All Episodes
Previous Next
May 28, 2012 - Rush Limbaugh Program
34:59
May 28, 2012, Monday, Hour #3
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
So no, as I said, the uh conclusion at Tompa, I'm not surprised that only 7% of the American people think gay marriage is a top electoral issue.
And if you think that it is uh if you think 7% slow, then I need to warn you again to take extra care and caution in fighting off the media narrative every day.
I know on this one it's been tough because it's been solid for a week.
And the media has presented this as though it was a win-win for Obama only because checkbooks were opened.
That's it.
The cause of gay marriage, if you want to look at it as a cause has not been advanced at all.
That's one of the things about this that was amazing to me.
And it was so obvious to anybody who listened to Obama when he went and made his it finally evolved, which is a joke in and of itself.
The president has finished evolving and now has an announcement.
And the president, after having finished evolving, he's a he's evolved.
Uh uh who speaks this way.
When was the last time you told your wife you have evolved and now you see her point of view?
You might have told her you've seen her point of view, but did you say you evolved?
When's the last time you asked, honey, I need some more time to evolve on this.
Um still evolving.
See how far that would get you.
Wouldn't get you.
I mean, you'd you'd hear, what the hell are you talking about, bozo?
But Obama does it, and the media swoons, and then when he finishes evolving, CNN actually had an info baby out there.
The president was a breaking news.
The president's evolution is complete now.
The president has evolved.
And he has an announcement of it.
And his announcement was what?
That he agrees that it ought to be a state's rights issue.
Well, every state has voted it down, 32 in a row.
And he just basically, in his statement, agreed with that.
He did say, I think people same sex should be able to get married.
But he didn't do one thing to move that forward in any way, but boy, people open their checkbooks.
This is why, you know, liberalism is is uh is vacuous.
It's empty.
Doesn't require substance.
All it requires is uh intentions.
You can't examine their results.
If you do that, you'll see it's a failure.
Liberalism is each and every time it has tried.
Let me ask you this.
Can somebody name for me another species that has evolved on gay marriage?
Can somebody explain to me throughout the thousands and thousands of years of human history when marriage was not a union of a man and a woman, as simply the definition of a word.
The definition of a word and then the actual arrangement.
Can somebody explain to me when marriage was not?
So now here we are in the 21st century, somehow you evolve or you get to the 21st century, and all of a sudden that's the new norm.
As though it always has been the norm, finally we've caught up with ourselves.
I'll make you another prediction.
And by the way, I I I don't want anybody to misunderstand anything here.
I'm simply doing analysis.
I looked at the television networks and the new series that they have uh they've ordered for next fall, primetime networks.
The number of shows involving gay couples, gay married couples is increased phenomenally.
I mean, it's it's it is going to be the primary focus of primetime entertainment next fall in both comedies and dramas.
Well, now see, snerdily just said, well, who's going to watch it?
Well, according to you, a lot of people, because you don't think that only 7% of the country seeing it, gay marriage is a as a top.
10 or 15.
You didn't think it was going to be a majority.
You thought it was going to be 10 or 15%.
Well, I didn't.
But Snarkley's reaction, well, who's going to watch those shows?
Well, we'll find out, won't we?
We'll see.
Uh well, Dawn is saying that they're going to mix it in with other things, is not just going to be about gay.
That's what I'm trying to tell you.
It is going to be expressly about.
Because all the people who determine what shows are going to be ordered and produced for the networks live in that world.
They live in the world of liberalism.
Remember now, that is a minority point of view in America.
It is a minority number of people.
But what do they think?
They think they are the majority.
They think they are the mainstream.
So it's no different than when these networks decide, okay, let's go green this week.
And they'll put their their network icon, their logo up on the screen in green to try to convince the viewers that they too want to save the environment.
It's all smoke and mirrors.
It's simply marketing.
This I think is going to be taken a little step further.
We'll see what kind of.
Well, I don't know.
We have to wait and see.
Snerdley wants to know if the public doesn't watch these new shows.
Will the public then be called names?
If it doesn't work, you might have people say, well, American TV audience not quite sophisticated enough yet to appreciate the importance of our programming.
Well okay, you doubt me.
Can I ask you to consider what happens when you call a newspaper network to complain about their news coverage?
What do they tell you?
They tell you that you're an idiot and that you don't know how they run their business.
You're not smart enough to know how the news business works.
Look at CNN.
CNN is sitting there.
You know, that Time magazine cover should actually have been that mother with CNN breastfeeding.
As the three-year-old, they're sitting there sucking.
They've got 54,000 viewers, 2554 in prime time.
54,000 viewers in prime time, 350,000 viewers total in a national news network.
And there aren't any changes forecast.
And people ask me all the time, rush.
Your show wouldn't survive if your audience plummeted.
That's right, it wouldn't.
Why do they rush?
Why?
Because it's a badge of honor.
It's a badge of honor.
They're sticking with the cause no matter what.
They are not bending to the flakiness of the viewing public.
They're not bending to the lack of sophistication of the audience.
They may only have 54,000 viewers, but they're the smartest 54,000 in the country.
They're the smartest 54,000.
That's what they tell themselves.
And then when they get together socially, all the people that see it, two things happen.
The competing networks behind their backs laugh at them and point fingers and talk about what idiots they are, but when they're talking to them face to face, they praise them guts, way to hang them.
They even give them an award or two.
Uh for for for not caving.
And instead being loyal to the cause.
So I think, look at Hollywood.
You can tell, you know, when they have a G-rated family-oriented movie, it's going to go gangbusters.
And it does.
And many in Hollywood resent that, even though it's bottom line success.
And they still produce the stuff that hardly anybody watches, but that they win awards for.
When's the last Academy Award best picture that the mass public saw?
When is the last Academy Award winner best picture something that most Americans have seen before the awards?
You watch the Academy Awards these days, and you look at the ten nominees now instead of five.
And you count on one hand the number you have seen, not the ones you have have not seen.
So it's there's there's these people can't take the politics out of anything they do.
So whereas the American people in this very own New York Times poll, only 7% say that it's a top issue for them in the presidential race.
The same thing's gonna be reflected in TV ratings and viewings.
I mean, how can it, how could it not?
So we'll see.
I could be dead wrong about we'll see what happens next fall when these shows debut and what the audience uh numbers are.
But it's my only point is it's not a a mass issue, and I it's a teachable moment again, as so many things lately are, because the media narrative and templates very narrow, and they have the things they want to get Obama re-elected, and whatever Obama decides to make, most important issue is the most important issue, and to you too.
And if it's not, it should be.
And we're gonna keep drumming it into you until it is.
And that's what happened last week.
And then when you see the news, only seven percent of the American people think it's a top issue.
Wow, I don't believe that.
I thought everybody was yeah, because you fall prey to the uh media template.
Each, and it's it takes a lot of uh takes a lot of effort.
Gallup.
Gallup state numbers predict huge Obama loss.
This is from the Washington Examiner.
It is from yesterday.
Gallup released their annual state-by-state presidential approval numbers yesterday, and the results should have the White House very worried if Obama carries only those states where he had a net positive approval rating in 2011, he would lose the 2012 election to the Republican nominee 323 electoral votes to 215.
Gallup.
Now it's an if, but still, if Obama carries only those states where he has a net positive approval rating in 2011, which is not very many, which is the point.
You know, state by state, his approval rating look at Romney's up three in the New York Times CBS poll.
He's up two in women.
Obama's approval rating is at 41%.
The New York Times poll six eight weeks ago or something.
Nothing is changing here.
So Gallup goes state by state, and they have an interesting qualifier here.
Well, let's look at Obama's approval numbers in these states.
They looked at 2011 for the full year.
And if Obama carries only the states where he had a net positive approval rating in 2011.
For example, Michigan is one of those states where he's up 4844.
And I would say in Michigan, if he's only up 484, an incumbent ought to be at least 50 in a state like Michigan.
So if he's only up 4844 in Michigan, but that's an example.
He would lose the 2012 election, 323 to 215 electoral votes if nothing changes in terms of his approval rating in those states.
And you would have to say, okay, why would he win a state where his approval rating is way down?
Why what what would you have to assume he would lose those states?
Gallup wanted to see what a poll would look like on that basis.
Overall, Obama averaged a 44% job approval in his third year in office, down from 47% in his second year, and that is a trend year to year, not week to week or month to month, year to year is a trend.
His approval rating declined from 2010 to 2011 in most states.
The greatest declines were in Hawaii, South Dakota, Nebraska, and New Mexico.
But he's also down.
Uh let's see uh New Jersey, Arizona, West Virginia, Michigan, Georgia.
And West Virginia big time.
Because they finally figured out if he gets his way, the whole state is out of work.
The whole state has no industry.
If Obama succeeds.
Having more fun than a human being should be allowed to have rush limbaugh, half my brain tied behind my back just to make it fair, and a big two if by tea sweepstakes announcement coming up.
Hanging there be tough, but first to Battle Creek, Michigan.
We go to the phones.
This is Amy, one of my all-time top ten favorite female names.
Hi, Amy.
Try, how are you?
Fine, thank you.
Um, I just had I had a general comment and then a question about the time.
I I I find myself to be hated by both liberals and feminists because I am I I think a pretty attractive mother.
I'm married.
Uh my husband and I equally make less than $19,000 a year, and I am going to law school in the fall.
I've we've never taken handouts.
We've bought it.
Okay, wait, wait, wait just a second.
You're you're speaking very quickly, and I none I just need to keep up with you.
You said that you find yourself to be hated by both liberals and feminists because you're an attractive mother.
That's one of the reasons.
Yeah.
Why do you think that?
Well, I you know, I breastfeed and like that's why this this time magazine thing has really touched with me because I'm a breastfeeding mom, and like, especially at school, you know, no, but I mean, but hold oh we'll get there in just a second.
We we all we love breastfeeding here.
But but why is it that you think that the Lives hate you because you're pretty?
No, not because I'm I'm I just you know, I'm talking about the Time magazine, how everyone says, Oh, she's so pretty, she's so pretty, and I you know, I I bust my butt and I do we don't make a lot of money, but I work hard and I get really criticized for being, you know, both married and with a child and breastfeeding and trying to attain a okay.
Who criticizes you for that?
Girls at school.
The girls at school could why is it any of their business?
I don't know, but they make it.
They criticize you for well, do you did you breastfeed in public?
Uh well, you know, I was I was more self-conscious, so I didn't breastfeed in public, but there was a couple times when I'd run out to the car and do it, but at school I pumped in the stall because it's not a place for breastfeeding moms to pump because it's a college.
So I would go into the bathroom and pump.
Oh, okay.
So you pumped.
Yes, I did.
And I yeah, and I breastfed him as well.
Okay.
So obviously it's the Time magazine cover that's got you uh perturbed.
You you don't know what the big hullabaloo is about that?
Well, for but like for my aspect, people were saying it was trying to like attract, you know, feminists or for me it what I was I found it great.
I you know, I think it's great that it's you're trying to encourage more women, and for me, that's something I've always wanted to do.
You know, as soon as I got pregnant, like I, you know, I wanted to breastfeed my baby, and people criticized me, so it was nice for myself to see a woman who's attractive and young, you know, with her boy breastfeeding, so I I appreciated the article.
I know I I but see the article wasn't even about that.
Did you read the article?
I did, yeah.
Yeah.
The article wasn't even about that.
The cover.
See, Time magazine is sucking uh since we're talking about breastfeeding.
They're in bad shape.
That cover was simply to and it worked.
It was to it was to attract attention.
It worked.
Um now we've we've thrown a soundbite today from a Washington feminist who is upset at that cover because the woman on it is pretty.
Right.
I heard that segment too.
That's right.
It's upset because the woman is pretty and the story's not even about that.
She's a journalist.
She's calling Time magazine on on um uh I guess fake journalism.
They put that picture in the cover.
The story is not even about that.
But you know, for me, it's yeah, the story wasn't completely about that, and I know it wasn't about that, but you know, he the doctor in there encourages women to breastfeed.
He encourages them to breastfeed for a long time.
He encourages them to co-sleep and things like that.
So while it wasn't about that, there was you know, context for it.
And right, it brought attention.
It brought people to like pay attention to breastfeeding and well, we do.
We always pay attention to that.
Here is more polling data.
New poll of Arkansas Democrats shows Barack Obama receiving support from only forty-five percent of Democrat primary voters.
In Arkansas's fourth congressional district, thirty-eight percent support his underfunded and relatively unknown primary challenger, Tennessee lawyer John Wolfe Jr.
Now it's it's just one congressional district, but there is somebody other than Obama on the ballot.
May 22nd primary in Arkansas, and in the fourth congressional district there.
Somebody other than Obama's getting thirty-eight percent in the pre-election poll, Obama at 45%.
This is Arkansas.
Uh believe me, the the White House is concerned.
They have every reason to be Concerned.
You know, it's that time of year, again, folks.
It's commencement address time.
And the Obamas are going around giving commencement addresses.
Yesterday, Obama delivered the commencement address at Bernard or Barnard College, which is one of the remaining women's colleges that does not accept male students.
Now, remember, this place had a commencement speaker.
Who was it?
Was it Carolyn McCarthy?
Was it?
They had maybe a member of Congress or some female from the media, I forget which.
They had a commencement speech.
Obama called Barnard and said, get rid of her.
I want to do the commencement speech.
And they did.
They kicked the women, the woman out, to make room for Obama.
Obama wanted to go deliver the commencement speech at Barnard College to propel or to continue this ridiculous Republican war on women business.
And we have a story here from the Huffing and Puffington Post.
President Obama dropped some presidential wisdom on Barnard's class of 2012 on Monday.
Chief among them was this nugget.
Don't listen to the media.
Obama advised graduates to persevere.
He spoke about the women in his life who've inspired him.
Before that, though, he acknowledged the uphill battle that students face.
He referenced the tough economy.
He blamed the media for spreading cynicism.
No one, oh, it was Jill Abramson.
Jill Abramson of the New York Times that was supposed to deliver the commencement speech.
The first editor, first female editor of the New York Times.
And Obama called the university or the college and said, get rid of her.
I want to do the commencement speech.
He said, no wonder the faith in our institutions have never been lower, particularly when good news doesn't get the same kind of ratings as bad news anymore.
Mr. President, that's always been the case.
There's never a news story saying the airplane landed safely.
Can you believe this?
Particularly when good news doesn't get the same kind of ratings as bad news anymore.
When did it ever?
Every day, Obama told the female graduates, every day you receive a steady stream of sensationalism, scandal, stories with a message that suggests change isn't possible, that you can't make a difference, that you won't be able to close that gap between life as it is and life as it should be.
What world is he living in?
What planet's he living on?
The news media is full of his agenda every day.
If the graduates at Barnard College are depressed and out of sorts, it's because he has made the whole country that way.
Blaming the media now.
Let me ask you a question, folks.
If you and I got the kind of press Obama gets, would you complain about it?
I wouldn't know what to do.
I wouldn't know I wouldn't know how to react if I got favorable press.
I really wouldn't.
In fact, this is quite telling.
When you are a prominent conservative, you expect to be reported on negatively.
You just expect it.
And you know what?
So does everybody else.
What does that say about the news media?
Well, it's it's nothing new.
I mean, nothing we already don't know, but I find it an interesting way to say it.
When you're a conservative, you expect to be ripped to shreds.
You expect to be impugned.
You expect to be lied about, like Romney, and that prank that he so-called pulled 50 years ago.
You expect that stuff on the front page.
You expect a double standard, and everybody else does too.
So much so that people don't even complain about it anymore.
They just call attention to it.
Abramson said, oh, yeah, she was fine with it.
She'd be happy to speak at Barnard at a later date.
Anything for Obama.
So what?
The news media is lying to these graduates about their job prospects?
Is that what we're to believe?
College graduates across the country are not optimistic.
College graduates across the country are moving back in with their parents.
College graduates across the country can't find work.
88 million Americans are not working.
The unemployment number of 8.1% is misrepresentation of just how many people really are out of work.
Minorities, by the way, hardest hit.
And by the way, speaking of minorities.
There are more women in the country than men, right?
Yet they're still a minority.
How's that?
Well, we find out that minority has nothing to do with numbers.
Has to do with liberalism versus conservatism and who the oppressors are and who aren't.
Women are considered a minority because they're oppressed by men.
Anyway, I want to get sidetracked here.
The fact of the matter is the media can't help but report what the unemployment situation is.
They can't help but report what the economic situation is.
So Obama goes talks to the graduates at Varnard College and tells them the media's lying.
Don't believe all the cynicism in the media.
media is lying to these people about their job prospects?
Is Obama telling them that it's a rosy scenario ahead of them out there?
I don't know.
Obama goes to the graduates at Barnard College and says, Don't believe what you're reading the media.
There's a high paying job just waiting for you next week when you get out of here.
Well, they know that that's not the case.
Remember, folks, more than 50% of recent college graduates, either unemployed or underemployed right now.
And they know it before anybody else does.
They are living it.
And I'm sure they know it at Barnard College.
So Obama shows up and tells them, don't believe that.
Hard for them not to when they're living it.
Back to the phones.
Who's next?
Sonia in West Orange, New Jersey.
Hi.
Great to have you on the EIB.
Hi, how are you?
Hello.
Hi, Rice.
It's an honor to speak to you.
Um, I first of all, I'm a rush baby raising two second generation rush babies myself.
I am 24 years old and I'm a breastfeeding mom.
And amongst all of my friends who are froze pressed and bottle feeding, we just admire the woman on the uh Time magazine cover.
We think she's fantastic for being as devoted to her child as she is, and for looking as great as she does doing it.
Okay, I again have no problem whatsoever.
I just question you uh uh do you plan on breastfeeding your child through age six?
Because that's what the guy about whom the story was written advocates.
Breastfeed you in fact he preaches attachment parenthood, which means never let go of your child.
Um I don't plan on breastfeeding my child till six, but I certainly don't think that it's necessary to cut off breastfeeding at six months or twelve months or whatever is popular now.
I I think it is.
I think we need a breastfeeders for rush page on Facebook.
That would be fantastic.
I tell well, said there's a trend the first two calls today have been from women uh who want to make it a point to defend the woman on the cover of Time magazine.
We got Rush Babes for America.
We need to have a subset page called breastfeeders for rush page.
What might work on that?
I would not have to be.
Now, the woman on the time cover breastfed until uh the child was six.
That's a long time.
Yeah, it is.
It is a very, very long time.
But clearly, uh, ladies, we are we're out front on breastfeeding here.
These things just happen.
Look at we've had two calls today.
They are both from women, young women who don't like the fact that this woman on Time Magazine's being criticized for it.
That's what I mean.
I'll tell you what, it's a cutting edge, this is what I tell you.
And the cutting edge is societal evolution if you if you listen to this program.
Well, yeah, we're both sides of the breastfeeding issue.
We got it from the baby side, we've got it from the mother side.
You've heard of the old joke.
I forget the comedian who first told this that he had a nightmare one night.
He dreamed that he was Dolly Parton's baby and she put him on formula.
Such an old joke.
Who's next?
Brian Jefferson City, Missouri, where I was yesterday.
Hello, sir.
Rush, let me be the first Missourian to publicly congratulate you on being inducted into the Hall of Famous Missourians.
Thank you very much, sir.
I appreciate that.
Were you anywhere near the Capitol yesterday?
Uh yes, I was.
I'm I'm sure your mom and dad are smiling down upon you and your family yesterday.
Um my wife tiffed tipped me off onto what was going on, and so I uh went across the street and uh happened to be near Representative Tilly's office when you uh walked out of the office and into the elevator, down to the garage floor, and I was standing on the sidewalk waving as you uh left in the SUV.
Well that's I wish I'd have known I would have uh rolled down the window and waved.
I would have well so your wife tipped you off.
Your wife works in the uh in the Capitol.
No, my wife works in uh in um Columbia, and she was listening to your uh St. Louis affiliate, and they had uh, you know, uh put out a little broadcast at the a news break.
So Oh, I see yeah.
That's right, because the speaker withheld all news of it until one o'clock.
Exactly.
Central time.
And then they lifted the lid, not only on the bust, but on the whole story.
I see.
I was looking around for the for your bust uh out in the uh third floor rotunda, but I didn't see it yet.
Well, it's not it's not there yet.
There's a uh uh there's an internal battle being waged between the two parties in the State Capitol as to whether it will be displayed in the uh in the rotunda.
But trust me, it's there.
We've got pictures.
And uh Drudge put a picture of me standing next to the bust on his page last night, and we've got it at Rushlinbaugh.com as uh well.
Now we tweeted it out and put it on our uh Facebook page.
So Brian, I appreciate the call.
Thank you.
Thank you very much.
I'm serious about this.
Breastfeeders for Rush Page.
You know, in the old days, now wait a minute, you're all laughing in there, but I'm just in the old days, the Feminazis did not like breastfeeding at all.
They were dead set.
I'm going back the early 70s, mid-70s, they were dead set against them.
It was it was the essence of motherhood.
And I'm not exaggerating.
I know some of you who were not paying attention then or are too young then to remember, you don't doubt me on this.
It was radical back then, and the the articles of feminism, if you will, were were were all about how motherhood was punitive.
Motherhood was total domination by the culture and by husbands and by men.
And anything that reeked of motherhood, stay-at-home moms, breastfeeding was a no-no.
You that kid was supposed to be in daycare, and you were supposed to be out in the corporate world climbing the ladder and having it all.
if you were a young 20s and 30s feminist back in that day.
And it's an interesting cycle now, where a breastfeeding mom, in the midst of the war on women, shows up on the cover of Time Magazine, and we are inundated with calls from young mothers totally supportive of her.
This is not a good day for now.
They're not happy here in it.
Don't doubt me on this.
Okay, back to the phones we go.
This is Josh in New York City.
Great to have you on the program, sir.
Hello.
Hi, Rush.
How are you?
Very well, thank you.
Um I wanted to bring your attention to um something that I saw in Politico.
I was just scanning down and I saw this headline that says poll Americans like the rich class.
So uh I click on that and I start to read into it a little bit, and I see the divide between uh Democrats and Republicans, and I see that among Democrats, only fifty-two percent of Democrats believe that the U.S. benefits from having a rich class.
I saw that.
I I saw that reported last night.
Yeah, on the airplane flying home.
I saw that, and I thought I thought, wow.
I mean, that is a they the the the the the uh total ignorance of of the value of wealth uh and and and in this country.
It is it is um I was astounded by that.
I'm glad you reminded me of that.
But to Obama's credit, I think you could probably walk into one of his campaign offices and see uh mission accomplished banner somewhere because this this follows the rhetoric of what he's been saying for for months and for years now.
It doesn't you know what's interesting about it is that that look at all of the wealthy Democrats that there are who support him.
Right.
From Hollywood to high finance to spend his weekend last weekend in Hollywood and then in in New York yesterday, and you know it doesn't follow his actions, but it's lying to his own people.
He is misleading his own people.
He's convincing his own voters that the way he and his friends live is un-American, not good for the country.
Yep.
Which means that what he's teaching is resentment, class envy, all this class warfare stuff.
Yep.
Yeah, I think I think I I saw that.
I'm glad you reminded me of that, because it is never been that high before.
It was uh if you look at the a poll of the entire American population, it's not nearly as drastic.
But when you break it down by party, it is as you said.
What was it, fifty-two percent?
Fifty-two percent, yeah.
And sad, because I mean, these are these are the people that have the money to donate to charities, to start businesses, to hire people.
Now, people like yourself and and and like others.
These are the people that have the resources to really help people and do.
It is a it is a a really class envy resentment of wealth, as you say, there's a complete ignorance of of uh what wealthy people do.
Yep.
And and how they acquire their wealth, too, is all part of the misunderstanding that they steal it from the poor, uh, or that they game the tax code, or they have offshore accounts or or or some of these things.
Right.
Um I can remember my when I when I was growing up, our family wasn't wealthy.
We were middle class, we were a solid middle class.
I don't remember anybody in my family.
Anybody.
My parents, my aunts or uncles, I don't remember anybody talking hatefully about people that had more money than we did.
I d I don't I simply don't remember it.
But I do know that it has been almost a uh a birthright of Democrats, particularly from union households to have that kind of resentment.
Uh it's it's not it it's it's new in the sense of how widespread it is now.
But this this is a there's a total lack of ignorance about this, as you say, about what wealthy people do for the country.
Totally unknown or ignored.
I'm gonna have some more information on this business that uh the political put the story out on Friday.
Sixty-three percent of Americans believe the United States better off having a class of wealthy.
Fifty-two percent of Democrats do not.
Fifty-nine percent of independents say the U.S. is better off having a a wealthy class.
The bottom line is Obama's war on the rich is failing as well, folks.
We'll be back.
▲
Export Selection