh, is the host, okay.
Yeah, the host.
And and I he's he goes either way, conservative or liberal, but I think he goes more on the liberal side as far as politics.
And he even liked my idea about baseline budgetting, but how he saw him on it, and he shows a lot of people on it, he says, Oh, they're using real dollars, and um, you know, they he admitted he goes, Yeah, I think Jim's right, they do use baseline budgeting.
I think what it is rush, they you know, I told him right off, I said, Look, I have a degree in political science, I've been following things for 40 years.
He knew I knew more than he knew.
And I said, I said, uh, you know, and and he and after he I explained it to him, then he admitted it was true, and then I got cut off because they they were worried that I'd blow the guy of the water.
If I had more time, I would have blown him out of the water.
My point is, Rush, these people were so stupid to write these articles that I don't know if it's why deceitful or just stupidity.
Well yeah, I I who knows.
But the whole point is.
It's probably a combination.
Yeah, that's that's what I that's why I think it is.
But if I would have thought about what you said about how he hadn't passed the budget, I I would wish I could have thought it, and that's why you're where you're at.
But uh he admitted it he says, Well, they have to start somewhere.
But he did not know what baseline budgeting is.
And you know, I don't know if people outside of uh listeners to your show know, but you explained it eloquently over the years, and I was able to easily explain it.
And um the host even that was in the middle of the yeah.
See, that's the what when you when you when you explain that the porculus, whoever you got this guy trying to give Bush or blame Bush for the porculus is it takes the cake, but uh all of his spending that was off budget was added to the budget gets added to the baseline because it is federal spending.
So the next budget incorporates that new level as the new baseline from which all new spending increases are tabulated.
Therefore, the spending which followed 2009 increased almost with a GM geometric progression, uh, because the baseline had a trillion dollars added to it that was not on the budget.
Now uh Jim, thanks for the call.
He is making the point that he talked to the author of this story, and he came away with the belief that the writer may have really not have known all he was talking about that he got hold of a little bit of information and thought he had a scoop.
He thought he had something that nobody else had figured out and write story about it.
And I had the same impression when I read this piece yesterday, that I sent around to all my friends and I put it too far down in the stack, and frankly, I forgot that I had it in the stack yesterday.
And and I've even when I sent this around to my friends and said, get ready, this thing's gonna blow up pretty soon.
Wait till it drive by the rest of them get hold of this and the regime, and that happened.
And so I spent a lot of last night kicking myself for forgetting to mention it.
So I have to now go back and tell you in hindsight.
But as I read this piece, I thought to myself, something about this just doesn't carry any authority with it.
It read as something that was cut and paste, uh hopeful rather than authoritative.
And then when I got here today and I started the intense show prep for today's program, then I discovered Pelosi's chart.
Her office puts a chart out one year ago, May of 2011, which has this exact point in it.
It's a bar chart, vertical bars that shows Obama spending barely exists, and Bush's skyrocket high.
Reagan as the number one spender.
And I said, This has to be where this guy got the somebody saw the Pelosi chart.
This guy got hold of it, and that's where he got the germ of his idea.
Well, he's on the staff at Market Watch.
And by the way, the Wall Street Journal, which I think now owns Market Watch, and the CBS did at one time, I believe.
But the Wall Street Journal ran a variation of the story that somebody at the journal wrote.
But they didn't fact check it.
I mean, it the the story contained all the data.
If you wanted to believe this, if if you're of the mindset that you have to defend Obama, look most of the media, their number one job is to shape the news.
That was Bosell's point yesterday in his column about how the media are not covering the massive lawsuit against Obama and the government by the Catholic Church and related organizations over the imposition of their religious freedom and liberty.
It's a huge story.
The media is ignoring it.
Instead, the prism is does it help or hurt Obama's re-election?
If it hurts, it doesn't get reported.
If it helps, it does.
So here comes you want to know how does anyone market watch?
How does ABC run an NBC doctor a 9-11 tape in the Trayvon Martin story to George Zimmerman?
How does that happen?
How does the Duke lacrosse case get reported as a lie for a full year?
You know what we learned today about speaking of Trayvon Martin?
Guess what we've learned is a story I can't remember the source.
It's major, I just can't remember which one.
A year ago, at some town council meeting or public meeting in Sanford, Florida, George Zimmerman ripped the cops for covering up the beating of a black homeless man by a white cop.
He ripped the police department because they covered up the fact that a white cop beat up a black homeless kid.
It white Hispanic Jorge Zimmerman ripped into the Sanford cops for being racially discriminatory in not pursuing the fact that a white guy had beaten up a black homeless guy at a public meeting.
So a picture further emerges of Zimmerman as not anti-black, not racially motivated in that way.
The whole narrative of the Trayvon Martin story has gone out the window.
You ask me, how does how does Market Watch publish publish nothing?
How does the Trayvon Martin travesty happen?
How does the Duke Lacrosse case happen?
How does NBC take a 9-11 tape and purposely edit it to make it look like Zimmerman is a black-hating racist?
It happens because that's who the media is.
Financial reporting.
So did sports reporting, didn't it?
Snerdlish financial reporting and used to have a.
Have you ever watched CNBC?
Why does Rick Santelli stand out?
He's the only one.
This is another myth, sturdy you think that business journalists understand that they pretty much straight down the middle.
Don't find a whole lot of libs there, understand big business.
Right.
Then how come all these CEOs give money to Obama and the Democrats if they're so down the middle conservative Republican?
It's all of these things are giant myths.
The only thing that matters right now, as far as the media is concerned, will a story hurt Obama's re-election or help.
They saw this nutting piece.
They know.
This is why I say they've taken the bait.
Unwittingly, they've taken the bit.
We've got our premise is Obama is an out-of-control spender.
Up till now, Obama hadn't even addressed that.
Now all of a sudden, Jay Carney, the White House, Obama himself cited the nutting story last night at a fundraiser.
See, see, I'm not the big spender.
As though he doesn't have the guts to say his own administration figured out that they're not big spenders.
This guy in the media did.
Okay, so they've accepted the premise now.
And they're on defensive.
They may think they're on offense with this, but they've been placed on the defense here.
This, I I think I think this is profound in any number of ways, because this story turns out to be nothing more than a rehash of a Pelosi chart, which is factually incorrect.
All you have to know is that whoever did this, nutting, I think, is just following something he saw somewhere else.
That all the spending in 2009 had to be George Bush's because the budget for 2009 was Bush's, not Obama's.
Obama's first budget wouldn't have started until October of 2009.
This is the Bush budget.
Therefore, all sp this is you gotta be really, this is Jim from Pittsburgh's point about the guy.
You've got to be really uninformed, a little ignorant about how things work, to believe that Obama originated spending is actually Bush's because the budget for 2009 was actually done in 2008.
Obama couldn't have done it.
Therefore, the nearly trillion dollars in spending that Obama did actually, we have to count that as Bush's.
That's indescribably uh ignorant.
And by ignorant I mean uninformed.
But the editors see it and they say this will help Obama's reelection, and so that's all the editor needs.
Whether it's true or not doesn't matter.
When did truth start mattering in news coverage?
Truth hadn't been a factor in I don't know how long.
Truth isn't what gets stuffed.
It's like I've always said how dumb and naive I was.
Early in in the history of this program, you know, 1990, 92, I'll admit it.
I would read a profile of somebody in a newspaper and think, wow, that profile's written because this person has accomplished something or done something really great to warrant this.
No, that's not how that stuff happens.
There are PR agents and flax who are out there hustling this stuff.
And by hook or by crook, these profiles and laudatory stories of people get written, not because anybody's earned it or achieved it, but because of other extraneous factors.
So truth, which to many people is a moving target anyway.
Truth is a subjective thing to a lot of people.
But that's why I'm the mayor of Realville.
And I I look at this, and I say, when was the last time truth mattered in journalism?
If truth, and then by the way, journalists will tell you.
They're not interested in anything other than fairness.
That's that's their excuse now.
We have to be fair.
That's that's what our objective is in German.
We are we've got to be fair.
Fair to who?
That's a moving target, too.
You know, what's fairness?
Who gets to decide that?
Who gets to decide what income equality is?
Who gets to decide all this?
That's that that's the power that the left assigns to itself or wants to have for itself.
But I just like I point out, if if if you're gonna blame Bush for the stimulus, then all that credit Obama and Biden are running around taking for it has got to go to Bush.
We gotta credit Bush for all the job creation, got to credit Bush for the end of the recession.
We have to credit Bush for moving the country forward and transforming it away from the mistake that it was as founded.
That's how it ends up in market watch.
The guys think it'll help Obama's re-election.
That's the only thing that matters.
Gotta take a timeout, folks.
Much more straight ahead here on the EIB network.
Don't go away.
Your guiding light through times of trouble, confusion, murkiness, tumult, chaos, lies, deceit, stupidity, ignorance, and even the good times.
Here's John in Columbus, Ohio.
Hi, John.
Great to have you, sir on the EIB network.
Welcome.
Hi, Rush.
It's an honor to talk with you.
Thank you, sir.
When you were talking about all the money that Obama spent that he blames on Bush, you forgot one big chunk that happened in 2009.
In March of 2009, Obama signed the 2009 omnibus bill.
It was 410 billion dollars that added to Bush's budget because Pelosi couldn't get Bush to sign off on it.
You know that's right.
I had forgotten a $410 billion omnibus spending bill that included.
It's a catch-all, an omnibus a catch-all for all kinds of discretionary things.
You're right.
So that adds that that brings a total up to 1.465 trillion dollars of Obama spending that wrecks nothing wants to be tied to George W. Bush.
That's a good catch.
Yeah, well, in addition to that, you know, we had this thing called TARP that gets blamed on Bush.
But of course, the money that went to the bank supposedly got repaid plus profit, according to Geitner.
Right.
And that should have brought the federal deficit down.
And it I didn't see where it did that.
That means that somebody spent that money after it came back in.
Yes, including the interest that was paid on that.
But it it is interesting about TARP, not all of it was spent by Bush.
Obama asked for 200 billion dollars of discretionary TARP spending and had not been spent.
He asked for that before he was immaculated.
It's after he was elected, but before he was inaugurated, and Bush gave him the money, that was for the auto bailout.
I'm factoring that in.
So there's 1.465 trillion dollars of spending in 2009.
Spending by Barack Obama that this guy nutting says needs to be categorized as Bush spending because it was Bush's budget.
Now, if we want to take this out to the absurd.
Snerdley, when do they tell us the recession ended?
They tell us, even though there is no recovery.
By the way, this is Thursday.
You're supposed to get unemployment news, right?
There is unemployment news.
You're wondering why nobody's talking about it, folks.
Are you wondering why nobody's talking about the unemployment number this week?
Or the number of jobless claims?
It's because it hasn't changed.
And in fact, last week's were indeed revised up by 2000 again.
No change.
Anyway, they tell us, Obama, the media tell us the recession ended in June of 2009.
Now, according to Rex Nothing, Obama wasn't responsible for anything in 2009 until October.
Therefore, Obama is responsible for nothing.
He's not responsible for ending the recession.
He's not responsible for any job career.
He's not responsible for anything that happened in 2009, including the recession ending.
If that's what they want to tie themselves to, we are more than happy to let them.
I have the chart.
I have the Pelosi chart here.
And when we come back from the break at the top of the hour, I'm going to show you the Pelosi chart on the Ditto Cam.
And I'm convinced that this is where this story comes from.
This Pelosi chart was put out in May of 2011, a year ago.
We got that.
Plus, we got some great audio sound bites too that we haven't gotten to.
▲
Export Selection