All Episodes
Previous Next
Aug. 10, 2012 - Rush Limbaugh Program
36:49
August 10, 2012, Friday, Hour #2
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
See, this is one of the things wrong with television.
Right here.
What time is it?
Six minutes after one o'clock.
At one o'clock.
I tuned in to TNT to watch the PGA championship, right?
They haven't even, it's six minutes into it, and I haven't seen any of the tournament.
We got Tiger on the range, shuffling some balls around on the ground, a couple swings.
We got some highlight real stuff.
And now they're on the beach.
Oh.
Now they got the crowd in the stands.
That's what I tune in to watch the crowd in the stands.
Exactly.
Caleb.
Now a boat out on the ocean.
That's exact.
That's right.
And uh yeah, now there's the there's the uh the surf coming in on the beach.
We're at almost seven minutes after start.
There's some people in the beach.
I thought I tuned into a golf tournament.
Still haven't seen any of it.
I haven't even seen his scoreboard yet.
Anyway.
Hi folks, how are you?
Rush Linbaugh, here we are.
Broadcast excellence underway.
We never waste time on this program.
We always get right to it.
Live from the Southern Command in sunny South Florida.
It's open line Friday.
Telephone number if you want to be on the program 800 282, 2882 and the email address L Rushbow at EIB net.com.
From the New York Times, the Democrats have outlined their convention plans.
Now the Republican convention goes first, right?
Oh, by the way, what did I just see here?
Um Obama's changed his mind.
Let's see.
Yeah, I thought didn't they say earlier this week, Obama that he thought Romney would pick Petraeus?
And now the Atlantic is saying that Obama campaigns convinced that Romney's gonna pick Palenti.
So it was either late last week or earlier this week it was going to be Petraeus.
Now it's gonna be Palenti.
There are other people say it better not be Paul Ryan.
You better not pick Paul Ryan Republicans, or you better not pick Paul Ryan.
You know why?
Yeah, the budget.
They think Paul Ryan is an instant target on Medicare because Ryan is one of the few politicians in Washington to ever propose something to actually fix a problem.
Uh and is one of the biggest problems are spending problem.
Budget, and he has proposed a serious budget that has some stuff in there but Medicare that the Republicans are convinced that Obama will win if they put Paul Ryan on the ticket because he becomes a Medicare bullseye.
Uh so Palency, Petraeus, Ryan, other names, what other names are thrown out there?
Uh Rubio, there's one name that isn't thrown around anymore.
Bobby Gindle.
Uh Bob Portman, right, Ohio.
All these names get tossed around, but Jindel's name hasn't been.
Recent.
Well, but yeah, he's not in the Daily Roster.
He used to be in the Daily Ross.
He's out of it now.
So a lot of people anyway, the Democrat convention's not until September.
The Republican convention is this month.
The New York Times nevertheless has a story that says uh Democrats have outlined their convention plans.
Says here the Democrats will use the three-day Democrat National Convention next month to contrast Obama with a portrayal of Mitt Romney as someone who would devastate the American middle class.
That's great.
Here we are in the middle of middle class devastation.
Here we are right smack dab in the middle of it.
The middle class being devastated past three and a half years, right before our very eyes, right under our nose, in plain sight.
The middle class is being devastated, and the architect of the destruction plans to use his convention to tell the American people that Romney is somebody who would devastate the middle class.
A convention planning document obtained by Politico, which means that somebody gave it to them.
Said that the convention In Charlotte, North Carolina would focus on the choice for middle class voters in November by using real people to highlight the differences.
This must be an admission by the Democrats that their own attendees don't look like real people.
And they don't.
That whole convention looks like a massive Star Wars bar scene.
If they endeavor to get close-ups of the convention floor.
That's a that's a that's a it's a scary sight.
So what is this real people?
A document said a convention would expose Romney as somebody who does not understand middle class challenges, while also burnishing Obama's image as someone whose life story is about fighting for middle class Americans and those working to get into the middle class, of which there will be millions more because he's gonna kick them out.
Obama's gonna send people running out of the middle class.
There no hope, no choice of their own.
And it will be a nation of people trying to get back into the middle class.
But would somebody tell me what the hell is this life story of Obama's?
Does anybody know what his life story is?
Well, yes, we do.
Uh but I mean, there is no life story of Obama fighting for the middle class.
There is no life story.
We don't even have college transcripts.
We don't have half the information or more about Obama.
I wonder, oh, they also say that they're gonna have prominent Republicans, Mr. Snerdley.
That's right.
A major Republican or notable GOP woman may be part of the convention on at least two of the nights.
Well, I can tell you who one of them's gonna be.
That's right, I bet you it's going to be General Powell, Secretary Powell, titular head of the Republican Party, the man they tell us we should all emulate.
That the ideal Republican endorsed Obama in 08, and uh will no doubt endorse him again.
And will probably be one of these prominent Republicans at the Democrat convention.
The first lady, Michelle My Bell Obama will talk about her husband's values and what his uh North Star is.
And that's in quotes.
What his North Star.
The president's daughters, Sasha and Malia, 14, 11 and 14, may say a few words about their father at the convention.
Each night real people will appear to show the difference in the policies of Mr. Obama and Mr. Romney.
And a major Republican notable GOP woman.
Who would that be?
Who would the notable GOP woman be?
Olympia Snow.
Well, who would it be?
Seriously.
Well who what?
Who pops into your mind when you hear notable GOP woman that might show up at an Obama convention?
Does any notable woman shoot to your mind?
Not mine either.
I I don't know who it is.
Couldn't begin to tell you.
Audio sound bites, let's see.
Oh, um.
Let's start with number three.
This is an Obama ad, a new ad.
It's not a pack ad.
This is a campaign ad.
Obama approving of Harry Reed's message, essentially.
This is an Obama ad suggesting that Romney didn't pay any taxes.
I'm Barack Obama and I approve this message.
Was there ever any year when you paid lower than the 13.9%?
I haven't calculated that.
I'm happy to go back and look.
Did Romney pay 10% in taxes?
5%?
Zero?
We don't know.
But we do know that Romney personally approved over $70 million in fictional losses to the IRS as part of the notorious son of boss tax scandal.
One of the largest tax avoidance schemes in history.
Isn't it time for Romney to come clean?
Oh, son of boss, son of boss.
Well, here we go again.
It looks like somebody's going to have to explain what a son of boss is.
You know what son of boss is.
Uh be careful.
Don't go to Wiki on it.
It only screw you up.
I'll I'll I'll explain it in in due course.
But this is it was a uh tax deduction scheme.
And it was legal, but it didn't look good.
And they've found it.
I'm I'm I'm I will bet you that this son of boss thing is one of the things they're linking to the uh idea they're trying to put forward that Romney didn't pay any taxes.
Let's take a brief time out, and we'll be back and continue.
Open line Friday, before you know it, don't go away.
And it's back to the phones we go open line Friday.
Greg in Bass Lake, California.
Great to have you on the program.
Hello.
Hi, Rush.
Uh, thanks for taking my call.
It's uh quite an honor.
The last time I thirdly only told told me I only had a minute to talk to you, so I'm gonna talk really fast.
I hope you can understand.
I retired from NBC News uh about ten years ago, and back in 93, you were gracious enough to uh stop on your way into the tonight show and sign your two books.
And uh that's the first time I met you.
I've been a longtime listener since the first time you went on the air in uh I think it was KNX 1070 in Los Angeles.
Now I'm up in Central California.
The reason for my call is this.
On Wednesday, you were uh perplexed as to why the Obama administration would be so upset over the Romney welfare ad that he's running.
And I think this is the reason why.
The answer is it goes right at Obama's strength or what they perceive as their strength, that being fairness.
If you if you can remember all the times that Obama and Biden have gone out there and talked about leveling the playing field, and that everybody needs to pay their fair share, he's all about fairness, okay?
So when Romney goes after the welfare, nobody in America, especially the people who have built their businesses, and especially the independents, what few of those that are still left and undecided, those people do not want to hear that people are sitting around getting a check and not doing work for the welfare check that they're getting in the mail.
And that's why I think they uh they they hate it so much.
Well, except those are the very people Obama's trying to reach.
Those are the votes that he wants.
He wants the votes of the slackers.
He wants the votes of people who no longer will have to work.
No, but he also he also wants, and where he's trailing is he needs the the the working class vote.
I know you said that he he wrote that, wrote the white working class vote off.
Yeah, he has.
He needs he needs people to vote for him besides these little constituency groups, all the minority groups.
He needs to get some people to cross over.
And and some of the people who think, well, you know, I uh I work hard and and and I do my my part.
What's he talking about?
Uh, you know, gutting welfare.
If somebody's gonna get a check, you know I think they should have to work for it.
Most people agree with that, and and he's losing people by by by saying that and by d taking that action.
Okay, well, let's just accept your point.
The obvious question that I would have is Obama's not doing anything.
Policy-wise, he's not saying anything that even talks about people in the middle class having to work.
All he's talking about is penalizing the rich.
He's trying to portray the middle class as a bunch of victims.
The rich have taken their jobs, the rich are not paying them fair fairly, the rich have stolen everything they've got from the poor.
Um he has written off the white working class vote, and he's trying to suppress that vote.
He is trying to depress those people.
He's trying to make sure that they don't vote at all since he's lost them.
And that's why the smear campaigns against Romney.
Um, you know, why why should so many people on welfare uh not have to pay their fair share?
I I don't I know what you're saying, and clearly the regime is upset about this.
I mean, there's there's no question that they're upset about it.
In fact, um let's let's go back, let's grab number five.
This is the original ad.
This is the original Romney ad hitting Obama on gutting welfare.
In 1996, President Clinton and a bipartisan Congress helped end welfare as we know it.
By requiring work for Welfare.
But on July 12th, President Obama quietly announced a plan to gut welfare reform by dropping work requirements.
Under Obama's plan, you wouldn't have to work and wouldn't have to train for a job.
They just send you your welfare check.
And welfare to work goes back to being plain old welfare.
Mitt Romney will restore the work requirement because it works.
Okay.
So the regime is fit to be tied.
And the New York Times, all of the regime's favored media outlets, are suggesting that this ad is the lowest of the low, that this ad is as bad as the Obama pack ad with the guy claiming that Romney killed his wife.
This ad is mild in tone, in structure.
This is not a boisterous, loud accusatory ads very laid back, but it's filled with facts.
So why would Obama be be ticked off about this?
Now uh caller's point was that Obama needs an illusion here that he doesn't want more people on welfare.
That he wants people having to work for what they get.
Well, nowhere else does Obama betray that or portray that.
Nowhere else does Obama act like he cares about that.
In fact, Obama's very public policy pronouncements.
His very public statements and all this tend to uh amplify and approve of victimhood and and and promote welfare.
So why is he upset here?
There's a uh new Obama ad that responds to this now.
It's listen to this next.
I'm Barack Obama, and I approve this message.
Seeing this, Mitt Romney claiming the president would end welfare's work requirements.
The New York Times calls it blatantly false.
The Washington Post says the Obama administration is not removing the bill's work requirements at all.
In fact, Obama's getting states to move 20% more people from welfare to work.
And President Clinton's reaction to the Romney ad, it's just not true.
Get the facts.
Okay, so they are clearly bugged by this.
Now the caller may be right, and Obama's trying to create an illusion here.
Uh, and this pierces it.
The Romney ad gives Obama away for who he really is.
And they have been going nuts.
As this ad says, Romney's lying about it.
We have not removed the work requirement.
Now, here's Romney.
This was this morning on NBC News, F. Chuck Todd talking to Romney.
And F. Chuck said, Do you have a feeling uh this campaign that is turned uh into a race to the bottom primary because your ad.
Your ad, Mr. Romney, it's the lowest of the low, and even the New York Times says so.
Do you feel like we're racing to the bottom here?
Our campaign would be helped immensely if we had an agreement between both campaigns that we were only going to talk about issues, and that a tax based upon business or family or taxes or things of that nature.
But this is just a diversion.
Our ads haven't gone after the president personally.
Our ads talk about his record as president and the failure of his policies to create jobs, but we haven't dredged up the old stuff that people talked about last time around.
We haven't gone after the personal things.
Hmm.
So is Romney asking for credit for that?
Is um or is he on the defensive or F. Chuck says your campaign going no?
We're we're not going to the bottom.
We need it, we need a truce.
We need a truce.
Now, some people, I should say, Mr. Snerdley is is going nuts in there.
Uh I have heard some people think that if you read between the lines there that there's a threat from Romney.
Uh maybe a preview of what's come.
We haven't done it, quote, yet.
We haven't gotten personal yet.
We haven't dredged up in that old stuff People talked about last time around yet, like Jeremiah Wright and like Bill Ayers.
We haven't done that yet.
Some people say that's what they hear in this ad.
Others are saying, no, no.
That's not wishful thinking.
If you have to say that's what you think you're hearing, it's wishful thinking.
What Romney is asking is for Obama to stop the negative stuff.
And of course, if that's the case, that's laughable.
It isn't going to happen.
So again, people are saying you didn't have any problem going personal with Newt.
You have any problem going personal with Santorum?
You didn't have problem going personal with Bachman.
What is it with Rom?
What is it with Obama?
Why in the world do you not pull the trigger against Obama?
What's everybody afraid of?
We all know the answer.
Race.
Brief timeout.
Sit tight, my friends.
We'll be back before you know it.
Ha.
How are you?
Welcome back.
Open line Friday, Rush Limbaugh.
Okay, let's stick with the Romney welfare gutting welfare ad that has the regime so upset.
It's a couple things.
There's no question, look, Obama is trying to suppress the white vote.
The white working middle class vote, Obama's trying to suppress that.
And now we we know that they wrote that vote off starting in November of last year.
They knew as early as November of last year, they had lost that voting block.
The old Reagan Democrats, essentially.
White working class Americans.
Now forget the racial component from I think there is one, but that's not what I want to focus on.
It's not the not the point.
Now Obama, since about I don't know, month or two ago, has been doing everything to suppress that vote.
A lot of Obama's and the PAC's ads on television have been designed to suppress that vote by portraying Romney as anathema to them.
Remember now, they are white, working class, i.e.
middle class voters.
Obama is still counting on the fact that class warfare were work on them.
Now he knows that they're not going to vote for him.
But if he can get them to not vote, period, then it doesn't matter that he's written them off.
If they're not going to vote for him, the next task is to make sure they don't show up for Romney.
How do you do that?
Well, you portray Romney as some rich money bags guy who isn't gonna help him.
And not only that, doesn't even like them, resents them.
Romney is a snooty rich guy.
And all he cares about is his own wealth.
He doesn't want you to have any.
He's not going to cut your taxes.
He's not going to do anything for you.
All Romney's going to do is come up ways, not pay his own, blah, blah.
You know the drill.
In the midst of all this, Obama comes along and relatively quietly guts welfare reform.
Now why do it now?
You can do this after the election, even if you lose.
But why do it now?
Even if they tried to do it quietly, so that no one would notice, but that didn't work.
Now, welfare reform required recipients to either try to get a job, in fact, they did.
They had to try to get a job in order to get welfare.
And it worked.
It reduced the welfare roles by 50%.
Now, the one thing that we know, Obama and the Democrat Party have hated welfare reform from the day Bill Clinton signed it.
The day Bill Clinton signed it in 1996, the Reverend Jackson and a number of others went on TV and told him that they expected him to fix it.
If I'm not mistaken, I'm not sure the timing of this, if I'm not mistaken, this was a big deal at the 96th Democrat convention.
Welfare reform.
They were fit to be tied over this.
They didn't like it because they don't want people to have to work.
The Democrat Party wants slothful people.
They don't care that that's their voting base.
They're very happy.
The more dependent people, the better.
The bigger government needs to be to take care of these people, however inadequately, the better.
So in the midst of all of this, in the midst of the left wing of the Democrat Party constantly opposing the work requirements in 1996, and they've been trying to get rid of them ever since.
Why did Obama do this now?
All it's done is call attention to it.
And so where he's in the middle of trying to suppress the votes of the white working class, here comes Romney with a truthful ad that's going to whip them back up into a frenzy.
Whatever success, if any, and I don't know, whatever success Obama has had in angering white working class voters towards Romney where they might just sit out and not vote.
Now he's whipped them up into a frenzy.
Because the one thing the white working class voters don't like is slothful welfare recipients.
They don't like slackers.
They don't like takers.
They don't like people sitting on the couch, getting a welfare check, watching television when they know they're paying for it.
So my question, if this guy's such a brilliant politician, why would he undermine his own campaign strategy in the middle of campaign by gutting the work requirements and welfare?
Why do it now?
Because it just undermined everything they're trying to do.
This is why the Romney welfare ad has got them so discombobulated.
Because they've done it to themselves.
They have undercut Obama, has undercut his own strategy.
Which again is to so depress and so anger the white working class that they don't vote.
Well, now here comes Romney with his ad.
And let's let's play it again.
It's so low-key.
This is another thing that just has me amazed that the left is so upset about this.
Such a low-key ad.
It's number five.
And here it is again, and it is chock full of the truth.
In 1996, President Clinton and a bipartisan Congress helped end welfare as we know it.
By requiring work for welfare.
But on July 12th, President Obama quietly announced a plan to gut welfare reform by dropping work requirements.
Under Obama's plan, you wouldn't have to work and wouldn't have to train for a job.
They just send you your welfare check.
And welfare to work goes back to being plain old welfare.
Okay, that ad is chock full of truth, and it's got them all discombobulated.
They brought it on themselves.
Why do it?
Now, if we're going to assume that the smartest people around, which a lot of people on our side do, you may be one of them.
You may you may think they're so smart they smoke us all the time.
They're always two steps ahead of us.
Why undermine what is a major Obama effort, the suppression of the white working class vote.
Because this ad of Romney's, the more it's seen, the more it just whips them back up.
So whatever success Obama had in ticking them off and making them think that Romney's rotten to the core, so they're not even going to vote.
Now he's just whipped them up into a frenzy.
Why do it?
Why do it now?
Well, you say his ideology made him do it.
And I think that's as good an answer as anything.
The Democrats hate the work requirement.
And I also think something, I think they believe that there are gains to be made by doing this.
There are additional votes from the welfare state for Obama by doing this.
They have to have made a calculation, but yet they're still fit to be tied over Romney.
So they get the New York Times to go out and talk about how this is a lowest of the low.
This ad, why this is Chuck Todd asking Romney, you feel like you're in a race to the bottom.
This ad is nothing.
This is not a dirty ad.
There's not that this is not a negative ad.
There's nothing whatsoever offensive about it.
Except it tells the truth.
Now, Robert Rector is the guy.
We quoted, I've quoted him on this program since this program began.
Poverty expert, Heritage Foundation.
I first time I quoted Robert Rector statistics, fairness and accuracy in reporting.
They preceded Media Matters, wrote this big long piece that was basically picked up word for word by the AP about how I lie and make things up.
And all I was doing is repeating Bob Rector's statistics on poverty in this country compared to around the world.
It is the statistic that shows how many people in poverty in this country own their house, how many have two cars, how many have a cell phone, how many have color TVs.
It would astound you.
If Bob Rector's research that's done that and has compared poverty here to poverty in Europe, poverty in Asia, and poverty here, while poverty here is not poverty.
Real, real dirt poverty like it is around the rest of the world.
I pointed this out.
I quoted Rector.
I got cream for four years in the mainstream media for lying and making things up.
Bob Rector wrote welfare reform.
Bob Rector's the guy who wrote it.
This is what heritage does.
We've been telling you that too.
Heritage works with members of Congress.
Heritage was instrumental in putting together the Reagan tax cut plan, Kemp Roth.
And and Rector was involved in whiting, writing welfare reform in the 90s.
That ended up having the work requirements in it.
So Rector showed up on the news hour on PBS with Judy Woodruff.
We've got three sound bites of Robert Rector saying he wrote welfare reform, and Obama has undone it.
And I'm going to play those for you when we come back.
Okay, last night on a PBS News Hour, the co-host Judy Woodruff talking to Robert Reckford's senior fellow at the Heritage Foundation.
She says, Robert Rector, how do you see what Governor Romney is charging here?
I happen to have written most of these requirements.
What the Obama administration has done is taken these and said they're gone.
They are out of the picture.
They no longer have any meaning in law, and we're going to replace them with something else.
But you should trust us that we're not planning to really alter the program.
Their action was completely illegal, and it violates and wipes out the entire core of reform.
There's the guy who wrote it.
Robert Rector.
He wrote welfare reform.
And he just said Obama's ripped the work requirements out of it.
It's illegal.
It violates and wipes out the entire core of reform.
Now here Judy Woodruff talking to the guy who just said, I wrote it.
It's been gutted.
Judy says, but as I understand it, it's giving states more flexibility to figure out ways to get people to work, Mr. Rector.
It's allowing states to be exempted from the participation rates entirely.
They say that they will waive or do away with all of Section 407.
That is the entire work requirement in the bill.
Every aspect, every clause, every phrase is now invalid.
It no longer is binding.
And they're going to replace it with something that they will design unilaterally with no input from Congress, and that will be something that will be far more lenient than the existing law.
The left wing of the Democratic Party has opposed this law from the beginning.
Half the Democratic Party voted against it in 96.
They attempted to repeal it in 2002.
They were unable.
They've now used bureaucratic tactic to wipe it out.
Oh, but wait, but wait, what about what about the waivers?
These Republican governors, these two guys that asked so that they can make it even harder for people to get welfare.
They had to work even harder and even longer.
Well, I kept hearing that all week.
They've done away with all of Section 407.
That's the entire work requirement section of the bill.
It's gone.
So all this is a crock about these governors asking for waivers.
Judy Woodruff finally says, Well, let's broaden this out, Mr. Rector.
Let's talk about The state of poverty in the country.
What uh what about the characterization that uh there are over 80 programs that the federal government spent directs to targeted aid to poor Americans?
80 programs.
This year we spent 927 billion dollars on those programs, not including Social Security and Medicare.
A hundred million individuals receive aid.
It's nine thousand dollars per recipient.
Of those eighty programs, only three had work requirements.
Now it's two.
There are a hundred million recipients, a third of the U.S. population.
The missing welfare state in our poverty statistics is greater than the GDP of most nations in the world.
And there, ladies and gentlemen, you have the truth of it all.
Let me run through the numbers again here.
80 programs think redundancy.
Think of how many school lunch programs are there?
School breakfast, school dinner now.
They're piled one on top of another, and each one is to fix something ostensibly wrong in the existing program, which government created in the first place.
So government comes in, solves something, doesn't work, makes it worse, government comes in with a fix, makes program bigger and worse, and the cycle repeats.
And so now talking about poverty, we have 80 programs.
The federal government spent 927 billion dollars on those programs that's uh think of it as a stimulus plan.
It doesn't include Social Security and Medicare.
A hundred million people in this country receive aid now.
So, It averages 9,000 per recipient.
Now of those 80 programs, only three of them had work requirements, and Obama couldn't handle that.
The Democrats couldn't deal with that.
So one of the 80 programs was welfare reform from 1996.
It's gone now.
So only two of the programs have work requirements now.
And there are a hundred million recipients, one-third of our population.
And that last line, the missing welfare state in our poverty statistics is greater than the GDP of most nations in the world.
Now, this has been his area of specialty.
Uh cataloging, characterizing reporting on poverty in this country, and then he's compared it to poverty other places in the world, and it's not even close.
So we're still back to the politics of this.
In in in the midst of Obama trying to suppress the white working class vote.
He does this.
He guts the work requirements.
Romney is able to cut an ad.
The white working class voters now get whipped into a frenzy, ticked off at Obama, shot themselves in the foot.
So how do they fix this?
Well, let's go to the unions next.
Because the unions are white people, but they're considered blue-collar.
But what if let's just go sound by 22 and 23, Richard Trump.
Yesterday in Washington, Christian Science Monitor Breakfast event.
Trump is the president of the AFL CIO.
And they had a discussion on the unions' roles in politics.
We have a couple bites.
Here's the first.
When it comes to working people, there's no contest.
Barack Obama is more for working people than Mitt Romney.
Mitt Romney is for the very rich.
He doesn't identify with us.
He doesn't understand what we go through every day.
He doesn't understand the decisions that we have to make.
They're back not of suppressing the vote, you see.
Romney is this distant, rich guy that doesn't even care about us.
Doesn't care to understand.
Guys, wife dies.
Romney not concerned.
Romney made it possible.
Romney made sure that they didn't have any health care.
All of it bogus, of course, as you know, but this is the this is the effort.
Trump had one more thing to say.
I think he loses, and Obama wins.
Because I think the American public are tired of the old economy.
They see through it.
They don't want the economic winners to be able to make the economic policies that are going to continue to stop them and their kids from getting ahead.
The world's upside down.
The world is of the losers.
They want he wants the Losers to write economic policy.
Yep, yep, because the Americans are tired of the old economy.
That's the Bush economy, obviously.
What the American people are tired of is what's happening right now.
That's what they're sick of.
The thing they don't know is that it's Obama's economy.
That point has not made been made clearly enough as far as I'm concerned by our side.
Okay, the uh Gallup poll, daily tracking poll is out, and it's in Obama's approval.
Down to 43%.
Disapproval 51%.
Now you compare that with some of the other polls, like the Fox poll from yesterday, and none of this makes any sense.
And we'll be back.
▲
Export Selection