All Episodes
Previous Next
June 18, 2012 - Rush Limbaugh Program
36:41
June 18, 2012, Monday, Hour #1
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Welcome to today's edition of the Rush 24-7 podcast.
So what do you think the big news from over the weekend is?
No.
The fact that Ronde King died is not the big news from over the weekend.
The big news from over the weekend is not that Obama decided to bypass Congress and usurp the Constitution.
No, no, no, no, no.
The big news was that some reporter had the nerve to try to ask Obama a question about his actions while he was reading his teleprompter announcing his latest dictate.
I kid you not, it was all over the Sunday shows.
They want this guy censured.
They want him thrown in jail for not showing proper respect to the king.
This guy Neil Monroe from the Daily Call, they want the Daily Caller shut down.
They want Chatsworth Osborne Jr. strangled by his bow tie.
I don't know.
It's amazing.
It actually is not, but that's what's given the White House Press Corps and the rest of the people inside the Beltway the vapors.
Imagine heckling the president by asking him a question.
And they want this guy's press credentials rescinded, Neil Monroe's name for the Daily Caller.
Greetings, folks.
It's great to have you here.
Telephone number 800-282-2882, the email address, lrushboad EIBnet.com.
I watch all this.
I listen to all this.
And I, anybody ever heard the name Sam Donaldson?
Oh, for crying out loud, what do you think Sam Donaldson did to Reagan all during the 80s?
In fact, the press had a technique during the 80s, and it's something that took hold, and for all Republican presidents thereafter, it has been utilized.
Yeah, rather did it to Nixon.
I mean, this is common.
This is what journalists are supposed to do out there.
But when Reagan finished an appearance, Sam Donaldson would either shout a question, and then everybody would start shouting questions as Reagan walked away, and they kept it up.
And the whole point was to make Reagan appear aloof and unresponsive and sometimes even senile, feeble, deaf, unable to hear.
It was all part of a campaign.
We went back.
Who found this?
It's 19 Daily Caller found this.
In fact, the outfit, the Chatsworth Osborne Jr.'s outfit, went back and found a 1987 AP story, why do grown men and women shout at President Reagan?
According to many, the Daily Caller's Neil Munro breached protocol by shouting a question during a Rose Garden statement by President Kardashian on Friday, but on, rather, an Associated Press article 1987 reveals that Monroe's behavior is hardly unprecedented.
Over at the conservative media blog Newsbusters, Tom Bloomer has unearthed an October 14th, 1987 AP story by Christopher Connell that asks, why do grown men and women shout at President Reagan?
In his piece, Connell explains and justifies aggressive behavior by reporters that cover the White House.
Connell wrote, grown men and women are shouting at President Reagan at the top of their lungs.
They do it for a living.
Get over it.
He didn't write, get over it.
I threw it in there because that's what he means.
Get over it.
That's what they do for a living.
Not anymore.
Not anymore.
They're stenographers today.
Finally, you ask the president a question when he's usurping the Constitution, and guess who gets in trouble?
You do!
You're not supposed to interrupt the king like this.
Connell noted that the shouting even took place at ceremonies.
But this guy, Connell, Christopher Connell, 1987 AP story, ended up blaming Reagan and his aides for all this.
But they say the blame rests with Reagan and his aides who have sharply curtailed opportunities for the press corpse to engage the president under more civil circumstances.
So the fact Reagan wasn't doing a whole lot of press, 1987, Iran Conter.
Reagan's not appearing a lot.
When he went out there, they just shouted left and right before he speaks, during his comments, when he is leaving the podium, they shouted.
And it was his fault because he wasn't giving them enough of an opportunity to shout at him and to interrupt him.
Now, maybe there might have been two, but one reporter basically asks one question.
The press corps chases this guy all the way down to the Washington Monument.
I mean, it's just, I don't know.
Folks, we just have to laugh about it.
But a lot of it is not funny when you get right down to it.
But Mr. Bloomer at Newsbusters notes that this aggressiveness with the White House press corpse occurred throughout both of Reagan's terms, likely in an attempt to make the president seem aloof and standoffish.
And all Monroe did was ask the question that should have been on the mind of every American watching.
Why do you favor foreigners over Americans here?
You're going to flood the job market with 800,000 illegal kids or Utes.
Why are you giving them precedence and favorable treatment over Americans?
News media used to call that speaking truth to power.
But not any longer, ladies and gentlemen.
How about Helen Thomas?
I mean, Sam Donaldson, Sam, what's her name?
Helen Thomas and Sam, Sam, know what a tag team duo that was.
Some of you, these names may not mean anything to you, at least in terms of their historical context.
But look, there's nothing new under the sun here, except this.
Asking questions.
This is mild.
Obama gets kid glove treatment for crying out loud.
They don't, they wear mittens when they go in there and ask these questions.
This is make the guy a baby.
They're making him out to be a baby.
Can't handle a question from a website news organization.
Remember last week, might have been the week before these days all run together, but Time magazine's Mark Halperin asked for a truce.
We were laying too many gloves on Obama.
Say, call for a truce.
Okay, let's stop making a big deal out of these comments that these candidates make that they don't really mean a little off the wall.
Let's stop blowing this stuff all up.
That's only because Obama was being heard by, well, today, Chris Salizza, Democrat frontman, writing, actually yesterday in the Washington Post, can any president succeed in today's political world?
It's so mean out there, and it's so partisan out there that, you know, I don't think any president could actually govern anymore because it's so, so mean.
Here's how he starts his story.
Lost in the chatter about whether Obama will win a second term in November.
See, they admit that's the chatter, whether Obama will win a second term.
Lost in that chat is an even bigger and perhaps even more important question than whether Obama, can you believe the drive-bys say there's something more important than whether or not Obama will win a second term?
What pretty tell might that be?
Well, let's read further.
Perhaps an even more important question is, is it possible for a president Dash, any president Dash, to succeed in the modern world of politics?
Are these guys throwing it in?
It's impossible.
It's impossible for President Kardashian to govern.
It's so mean out there.
Consider this, right, Mr. Saliza.
We're in the midst of more than a decade-long streak of pessimism about the state of the country.
No, we're not.
The streak's three and a half years, maybe four at the outside.
There wasn't any kind of pessimism about the country in 2005 and 2006.
The pessimism began in 2007 when Pelosi and the gang took over the House and started implementing their policy.
The pessimism began when Obama was elected, then did the stimulus, then did health care, started doing damage to the economy.
That's when the pessimism began.
There wasn't any pessimism before then.
Then they got out the ordinary.
But anyway, we're in the midst of more than a decade-long streak of pessimism about the state of the country.
Partisanship's at an all-time high.
No, it's not.
And the media have splintered Twitter, blogs, Facebook, so on and so forth in a thousand directions all at one time.
Damn it, we don't own it anymore.
We don't dictate anymore.
All these people, everybody's a journalist.
I thought I used to do something special.
I was a reporter for the Washington Post, and now everybody has a Twitter account, and I don't count for beans.
It is so bad Obama can't govern.
Washington Post.
Whining is not attractive.
Complaining, whining.
I don't know how to deal with whiners anyway.
Do you?
I literally don't know how to.
No, I'm serious.
Well, maybe I laugh.
I mean, internally, I don't know how to deal with them.
Anyway, Saliza says, just heard we're in this month-long or a decade-long streak of pessimism.
But you see, what we have here, the mainstream news media pining for the days when they had total control over setting the agenda.
That's what he means here.
Facebook, blogs, Twitter, so on.
There's so many people out there who do what I do, and they all have readers.
You know, writing at the Washington Post used to mean something.
I know how he feels.
You know, back in the days, not making an excuse for him, but I can say in my line of business and work, back in the days when it was just ABC, CBS, NBC, you got a job at one of those places.
It was special.
There were only three places you could work.
And then CNN came along.
It was different.
And Saliza's not old enough.
He wasn't part of the monopoly.
He remembers it.
But back in the day, it was the three networks, the Washington Post, New York Times, and that was it.
Maybe Time magazine, they determined the news agenda.
And it was that that was attractive to all these guys, get into the news business, and now they're in the news business, and they look at the golden age, not as now, but way back then.
You're really offended if some jerk can type 140 characters on Twitter and get more attention than somebody with a byline at the Washington Post or the New York Times.
It would irritate you, too.
And we also have, I think, understandably, because Chris is young, but there's a total ignorance of history.
You know, up until the 1970s, even small towns had a couple of newspapers, sometimes more, and there were a variety of political views.
Liberal mainstream media's total control over the flow of information has been a relatively recent and short-lived phenomenon, but it existed and they longed for it.
And the partisanship of today.
Oh, it's so bad.
Like, it's so partisan.
One reporter asked the president a question.
Stop and think.
And it was the news all weekend.
One reporter asked the question.
That's partisanship.
How many reporters were at that press conference?
It wasn't a press conference.
It was a little announcement of how, hey, you know what the Constitution means to me?
President Kardashian strode to the Rose Garden.
Here's what the Constitution means to me.
And one reporter asked the question, we're told there's too much partisanship out there.
The partisanship of today is just as strong as it was during the days of Nixon.
Do you see the press trying to drum this president out of power?
Well, they did during Watergate.
And in their minds, they succeeded.
They hated Nixon.
I'm the new Nixon.
They're trying to drive me out of business.
Oh, grab audio sound by number three.
I have to thank Sarah Palin.
She was at the right online conference.
The right-wing bloggers and so forth met out of Las Vegas over the weekend.
Americans for Prosperity put the thing on right online, and she was the keynote speaker.
She touched on a lot of things, including this.
Look at the big kahuna, the fearless leader of some of us ditto heads, Rush Limbaugh.
Look what they try to do to him with him being the center of these massive campaigns to try to silence him.
And I think of Rush when my girls and I were trucking down the road in our truck and radio's blasting and Kelly Clarkson's song comes on.
And I think of Rush when it says, what doesn't kill you makes you stronger.
These Yahoos out there doing all that they can to try to get Rush to sit on a shut up.
They're making his point every day with the double standards and the hypocrisy.
And he just comes back stronger and stronger and more credible because they make his point for him.
What a gig he's got.
Just let him talk.
Right on.
Sarah Payton, thank you, Governor Payless.
That was at the Netroots.
No, no, no, no, no.
Netroots is left.
This was the right online.
Our guys in Las Vegas over the weekend.
But the partisanship of today, Nixon, Reagan.
I don't know if you were alive or if you were, if you're paying attention.
They hated Reagan.
Every press conference.
It wasn't one Neil Monroe.
It was all of them.
And we just found this 87 AP story.
Newsbusters dug it up.
They did it on purpose to make Reagan look like he was out of it when he refused to answer the questions.
And by the way, Saliz is here.
He's worried.
Oh, let's go back to the beginning of his piece here.
Lost in the chatter about whether President Obama will win a second term in November is an even bigger and even more important question.
There is something more important than whether Obama will win?
Who knew?
That question is, is it possible for a president, any president, to succeed in the modern world of politics?
I want to point out to you that even during all this partisanship back 70s and 80s, Nixon re-elected.
Reagan re-elected.
Clinton, tons of partisanship during the Clinton.
They even impeached him.
Clinton re-elected.
They all managed to accomplish things in their second terms, including Nixon, despite the news media's best efforts.
They all governed.
But now there's so little faith in Obama.
That's really what this adds up to.
There's so little confidence and so little faith in President Kardashian.
Now Halper wants a truce.
Saliza says, oh, no, it's so part.
I don't think anybody can govern.
Obama was special.
He would be better than anything.
This guy makes the sea levels fall just by showing up in an apple orchard.
I take a break here, folks.
Be back and resume right after this.
Look, it's a teachable moment.
I want to stick with Chris Salizathy a little bit more because there's more to his piece here that needs to be dealt with.
Notice now that a reporter, one reporter asking the president who has just the Constitution, is called heckling.
Now, this guy was heckling the president.
And Chris DeLiza quotes another Democrat frontman, a guy named Chris Lahane, who was big with Clinton and Al Gore.
And Chris Lahane says, well, you know, we live in an era of high-definition politics.
Every flaw is exposed, which makes it supremely challenging to effectively govern.
Look at how far Obama has fallen.
He was so above all of these normal, humdrum, everyday, lowbrow concerns.
He was superhuman.
He was messianic.
And now the system is bigger than Obama.
The partisanship dwarfs Obama.
An era of high-definition politics makes it practically impossible to govern.
This is from a Clinton flak about whom we knew almost too much.
And Clinton got re-elected despite everything that was known about him.
We still know next to nothing about President Kardashian.
We know next to nothing about the guy.
And his administration has managed to be the least transparent in history thanks to a subservient lack of curiosity, uninquisitive media.
Well, Saliza says here that the news is being made literally every minute of the day.
Obama forced to react to virtually all of it, which is untrue.
Obama doesn't react to anything.
He's got his own agenda, which is fundraising on the Constitution.
Obama hadn't responded to Fast and Furious, has he?
Obama hadn't responded to solar power scandals like Solyndra.
Obama hasn't had to respond to anything he doesn't want to respond to.
And the recent so-called heckling in the Rose Garden.
Show you'd have to respond to that.
What do you mean, poor Obama has to respond?
But it makes it hard, Saliza says.
Fracturing the media makes it hard to push a clear message.
Yeah, I'll bet it does.
Oh, boo-hoo!
Continuing on with a teachable moment.
I must, if you'll indulge me, make mention of this again.
Chris Saliza claims that he's a quote: news is being made literally every minute of the day.
Obama forced to react to virtually all of it, which isn't true.
Obama doesn't have to react to anything.
Fast and Furious, Celinda, solar power failures, Keystone Pipeline, none of it.
You don't have to respond to anything, economic destruction.
He's not being forced to respond or react to anything.
And then Salizu goes on to say that, quote, the fracturing of the media makes it hard to push a clear message, but also because roughly half the American people doesn't want to hear the message, whatever it is, because it's for the other party.
Isn't that terrible?
Isn't that terrible because of the fracturing of the media?
Meaning, what he's saying here is: if there weren't talk radio and Fox News and the right-wing blogs, we wouldn't be having a problem here.
Obama would be a shoe-in for re-election because we'd control the agenda.
We'd control what the news was.
We'd control what the news wasn't, and we'd control what people thought about it.
Damn it.
The fracturing of the media makes it hard to push a clear message.
Who, Chris, who are you talking about pushing clear message, Obama or you guys?
Or both?
The fracturing of the media makes it hard to push a clear message.
Doesn't Romney face the same stuff, Chris?
He got a message he's trying to push.
Doesn't it make it fractured media make it tough?
You guys all aligned against Romney?
Doesn't it make it tough for him to push his message?
Or Chris Christie?
Or me?
Anybody trying to push a message?
Does fractured media make it hard when you guys are lined up against us?
You know what really has them upset?
They are totally in the tank for Obama, and he's losing.
They're totally in the tank for Obama.
They've protected him.
They haven't made him have to react to anything.
He had had to face up to one failure, one act of destruction, and he's losing.
They can't protect him.
That's what really bothers them here.
They don't like all these other obstacles in the way.
It's very terrible, folks.
It's very terrible.
Not only is the so-called mainstream media now challenged by the new media when they try to push Obama's clear message, even facing sales resistance from the public because of our newfangled two-party system.
They don't think they ought to have to sell anything.
They just announce it, report it, write it, and that's what you believe.
But I want to tell you how history repeats itself.
These people are as predicted, like Calper calling for the truce.
Again, for those of you who were not old enough or not paying attention back in the 1970s, Newsweek, November 17th.
No, no, take that back.
What was this?
Oh, yeah, this one, Jimmy, back in the Jimmy Carter era.
Newsweek ran a story asking if the presidency was too big for one man anymore.
That's Newsweek magazine.
Is the presidency too big for one man?
November 17th, 2010.
Can any single person fully meet the demands of the 21st century?
Newsweek magazine.
Same argument was used to excuse and overwhelm Jimmy Carter 30 years earlier.
Excuse for Obama.
Same for Carter.
These people on the left have a very small playbook.
When their guy gets in trouble, it's impossible to govern.
Why?
Because the media is fractured.
There's too much opposition.
There's too much questioning going on.
There's not enough loyalty.
And maybe there's too much partisanship.
There's too much disagreement.
And maybe just as they asked During Carter, now they ask for Obama.
Maybe the job is just too big for one person now.
The 1970s are 40 years ago, folks.
40 years ago, the media was asking the same question they're asking today about Obama.
Is it just too big for one man?
It's funny.
It is hilarious to watch all this.
Now I go back and I want to play for you.
We talked about Sam Donaldson, the program.
We went back to the archives, 1983.
What would this be?
30 years ago.
30 years ago.
Ronaldus Magnus is at a White House press conference.
At the end, First Lady Nancy Reagan rolled in a birthday cake for the president.
During this birthday cake being rolled in, Sam Donaldson got up and started shouting.
Anything you wanted to do differently?
I think he's doing just right.
Well, maybe this would be a good time for you to tell him whether you think he should run again.
Oh, no.
We're not getting too old to run again, are you, sir?
You're not getting too old to run again, are you, sir?
How much do I have a piece of cake, Sam?
You note the class and character, Nancy Reagan turning.
They're making it into a joke.
You want a piece of cake?
But I remember back in these days, everybody, what disrespect?
How could there be such disrespect to the president?
Oh, no, Donaldson was lauded.
He was a hero.
He was promoted all through ABC.
Fine and dandy.
No quarrel with that.
But here, one guy from Chatsworth Osborne Jr.'s operation asks about on the Constitution and so forth.
And they heckle this guy and they ran, they chase him down to the Washington Monument.
They want to string him up.
And why, by the way?
Let's listen.
This is, we have a montage here from Friday, Saturday, and Sunday, montage of Democrat strategists and media people complaining about Neil Monroe and why he did.
Why was he so disrespectful?
Why was he exhibiting such insolence by deigning to ask King Kardashian that question?
Would the right wing be doing this if we had a white president there?
They don't treat him with the same respect that they would treat a white man in that position.
Does it have anything to do with the fact that this is the nation's first black president and the level of disrespect is alarming and stunning?
It's very, very difficult to place race outside of this context.
This is a campaign to delegitimize the presidency.
And to me, I think race is a component.
The same thing is happening with our Attorney General.
These are two men who are doing an outstanding job, but they're folks who just don't like it.
What two men doing?
Now, standing jobs.
He's sniffing a lot during the comments.
Elijah Cummings.
So see, it's race, folks.
It's race.
It never happened to a white president.
Sam Donaldson.
I guess I never knew that Reagan was black till today.
Because this kind of behavior, it wouldn't happen to a white guy.
How cheap.
How clichéd?
How simplistic?
How predictable?
How utterly ignorant of these supposed great minds to suggest that any of this has anything to do with Obama's skin color?
Because I'm going to tell you, it doesn't.
As far as I'm concerned, I got over his skin color before he was elected.
This historical nature, yep, maybe for a while, but after that, all that matters to me are his ideas.
Pure and simple.
Ideas and policies.
I couldn't care less about this guy's skin color.
And for these guys to run around and make this kind of accusation, it is cheap.
It is predictable.
It is cliched.
It is ignorant and it's wrong.
Don't these guys, these are the same people laughing when Bush had a shoe thrown at him over in Iraq.
Remember that?
You imagine if Neil Monroe had thrown a shoe at Obama?
They laughed.
They were upset that the guy who tossed the shoe at Bush missed.
Besides, everybody knows that Monroe was heckling Obama's white half, folks.
Everybody knows that.
Over on Face the Nation on Sunday, Jan Crawford Greenberg.
Well, not Greenberg anymore, just Jan Crawford.
She's the political correspondent.
She was a guest there with Bob Schieffer, and she was wondering why President Kardashian would announce this immigration bombshell on Friday if it's so popular.
If this were so popular, so wildly popular with the American people, why would he do this on a Friday afternoon?
I mean, on Washington, that's when you dump documents.
That's when you try to bury the news that you really don't want people to know about a Friday afternoon.
It seems to me he's trying to get his base to turn out, just like George W. Bush did in 2004.
Kind of play it both ways.
Yeah, if it's so popular.
And if nobody's paying attention, why do it on Friday?
Nobody.
Yeah, she's right.
It's a good question.
Let's go to the phones.
We'll start.
Scottsdale, Arizona.
Thomas, I'm glad you called, and it's great to have you here.
You're up first.
Hello, sir.
Good morning, Rush.
Honor to speak with you.
Thanks, Sank, very much.
I appreciate that.
I think there are two underlying points to this Washington Post article.
First, you know, they're assuming that Obama is the best president we've ever had and the best this country has to offer.
Second, they're seeing that Obama is not being successful.
Therefore, the only conclusion you can draw that it's impossible for anyone to succeed as a president, and it must be because of the political environment, not the competency of this president.
Exactly right.
There's so much invested in Obama.
It can't be him.
Can't be his fault he's in the 40s in the polls.
It can't be his fault everybody opposes health care.
Can't be his fault that Romney's doing so well.
Can't be his fault.
No, no, no, because Obama's the smartest president we've ever had.
So if it's not Obama's fault, it's got to be everybody else's fault.
It's going to be the fact the media is fractured.
It's the fact that people are too partisan, too rigid, too stupid, too dumb.
Yeah, exactly right.
Maybe the job's just too big for one man now, just like it was with Jimmy Carter.
That's probably it.
The job is just too.
And we in the media, it's so fractured out there.
We in the media can't get the job done for him anymore like we used to be able to do.
There is an article in the New York Times today that essentially makes the same point.
It's the world's fault that Obama's having problems.
Europe and economics.
Syria and other place in the middle.
Oh, speaking of which, speaking of, I wasn't going to do this, but I've changed it.
My grab audio soundbite number one.
Go back to this.
I was not going to do this, but it's now, it's reared its head.
January 31st of 2011, when the Muslim Brotherhood, you know, the Arab Spring was going on, and the Muslim Brotherhood was wreaking havoc.
They were trying to get Mubarak out of there.
And old buddy Nick Robertson from CNN was over there on the ground in Tahriri Square, which is not a square.
And he was talking to all these Egyptians.
And he said, so tell us, Egyptians, one was Mustafa, the other one was Ahmed.
Tell us, Mustafa, how do you feel about President Obama and his magnificent role in gaining freedom?
President Obama, he's not here.
President Obama is not helping us.
What are you talking about, President Obama?
Well, okay.
Well, let me move on.
Achman, could you please tell us, what do you think of a President Obama being concerned about Egyptians having...
Obama, he's not here.
What the hell are you talking about, Obama?
What are you asking me about Obama for?
We're trying to get rid of Mubarak.
What's Obama got to do?
And as you can see, said Nick Robertson, President Obama, much on the minds of the Egyptians here who greatly and gratifyingly approve of President Obama.
All the while this is going on, our great moderate Republicans, oh man, the Arab Spring freedom breaking out.
I said, I don't think so.
It's January 31st, 2011, this year.
Last year.
The Muslim Brotherhood, but what's really known about them?
They claim they're for democracy and all that, but that can all be smokescreen.
On the other hand, we have said from the get-go that if you wanted the second term of Jimmy Carter, elect Barack Obama.
Well, here we are.
And what happened in the first term of Jimmy Carter?
We lost Iran to a bunch of radical Islamist extremists.
Are we looking at the second term of Jimmy Carter here, losing Egypt to a bunch of radicalized Islamist extremists?
Looks like that's exactly what happened.
That was January 31st, 2011, a year and a half ago, folks.
Back then, it was popular to say the Muslim Brotherhood has a different bunch of guys.
These are guys we can work with.
Moderates.
That's exactly right.
Well, it turns out they're not.
They're just as radical as any other Islamic jihad group is.
And the military is running the country.
The Brotherhood took over from the military.
It was a planned handoff.
And I just, I think back to all of our moderate Republican foreign policy establishment types celebrate, oh, it's such a wonderful thing.
The outbreak of freedom in the Middle East.
Now, the New York Times has this story, and here's the headline: In a world of complications, Obama faces a re-election test.
So, Chris Eliza at the Washington Post, poor Obama, so partisan out there.
He can't get anything done.
He has to answer for everything.
There's just too much disagreement.
The job may be too big for one man.
It's just not possible.
And all these, you know, it used to be that we ought to be able to get things done, but now all of Twitter and Facebook make me irrelevant.
It's now the New York Times with a companion story.
In a world of complications, Obama faces a re-election test.
Yes, my friend, it's Greece and Spain, and those stupid Europeans can't handle money.
And the Middle East, we've got the Muslim Brotherhood and the Egypt situation and all that.
That's crashing around.
We've got the Iranians and their nukes.
And you've got the foreign policy leaks from the regime.
You know, back in January of 2011, we were told that the Muslim Brotherhood wasn't behind the Arab Spring or the Egyptian uprising, and that they wouldn't start a political party, that they wouldn't run for parliament, they wouldn't put up a candidate.
Everything they did, we were told they wouldn't do.
Everything they stood for, we were told they didn't stand for.
Everything they were going to do, they haven't done.
Everything that we predicted they would do, they've done.
And so now, events are cascading out of President Kardashian's control.
Chris DeLizza at the Washington Post is worried about it, and the New York Times.
In a world of complications, Obama faces a re-election test.
That New York Times, here how that starts.
All right.
For Obama, a president who set out to restore good relations with the world in his first term, the world doesn't seem to be cooperating all that much with his bid to win a second term.
And what the hell is the world thinking?
Doesn't the world know that its only reason for existence is Obama's second term?
Well, that's how this thing is written.
Europe seemed unable to contain its economic crisis to just Greece.
The Syrian conflict is intensified.
Egypt's popular revolution is at risk of being reversed by the military, if never anything other than that.
There really is brazen, blatant stupidity and arrogance at the highest levels of journalism today.
I can't.
Egypt's popular revolution is at risk of being reversed by the military.
And then the Russians are cracking down at home and rattling the sabers abroad.
Russians are giving defense missiles to Bashr al-Assad.
Yep, the Russians are giving defense missiles to Syria.
How petty.
That's right.
Helicopter.
How petty and selfish these other countries are.
They got their priorities mixed up.
Their job is to make Obama look good.
Not their own self-interest.
Don't they get it?
Okay, my friends, another exciting excursion into broadcast excellence.
Officially one hour underway.
Sadly, that hour is over.
Fast as three hours in media.
One of them's already gone, kicking off a great, brand new week of broadcast excellence.
But a brief timeout is called for here.
At the top of the hour, you sit tight.
▲
Export Selection