All Episodes
Previous Next
July 10, 2012 - Rush Limbaugh Program
36:43
July 10, 2012, Tuesday, Hour #1
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Welcome to today's edition of the Rush 24-7 podcast.
And greetings to you, music lovers, thrill seekers, and conversationalists all across the bountiful.
Parched.
Still without power in some places.
I can't, I cannot believe this.
Fruited playing.
It's Rush Limbaugh and the Excellence in Broadcasting Network.
Great to have you here, folks.
Can you all hear me?
You hear me over the music?
I barely hear myself.
Okay.
Telephone number 800 282-2882.
If you want to be on the program, the email address L Rushball at EIB net.com.
Now, yesterday, ladies and gentlemen, I spent uh well, practically the whole program discussing the state of the country, where we are, where we're going, what kind of country are we?
And admittedly, a lot of people yesterday felt that I uh well, not a lot, but I had enough emails from people that made me realize I better come in here and set some things straight.
Even Cookie said, Why are you giving up?
Is it is it is it all over?
And this is the problem that you encounter when you attempt to properly honestly identify problem.
I mean, a problem by definition is negative.
And when you properly identify a negative, people, oh my god, a lot of people paper them over.
No, no, I'm not I'm not giving up at all, folks.
Quite the contrary.
The whole point of yesterday's program is I've identified the problem.
Here's what we're up against.
This is what we have to do.
In the whole point yesterday, for example, uh Boehner had this quote that we had a caller, irritated at Boehner, who was asked about Romney, and he's no, nobody's gonna fall in love with Romney.
And I said, Well, nobody's gonna fall in love with Baylor either.
And the bottom line is we don't have anybody on our side anybody's gonna fall in love with, and frankly, that's fine with me.
We don't want people falling in love with candidates.
That's what people did with Obama in 2008.
We don't want that.
But we fa we we find ourselves in a unique situation here.
Uh we don't have the ideal nominee.
There wasn't the ideal nominee this time around.
But we do know something that trumps everything else, and that is this administration must be dispatched on election day.
We have to get rid of it.
Regardless what Romney is.
If Romney is is is is less than a Reagan, and of course everyone is, if Romney is just uh uh somebody to occupy the awful office for four years while we put a uh a stop to what's going on and and try to reverse the direction of the country, but it's all gonna boil down to us.
What are you saying?
What do what are you what are you what's your reaction?
No, it's not McKay, but point is that we do not have uh the ideal.
We conservatives do not have a Ronald Reagan running here.
I don't want that to end to make people feel negative about what our prospects are.
It's the the what I'm getting to here is that it's up to us to do something about this.
We are not big government people.
We don't want to rely on other people to do things for us.
We have to place our trust uh in in elected officials and but but to to uh take ourselves out of the equation and to say that we have no role or play no role in this is uh is a mistake.
And so all uh what I want to try to do today is focus a little bit on the problems that Democrats have, because they've got a myriad bunch of problems.
They are they are weighed down.
Obama, as Crowdhammer said yesterday, and I happen to agree with Crowdhammer on this.
Obama, by doing what he did yesterday in the Bush tax cuts, basically is waving the white flag.
He's basically surrendering on the whole notion that his economic answers work.
That's really what he did.
By extending the Bush tax cuts for 98% of the American people, he is tantamount admitting that his policies are failures.
And this must be said, this must be pointed out.
Now, if Republican elected officials aren't going to point it out, we do.
We will.
But I happen to think that's a correct estimation.
Um, because as I mentioned yesterday when I opened the program, Obama has been blaming the Bush tax cuts for all the problems he inherited.
He has admitted that in three and a half years he is unable to do anything about what Bush did.
He's not able to fix it.
He's admitting his incompetence.
He's admitting yesterday that his policies are failures, and he's moving to the right.
Which I said at the yesterday and on numerous previous occasions.
The Democrats always do this when it uh nears elections, when we near elections, when it comes time to win them, what do they do?
They move to the right, try to make themselves sound and look conservative, not in name, obviously, but but uh but but but lifestyle policy-wise.
You won't hear any more talk of gay marriage, for example, that kind of stuff.
You won't that stuff's all out of the way.
You're you're you're you're gonna see Obama uh tacking to the right throughout this uh campaign while offering lip service as much as he can to his uh fringe kook base.
98% of the American people are going to now benefit Oh, here's another thing about this.
Everybody keeps calling these the Bush tax cuts.
They aren't tax cuts.
They are the current tax rate.
The Bush tax cuts occurred 10, 11 years ago now.
That is the current tax rate.
The Democrats want to continue to call them tax cuts as though they're always temporary.
And that we've got to get back to some norm.
They're talking about the Clinton tax rates that we should get back to, which I've agreed to if we'll go back to Clinton spending levels.
Clinton's budget in 1992 or 1993 of 1.8 trillion.
That's an Obama deficit now.
And the Democrats talk about the Clinton years as magical and wonderful and filled with prosperity.
Well, let's go back to them.
Including the spending levels, which of course they uh they won't do.
No, my my uh my point, and I don't I don't want to be misunderstood, is I'm simply trying to rally everybody.
We are going to have to pitch in and do this rather than count on elected officials.
We don't have an ideal nominee.
We weren't gonna get one in this cycle.
Why, why why are you?
What do you mean I won't play the game?
What game?
What game am I supposed to be playing?
But that's not happening.
That's not happening.
No, look, look.
Snerdley, you are falling prey to the game.
You're you're succumbing to the conventional wisdom of what happens after a nomination is completed and so forth.
I'm Bahner got this star, he said, no, you're probably not gonna love Mitt Romney, and he went on and added his Mormon stuff.
Um my only point is we don't have to love these people.
The objective here is to stop Obama.
That's it in its entirety.
Romney is the vessel for that.
He's going to benefit from that.
One of the central themes of yesterday's program was that a traditional campaign on the economy isn't gonna work because a bad economy has become accepted by way too many people.
It's no longer something that that creates a crisis mentality in a lot of people.
And I think Pat Cadell has a huge, I mean, this thing prints out to over 20 pages, if you include the comments.
And I've got an audio soundbite somewhere here in the stack of him talking about the number right now.
But anyway, his point is the Republicans don't know the great opportunity they've got here.
They're blowing it by continuing to focus on the economy.
And he says that, and it's not about the debate of whether Obamacare the mandates a tax or a penalty.
It's a tax, and it's the biggest tax increase in the world.
It's the biggest tax increase in world history, and that ought to be the focus on how to talk about Obamacare and the economy and Obama and his regime, his administration, and this tax while he's trying to get credit here for a tax cut, which they're now saying Obama is cutting people's taxes.
He's not cutting anybody's taxes.
He's leaving the current tax rates alone.
Not cut it for 98% of the people.
And again, he's a sitting duck on this stuff because he's blaming these tax cuts for the last four years for the economic malays this country is in.
He's blaming those tax cuts.
And now here he is extending them for the second time in his three and a half year term.
He's a sitting duck on this.
He's a sitting duck on taxes because of what he did yesterday.
He's a sitting duck on taxes because of Obamacare.
One thing that is universal, one thing that is timeless, and that is nobody wants to pay higher taxes.
And when they find out how much a tax increase this Obamacare is, it is the best way to go about A, defeating Obama, B, repealing Obamacare.
And we can get into the nuts and bolts of the actual things that are going to happen with the implementation of Obamacare, but we've done that.
But the thing that's new here is that it is thanks to the Supreme Court, it's just been called a tax.
It's not even Obamacare anymore.
It's Obama tax.
And it needs to be approached that way, and it needs to be hit on that way.
And Cadell is exactly right in this.
I'll share with some of the some of his thinking on it as the program uh unfolds before your very eyes and ears.
But the bottom has fallen out for Obama.
I don't want anybody to think that the tone of the I was actually yesterday, folks, I must tell you.
Uh I felt great after the program yesterday because I think when you strip it all away, it was uplifting.
It's what we all can be.
It's what we all don't want to lose.
We all know what the reason for this nation's greatness is.
We all know why we're unique.
We all know what American exceptionalism is.
And we have a president who doesn't believe in any of it.
And in my mind, it makes him a sitting duck.
We've got serious problems taking place in the country.
And probably going to detail some more of them today.
Uh as uh show prep indicates here.
I've got some more examples of it.
So I just I don't want to be misunderstood.
Yeah, was not trying to be negative, fatalistic, or anything of it, just quite the opposite.
Here, grab audio sound, but what is it?
Number 14.
This this to me is perfectly illustrative of some of the things that we were talking about yesterday.
Rama Manuel, there's a murder rate in Chicago is out of control.
It's out of sight.
People are being murdered in Obama's town left and right, in Rom Emanuel's town, left and right.
And so the mayor of Chicago, the godfather Rom Emanuel appealed to the city's gangsters.
He appealed to the city's gangsters.
I don't even want to flavor it.
Let's just play the audio soundbite.
This is on the CBS Evening News last night with Scott Pelley.
And Pelley said, after Heaven Sutton was killed, you said it's not about crime, it's about values.
What do you mean by that?
You got two gangbangers.
One standing next to a kid.
Get away from that kid.
Take your stuff to the alley.
Don't touch the children of the city of Chicago.
Don't get near them.
And it is about values.
As I said then, Scott.
Who raised you?
Who were you raised?
And I don't buy this case where people say they don't have values.
They do have values.
They have the wrong values.
Don't come near the kids.
Don't touch them.
Well, then who are they supposed to kill?
What are they?
Don't kill the kids.
Go kill somebody else.
This is this is unfathomable to me.
The mayor of the city's third largest city via the CBS Evening News speaks to the criminal element of the city and says, hey, pal, get some values, will you?
And leave the kids alone.
Take it to the alley and kill other people.
Kill the bus boy when he comes out of the restaurant out of the kitchen.
Kill the chef, but don't kill the kids.
Leave the kids alone.
Didn't you see the baby on board sign in the back window of the car?
What are you doing?
Leave our kids alone.
Go kill other people.
The mayor of the third largest city is asking the gangbangers, as he calls them, to get in touch with their values.
And understand that when we're talking about killing people, kids are off limits.
Republicans, maybe.
But kids, no way.
Is there a police force in Chicago?
Do you think the police force might be utilized to track down and capture the gangbangers?
You think the mayor might say, if you keep this up, that doesn't matter.
You you're you're already on the books.
We are going to hunt you down and we're going to find you and we're going to prosecute you to the fullest extent.
You think the mayor might say that?
No, because they don't want to make the gangbangers any angrier than they already are.
So we just ask them.
We beg in the guise of demanding as a tough guy.
Leave the kids alone.
I remember Rahmanuel, he's part of the Clinton administration, and they made fun of Republicans who talked about family values laws.
Remember that?
Ron Emmanuel was on the uh the leaders of the pack of the Democrats who mocked and made fun of Republicans who spoke about family values.
Here he is on the CBS evening news, invoking gangbanger values.
Where were you raised, man?
Don't you know you're supposed to leave the kids alone?
I'm stunned by this.
Not we're gonna track you down and catch you.
Not we're gonna punish you to the full extent of the law.
You not not intimidate them into maybe ceasing this kind of activity.
Just look, you're gonna kill people.
We know it's Chicago, leave the kids alone.
I'm telling you, this party is a sitting duck.
The Democrat Party is a sitting duck.
With the right campaign, with the right approach, the proper understanding of where we are as a culture in a country today, this bunch is a sitting duck.
Now for Ron Emmanuel, that's that's that's realville.
That statements realville for him.
That's what liberalism has wrought.
Gangbanger crime in the city, it's just what it is.
Try to catch them, makes them even madder, they commit even more crime.
We'll just try to talk to them and negotiate with them through the CBS evening news, try to convince them not to kill the kids.
And we're back, Rush Lidbaugh, the cutting edge of societal evolution.
It should be pointed out in Chicago that most of these children, the kids, that uh Rambo, or Rambo is Rambo is is asking the gangbangers to leave.
Most of them are black, most of them are African American.
We don't hear about it.
We only hear about white Hispanic on black crime.
We don't hear about the racial characteristics of the crime in Chicago.
But I would ask, where are the reverends?
He and the mayor of Chicago asking the gangbangers to leave the kids alone.
I'm stunned by it.
I I am I'm just get away from that kid.
Says the mayor of Chicago via Scott Pelley, CBS this.
Get away from that kid.
Here's Pat Cadell, by the way.
He was on um uh Cavuto on Fox question.
The new poll puts the president ahead of Romney in 12 battleground states.
Two points.
It's close, but he's surviving.
The fact that he is still even marginally ahead, given the kind of month he has says something about how well his campaign is doing, frankly, and how difficult his opposition is of keeping control of the initiative.
The health care bill, he is the master distraction.
He has been standing on quicksand since the court decision, because the court decision made the mandate, which 67% of Americans oppose into a tax.
And he told them, oh no, no, it was not gonna be a tax.
The Republicans cannot get their message.
Instead, they're talking about trying to repeal the whole bill, which is a ho-hum thing, rather than even today saying, wait a minute, Mr. President, you want to talk about taxes?
We want to repeal Obama tax, the health care bill.
Now, if you read the Intacadel piece, basically he says that the Republicans are blowing a big opportunity to talk about an issue called trust.
Can't trust Obama.
Nobody trusts Obama.
Hit it.
Another thing he's pointing out is that this notion of repeal, repeal, it's like it's falling on dead ears.
It doesn't mean anything.
It's been used for way too many months now.
Repeal this, repeal and replace.
Go for what's current.
The Supreme Court just called it a tax.
It makes it the biggest tax in the world.
Go after this and put it all on Obama.
It's made the order, and he's right.
Listen to it again, folks.
Ron Emanuel last night on the CBS Evening News, Scott Pelley.
A CBS evening news anchor said, after Heaven Sutton, that's somebody's name, Heaven, as in Heaven.
Sutton, after Heaven Sutton was killed, you said that it's not about crime.
It's about values.
What do you mean?
Which makes sense, a liberal asking another liberal, values?
Are you kidding?
What the heck do you mean by values?
You got two gangbangers.
One standing next to a kid.
Yeah.
Get away from that kid.
Yeah.
Take your stuff to the alley.
Yeah.
Don't touch the children of the city of Chicago.
Don't get near them.
Leave them alone.
It is about values.
That's right.
As I said then, Scott.
Who raised you?
Who were you raised?
Stop the tech there.
Exactly right.
Where did these people get their values?
Where did the gangbangers get their values?
Where did they pick up their values?
Did they pick them up from Reverend Wright?
Did they pick up their values from their families?
Did they get their values from their parents?
Did they get their values from the scruils?
Did they get their values from the churches?
Did they get their values from political leaders?
I'm told that the uh Reverend O'Dax is pretty big in Chicago.
I'm told that the uh Reverend O'Dax is pretty influential in Chicago.
As is, that's right, Calypso Louis, Minister Farrakhan.
It's not Farrakhan, say it right.
It's Farrakhan.
We are respectful on the show.
It's Farrakhan.
No, seriously, where here's the mayor of Chicago.
Telling teenage these by the way, the gangbangers are largely kids, too.
They're in their teenage years, uh, late teens, early twenties, they're young people.
Where'd they get their values?
This is the party that has told us that we have no business talking about values.
This is the party that has made fun of us for holding up values, traditional American values.
They don't like traditional American values.
Who are you to tell us what tradition is, they've said.
Who are you to define family values?
Why do we have to accept your values?
Some values and customs and morals are timeless.
And they're not politically defined, created, taxed, what have you.
But any set of values, up until now, I'm not kidding, folks.
Values, the Democrats don't want to talk about values, because when you start talking about values, then you're talking about judgment, and they will not be judged.
Do not judge us.
Who are you to judge us?
Now all of a sudden, gangbangers, Chicago murdering kids, the mayor says, stop killing the kids.
Where are your values?
Well, we all know what their values are.
They don't have any.
Well, they may have.
Where'd they get them?
Wonder how many guns from Fast and Furious have been showing up in Chicago?
Just wondering.
I think it's a re it's it's irrelevant question.
Where do gangbangers supposed to pick up their values?
The only crime we hear about is white Hispanic on black crime.
When that happens once a century in uh in, say Florida.
Ladies and gentlemen, my staff, I should tell you this on the other side of the glass here.
They're still in a state of shock.
They are still, it's in fact, if if I weren't such a highly trained professional, I'd be distracted by what's going on in there.
They are talking to each other.
They are ignoring the program, they're not paying any attention to it whatsoever, talking to themselves, and I know they're talking about me.
And they're talking about what I said about Romney, and they can't believe it.
And they think that I've lost it, gone over to Cliff, committed some sort of great political crime here.
Because I dared say that there isn't a lot of love for Romney.
I don't see as the mayor of Realville, do I have to even explain this?
All right, I'll give it a shot here.
It's not a negative.
There aren't very many political candidates that have that kind of passionate.
So the last candidate who was loved in this country, for example, was Obama in 2008.
And my point, we don't want that.
We don't want blind slavish attachment to people.
Because we we can make of them whatever we want them to be.
My point in saying that Romney is not loved is only to illustrate what this election is about.
Why are you not as irritated at me as I for saying what I said yesterday and the week before, when I said Romney better understand the election is not about him.
It's the same thing.
Same thing saying Romney's not, people aren't in love with Romney is the same thing as saying the election is not about him.
In fact, I would think if anybody's going to be offended at something, it'd be when I say Romney better learn the election than about him.
All I mean is, let's can I just be honest.
Among our side, the conservatives, the independents, everybody who wants drastic significant change in this country.
Very few are running around saying, we want MIT, we want MIT, we want Mitt.
They're running around saying, get rid of Obama and the Democrats.
Get rid of Obama and the Democrats.
That is the animating thing of this election.
That is the motivating thing.
This election.
Clinton was loved.
And look how easy it was for him to mislead everybody.
I don't like this notion that we fall in love with candidates.
My point is we need to be adults about this.
Well, yeah, and but but that, and we still do.
But Reagan was not a manipulative insincere conniving.
The love that people had for Reagan was a genuine love, not a celebrity idolatry.
People loved Reagan deeply as a man, as a human being, character, every aspect, policy, you name it.
And he knew he we knew he loved the country.
There was a profound respect.
There was no, he wasn't the celebrity of the United States.
Then those candidates are rare, is my only point.
This election is about getting rid of the forces who are attempting to transform this country.
No matter what.
Let me try it this way.
No matter what Romney is, and no matter what he does as president, it ain't gonna be anything like this.
Now, it might not be ideal, conservative wise, but it's not going to be anything like this.
Everybody on our side is oriented towards stopping this.
The question is how.
I take you back to Michael Goodwin's piece yesterday.
He said, a problem with Romney, his biggest problem is something he has no control over.
He was born in a different era.
He still thinks of American politics as it was practiced 30 and 40 years ago, and it's changed now.
The economy simply running on the economy is not enough.
Too many people are accepting of the economy as it is.
There isn't wide spread outrage over it.
Because there's not a lot of pain attached to it.
Not as there has been to unemployment and similar economic distress in years past.
What we love is the country.
What we want to save is the country.
And we are entrusting that task to Mitt Romney because he is the Republican presidential nominee.
We are entrusting the task of stopping the direction this country is headed to Mitt Romney.
This is a business decision.
It is a full-fledged American political business decision.
That'll be made in November, just as it was in the midterm elections in November of 2010.
Now, when you when you peel away all the phony poll sampling, when you consider the unpopularity of Obamacare, when you measure the mood of small business owners, when you when you look at the way Democrats are jumping off the Obama bandwagon, and more and more of them every day are jumping off the bandwagon and more and more saying they're not going to Democrat convention.
When you consider the breadth and the depth of the results of the 2010 midterm elections, when you consider the significance of Scott Walker's victory in Wisconsin, when you see the positive employment impact of Republican governors, every Republican governor elected.
The last 17 of them, unemployment is going down in those states.
Unemployment is dropping in states which elected Republican governors.
It is clear when you add all of that up, those are individual items, but when you lump them together, when you add them all up, it is clear that a majority of likely voters are ready to replace Obama.
I have no doubt that a majority of people are ready for this.
But Romney has to capture this momentum.
And he has to bring home a victory.
And the momentum is not attached to his winning the Republican primaries.
It is not attached to him winning the nomination.
There was going to be a Republican nominee.
The thing that needs to be gotten hold of here and ridden is the trouble the Democrats are in, the trouble Obama's in, the problems that they have that are the result of the disastrous policies they've implemented.
That is the source of the momentum.
It's all Obama.
The election must be about Obama.
It's got to be about the disaster that is Barack Obama and his administration.
The economy is just one disaster.
Obamacare is another disaster.
They are inexorably linked.
There cannot be an economic recovery in the private sector with full implementation of Obamacare.
It's not possible.
Because Obamacare has now been stripped bare.
And everybody now knows who is paying attention to What Obamacare is.
It is a massive expansion of government funded by the biggest tax increase in the history of the world.
That's what it is.
And nobody wants it.
A vast majority, 67% have been opposed to the individual mandate.
Over 53% have been opposed to the entire bill.
There has never been public sentiment for this.
There is no reason to act timid in opposing any of this.
We're in a single elimination tournament, so to speak, one and done.
A Republican loss in the House or the Senate or the presidency is game set and match.
We have to win all three.
And then after that, we have to do the right things with the new power that we will have been entrusted with.
Or I should say they have to because we aren't going to be there.
If we lose the House, it's over.
If we lose the Senate, it's over.
If we lose the presidency, it's over for the economy and for individual freedom.
But the reality is the truth is that the country is poised for a sweep of the series.
A Scott Walker Tea Party style campaign is what likely voters want.
There's an ABC Washington Post poll out today.
The sample has a 9% edge in Democrats.
A plus nine.
Registered voters, which is meaningless.
They sampled 9% more Democrats than Republicans or independents.
And in this poll, Romney is tied with Obama in registered voters.
That means Romney is way ahead in likely voters, which is why the Washington Post is not publishing a poll of likely voters.
Quick break, we'll be back.
Don't go away.
One slight correction.
I erred when I said that the Washington Post sampled more Democrats than Republicans and Independents.
A sampled 33% Democrat, 36% independent, 29% or 24% Republican.
So they sampled 9% more Democrats than Republicans.
That is bogus number one.
You and I know that in terms of the ideological delineations that are made in the country, according to polling data, twice as many people identify as conservative as liberal.
It is standard operating procedure.
It's just it's a blind assumption that there are that many more Democrats than there are Republicans.
Particularly now.
So the sample is flawed, but even worse, it's registered voters, not likely voters.
And the entire poll is difficult to believe.
It claims that Obama and Romney are tied at 47%.
Same as they were in May.
This is July.
Two months have gone by since the last poll, and it's still 4747.
We're supposed to believe that voters haven't changed their minds at the job numbers, the Supreme Court ruling on Obamacare, the unprecedented backdoor amnesty.
are to believe that with those major changes in policy that nobody's changed their mind in the presidential race in the Washington Post poll?
Thank you.
Sorry.
I suspect things are much worse than the Washington Post is letting on.
The Rasmussen poll today has Romney plus three over Obama with likely voters.
And Obama with a minus 18 strongly disapprove number.
And that poll, the Rasmussen poll, is likely voters versus registered.
It's far more accurate just on that basis alone.
Rasmussen reports that 53% of likely voters want Obamacare repealed.
43% strongly support repeal.
There is not broad based support for Obama tax, which is what it is now, anywhere.
And I'm sorry, I went long two segments ago, so this one's short.
I really feel badly about that.
It's not good, but I have to take a break now.
We'll be back.
Sit tight, be patient.
Back before you know it, folks.
A couple of media outlets yesterday picked up on my claim yesterday this campaign is not about the economy in traditional ways.
Campaigns have always been about the economy.
And they asked expert guests, is this really true?
Is this rush?
They're worried.
They are worried that it's not about the economy in traditional ways.
▲
Export Selection