All Episodes
Previous Next
Aug. 10, 2012 - Rush Limbaugh Program
35:47
August 10, 2012, Friday, Hour #3
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Hey, Views Express by the host on this program documented to be almost always right 90, what is it, 99.7% of the time.
It's Friday, folks, so let's go.
Live from the Southern Command in sunny South Florida, it's open live Friday.
That's right, we have one big, exciting broadcast hour left to go as we work our way into the weekend.
A telephone number if you want to be on the program 800-282-2882.
The email address, lrushbo at eibnet.com.
So the Gallup poll is out to daily approval, a tracking poll, and Obama is at 43% approve and 51% disapprove.
Now, I don't have the Fox News.
I don't have the Fox News poll in front of me, but they had Obama's way up.
What is Obama up in that Fox poll?
Did you see it, Snerdley?
I think the Democrat sample was plus nine in the Fox poll.
Obama's up five points, I think, in the Fox poll.
And in a number of other polls that have come out this week, Obama's up five, he's up seven.
And of course, the Democrat sample is nine percentage points or eight percentage points higher than the Republican sample.
And people are getting depressed over these polls, can't figure it out.
Even the Fox News poll came out.
Whoa, what is this?
How can this possibly be?
And even in the Fox poll, 4940, nine points.
It's Obama.
Now, in none of this polls, none of these polls does Obama get over 50.
I think it's interesting.
Maybe in one outlier poll he does.
But it's a Fox News poll of registered voters.
When are these polls going to start moving to likely voters?
Isn't it about time for that?
There's a CNN poll that came out yesterday of adults.
That's not even registered voters.
In the CNN poll yesterday, I think it was yesterday, Thursday, Obama was way up sky high.
It's so ridiculous that people are laughing at it.
The Fox poll, 49 to 40 registered voters if the election were held today.
In last month's Fox poll, they had Obama with a four-point edge.
But last month, Fox only oversampled the Democrats by four points.
This time, they oversampled by eight or nine.
It's interesting.
Whatever the oversample is, seems to like, I think they oversampled Obama nine points.
He's got a nine-point lead.
A month ago, they oversampled Democrats four points.
Obama has a four-point lead.
The Fox poll also says that Obama's negative campaign has worked.
They say Obama's advantage comes largely from increased support among independents who now pick him over Romney by 11.
Does anybody believe this?
Well, I know inside the Beltway they do.
So apparently what the Fox poll and its analysis is telling us, that calling Romney a tax cheat, calling him a felon, a poisoner of children, and a murderer has not turned off these precious independents.
In fact, doing all that has caused the independents to flock back to the Obama campaign.
Really?
I thought our own consultants tell us that we can't criticize Obama because the Independents don't like that.
You start getting in this politics of personal destruction stuff.
The Independents don't like it.
The Independents run right back to the Democrats.
Never understood that because the Democrats are the architects of this politics, personal destruction stuff.
Maybe the independents don't know that.
Maybe the independent is just plain stupid.
Because now the independents are flocking back to Obama as he accuses Romney of murder, as he accuses Romney of being a tax cheat, as he accuses Romney of being a felon, as they accuse Romney of poisoning the water and poisoning the air.
Fox poll says Obama's negative campaign has worked.
Well, then why don't Republican negative campaigns work?
Who swipped this fix-in?
Who saw to it that the Republicans don't go negative?
Who saw to it Republicans don't run critical ads?
Well, we can't, Mr. Limbaugh, independents.
They just run right back to Democrats.
We can't criticize first black president.
You really can't criticize President Clinton.
People love President Clinton.
If people like President Obama, you can't get anywhere by criticism.
Oh, but since they've made everybody hate Romney, it's okay they can then criticize Romney.
The independents go, yeah, yeah, give us more.
Something, folks, here is really, really way out of whack.
Because the Gallup poll has Obama's approval number at 43.
Now, I want to know how approval of 43, disapproval 51, translates into a nine-point Obama lead in the Fox poll or in any other poll.
What are we supposed to believe here?
Now, the Fox poll, the Fox poll does say that among voters who are extremely interested in the race, the candidates are tied at 48, which means Obama is only pulling ahead if he is among low-information voters, i.e., the stupids.
But they count.
However, this is a poll of registered voters, not likely voters.
This actually kind of ticks me off because these people use these polls to make news, not shape it, or not reflect public opinion.
They're trying to shape public opinion with this garbage.
So buried in the Fox poll is this news that voters who are extremely interested, it's a tight race.
Would that maybe mean likely voters?
Would extremely interested equal likely voters?
And it's tied 4848.
That would change the perspective or the perception of this thing profoundly.
Because if it's 48, 48 among likely voters, 4848 among those really extremely interested, then what it would say is that all of this junk Obama's thrown at Romney has not worked.
But in a poll of registered voters, it has worked.
The top reasons that voters give for being uncomfortable with Romney include his positions on the issues that he's phony.
Sorry, his positions on the issues, which that's, what the hell does that mean?
What a crock this is.
The top reasons voters give for being uncomfortable with Romney include his positions on the issues and then that he's phony and then he's out of touch, that he's a Republican and he's for the rich.
Those are the reasons people don't like Romney in the poll.
All of which are the points Obama's been hammering in his attempt to suppress the blue collar, the white-collar working class white voter.
Now, FOX, God bless them, even admits here that oversampling Democrats by 9% be on the high side.
Let me throw all this out and just repeat what I said yesterday, day before.
This ought not even be close.
Obama ought to barely be registering 35 or 40 percent, given what he has done to this country, given his policies, this BS of Romney's positions on the issues.
What about Obama's actual effect on human life?
What about Obama's actual effect on lives?
This stuff is such a crock.
I know it's the Bible.
Professional politicians and so forth live and die by this stuff, but all it does is, as you can hear, irritate the heck out of me.
We got a new Romney ad, by the way.
It's number 26.
It is Romney slamming Obama, the Obama PAC ad, actually.
This is, I guess, Romney firing back at the ad in which Romney's accused of committing murder.
What does it say about a president's character when his campaign tries to use the tragedy of a woman's death for political gain?
Hold it, hold it, President.
Stop tape, stop tape.
Doesn't do any good to play this.
Because it's philographics.
So after that first question, and they quote various newspapers, scraping bottom, Chicago Tribune, disgusting ABC News, ABC News, Obama campaign admits knowing that lying about it, unfair attacks, CBS News.
So what Romney's done here in this ad is collected a bunch of network and newspaper printed word editorials.
They ask these questions.
They use the graphic excerpts of the editorials in the ad.
And of course it ends with, I'm Mitt Romney and I approve this message.
So that's their fight back, quoting the media on their reaction to Obama's PAC ad accusing Romney of committing murder.
Brief time out, folks.
We'll be back with your phone calls after this.
Don't go away.
And we are back.
El Rushmo serving humanity, having more fun than a human being should be allowed to have.
And to Robin in Lamars, Iowa.
Thank you for calling.
I appreciate your waiting.
Hello.
Oh, no problem.
Thank you, sir, for taking my call.
You bet.
You know, yesterday you were talking about how Romney shouldn't even play into the distractions, you know, like the taxes and the bad ads and all of that, how he shouldn't just go down that road.
Well, I think I was thinking other people were making that point.
Okay.
But aren't we?
Well, you also said that we'd love to see him or see the liberals on the defensive.
Yeah, that idea.
We want to see him on the defensive.
Absolutely.
Well, why are what I'm seeing is that we're making it so much harder than it really is.
Why don't we keep it simple?
You know, why play into the game if we know that that's what it is as a game?
I mean, it's a distraction game.
Obama can't talk about the issues, correct, because he's got a horrible record.
Right.
And so why are we even letting them distract us?
Why can't Romney get out there and actually say, hey, you know, I got 90 days to prove this country that I am what this country needs.
And I'm not going to talk about, you know, I'm not going to talk about something that is totally misguided, half-truths.
Let's get back to talking about what the America needs.
I mean, why can't he just, or even his surrogates, why in the world would they bring Romney Care into the game?
Why are we, why are we?
Well, now, wait a minute, wait, wait, wait, wait a minute.
Now you're you're you're you're talking about his press spokesman that went out on TV and responded to the Romney murdered my wife ad by talking about Romney care.
Is that what you mean?
Exactly.
I mean, why in the world would we volunteer that?
We don't want to talk about Romney care in the first place.
And when they're talking about murder, we bring up Romney care.
We're making it harder than it is.
Keep it simple.
We don't want to talk about this because it's half-truth.
Yeah, well, I ask this question.
A lot of people, in fact, there's a newspaper.
Well, it is a newspaper.
The Washington Examiner asked me, I made some comments about this the other day.
There's an actual column by Byron York about this and my reaction to that that was posted last night.
And I, like a lot of people, were dumbfounded that because that accepted the premise.
It's not so much you bring Romney care into it as here's a guy claiming that you killed his wife and you say, okay, yeah, but she might have lived longer if she'd have lived in Manhattan.
What the hell?
Why accept the premise is my point.
Yes.
And so I what I really think that the problem here is that it was asked to me by a reporter, why did you even the reporter said whenever Obama has a person to commit a gaffe like a Blabbermouth Schultz or any of his other supporters, like Harry Reid, Harry Reid and this mythical imaginary friend who claims Romney hadn't paid taxes,
the Democrats rally around whatever, whoever says whatever ridiculous thing, they rally around him.
The question I got was, how come you went ballistic on Andrea Saul?
That's the woman you saw in Fox bring up Romney care.
How come the Republicans don't form a protective circle around Romney and his people like the Democrats do?
And I said there's a very simple reason for this.
The Democrats are unified.
They're unified with one objective, and that's creaming us.
They are solely animated and organized and energized at the prospect of defeating conservatives and Republicans.
Because if they do that, then everything else they want to do, they get to do.
That's their sole purpose is beat us.
We are their biggest enemy in the world.
We're a bigger enemy than al-Qaeda.
We are a bigger enemy to them than any terrorist attack on this country.
Because if they finish us off, there's nobody to stop them with anything they do.
So a lot of people misunderstand.
They think that what really animates the Obama campaign is facilitating purchasing another car company or coming up with whatever policy.
It isn't.
It's beating us.
Once we're out of the way, there's no stopping them to whatever they want to do.
That's not what animates the Republican Party.
The Republican Party and the conservative wing of the Republican Party are not unified because we don't have the same objective.
Our objective is to wipe out the liberals.
The Republican Party's objective apparently isn't.
They have a different objective.
I don't know what it is.
I mean, I know they want to win, but they don't look at the liberals as an enemy to this nation's founding like we do.
The liberals, the Democrats, and everybody in Obama's camp looks at us as the biggest threat to their way of life that exists.
The Republican Party doesn't see the Democrat Party that way.
As such, they're not organized to take the fight to them in that regard.
We conservatives are.
That's why there is a divide.
That's why when a Romney spokesman goofs up, we point it out.
Because we conservatives think that we've got a Republican Party that doesn't know what it's doing.
And we've got to steer them in the right road for their own good.
The liberals don't have this problem.
They have a singular purpose.
Now, they are a varied constituency, and they've got constituency groups that all want different things.
But that's not what unifies them.
The feminists don't like the environmentalists because they share things in common.
The reason the environmentalist wackos and the feminazis are on the same team is because they both have the same objective: get rid of us, and there's no stopping what else they want to do.
We don't have that characteristic, that killer instinct.
We're missing it.
It's the best I can come up with.
When you people call here and ask me, like this woman's doing it, why don't the Republicans do X?
I don't know.
If I ran them, they wouldn't.
But the only way I can explain it is they don't look at the Democrat Party the same way I do.
They don't look at Obama and see the great threat to the country that I do.
They see Obama as a political opponent that you get every four years and that you try to beat.
And you go out, you try to raise more money and you run more clever ads and you pick the right vice president.
All this minutiae, day-to-day political crap isn't going to get this done.
That's why I don't care who the vice president.
Well, it's not that I don't care who it is.
It's I'm not caught up in the game of who it's going to be.
I don't.
Byron York asked me.
This is an interesting thing.
You might find it interesting.
He's the guy that did the story.
He said, do you make it a policy to not know the people you talk about or do you try to get to know them?
I said, no, I don't hang around political people, but that's not by design.
I just don't live where they live.
But I don't.
What he's asking is, is it harder to criticize people you know?
It is.
Is it harder to criticize your friends?
Yeah, it is.
Which is one and another reason I don't want to ever live in Washington.
I don't want to be corrupted by that very thing, that you can't be critical of people who happen to become acquaintances, in some cases, friends.
But that's the big problem, folks, is that we don't have a singular unified reason for existing on the right.
Back after this.
And your guiding light through times of trouble, confusion, murkiness, tumult, chaos, and despair.
El Rushbo and the EF.
Well, looky here.
Look what has just been brought to my attention.
Charles Krauthammer's column today.
The case against reelection.
Krauthammer urges Romney to attack Obama's ideology, not just his poor record.
It is about time.
There are two ways to run against Barack Obama: stewardship or ideology.
You run against his record or you can run against his ideas.
The stewardship case, pretty straightforward.
The worst recovery in the country's history.
42 consecutive months of 8 plus percent unemployment, declining economic growth, all achieved at a price of another $5 trillion of accumulated debt.
The ideological case is also simple.
Just play in total.
And therefore, in context, Obama's Roanoke Riff telling small businesses you didn't build that.
You think you did well because you're smart.
And you know, Mitt Romney's preferred argument, however, is stewardship.
But the ideological case, not just appealing to a center-right country with twice as many conservatives as liberals, it's also explanatory.
Thank God somebody has joined my refrain here, folks.
I can't, I can't tell you how excited this makes me.
I did not know this.
Krauthammer is on board with going after the ideology.
Finally, somebody besides me.
Oh, this makes my day.
The ideological case, on the other hand, is not just appealing to a center-right country with twice as many conservatives as liberals.
It's also explanatory.
Yes!
It underpins the stewardship argument.
Obama's ideology explains the failure of this.
Yes!
Folks, I'm near orgasm time here.
Do you know what it's like to be all alone on this stuff?
No, no, no.
I know you understand.
I know you've agreed, because how many years have I been talking about this?
I've what?
No, this, I don't, this, who's scared?
Oh, oh, oh.
Snerdley's saying everybody's afraid to talk about his ideology.
It was his ideology.
It was his ideology that made me say I want him to fail.
How else was I going to know what this was going to happen?
How could I know?
How did you know his ideology?
He's a liberal.
Liberalism mean things.
Words mean things.
Ideas have consequences.
Ideology.
He's a liberal.
This was not hard to figure out.
So you're saying that people were simply afraid to say this?
Well, oh.
Okay, Snerdley's theory is that there's been a lot of fear to talk about Obama's ideology because once you talk about his ideology, then you got to talk about where he got it.
And that means you got to talk about Reverend Wright, I assume, and people don't want to do it.
And Frank Marshall Davis, you know, you've got to talk about all the stuff that people didn't want to talk about about Obama.
And still don't want to.
Okay.
Well, I'm telling you, all there is to Obama is his ideology.
The stewardship, i.e. the things he's done, is explained by his ideology.
He's defined by it.
He's defined by liberalism or Marxism, socialism, whatever you want to call it.
See, to me, folks, this has been, don't misunderstand me on this.
It's been simple.
And, you know, I know it is for you, too.
And you know what this cuts to?
This actually, we can make a linkage.
What I was talking about before the break at the bottom of the hour is I really have been thinking about the difference in the Democrat Party, the Republican Party.
Let's just look at it that way.
And when Byron York asked me why everybody always surrounds Obama to protect him, they circle the wagons.
And why don't the Republicans do it?
It's because we're not unified.
We don't have the same purpose.
And this is an illustration of the divide.
There are some Republicans who will simply refuse to look at Obama ideologically because maybe they're not conservatives themselves.
They are rhinos or they're moderates or what have you.
And you and I have discussed and profoundly deeply during the Republican primaries how even members of the Republican establishment don't like conservatives, that they associate conservatism with Goldwater's landslide defeat, not Reagan's landslide victories.
Well, this is a Hosanna moment.
Here's more Krauthammer.
Second radical reform of health care that would reduce its ruinously accelerating cost.
Put simply, our healthcare problem is our deficit problem.
Except that the CBO reports that Obamacare will cost $1.68 trillion of new spending in the first decade, to say nothing of the price of the uncertainty introduced by an impossibly complex remaking of one-sixth of the economy, which will discourage hiring and expansion as trillions of investable private sector dollars remain sidelined or appropriated.
The third part of Obama's promised transformation was energy.
His cap-and-trade federal takeover was rejected by his own Democrat Senate.
So the war on fossil fuels has been conducted unilaterally by bureaucratic fiat regulations that will kill coal.
No-brainer pipeline, Keystone rejected lest Canadian oil sands be burned.
China will burn them instead.
A drilling moratorium in the Gulf that a federal judge severely criticizes illegal.
Now, that was the program, now so unpopular that Obama barely mentions it.
Obamacare got exactly two lines in this year's State of the Union address.
You see any ads touting the stimulus?
The drilling moratorium, Keystone?
That's exactly right.
Why doesn't let's take a look at that Obama Romney Killed My Wife ad.
If Obama was proud of Obamacare, that would have been what they said in that ad, not Romney Killed My Wife.
They would have said Obamacare would have saved her life if he was proud of it.
But he can't say Obamacare.
He doesn't want to mention Obamacare because it's unpopular.
He doesn't campaign on the Keystone pipeline.
He doesn't campaign in anything he's done.
He's a sitting duck ideologically.
He's a sitting duck.
He is a landslide defeat waiting to happen if we would just unify and go at him ideologically.
Now, Krauthammer points out here that the Romney campaigns decided they're going to go after he's a lousy president.
He's a lousy steward.
And Snerdley may have a point because it was Romney who said, I'm not going to call him a socialist.
I'm going to call him a nice guy who doesn't know what he's doing.
He's not a nice guy, A, and B, he knows exactly what he's doing.
He's an ideologue.
He's a liberal Marxist.
He knows exactly what he's doing.
None of this is incompetent.
None of it's an accident.
It's all on purpose if you understand liberalism.
This is a Hosanna moment.
I.L. Rushbo no longer feels stranded on an island.
Now what's going to happen is, you know, the blogs will pick this up.
Krauthammer thinks Kraunhammer, and it'll spread.
And maybe it'll get linkage, traction, whatever, and take off.
I don't care.
I think it's great.
Somebody has put two and two together here.
But it's still going to boil down to, will Romney do it?
Will Romney give up this notion, he's not really a bad guy.
He's a nice guy.
He just doesn't understand.
He's incompetent.
He's a socialist.
I remember telling you back two summers ago, various potential Republican presidential candidates came knocking on the door.
Kiss the ring kind of thing.
And this before most had announced.
It's before it really got jimmed up.
And I'm not going to mention any names because it won't matter.
Virtually every one of them that I spoke to said, we've got to go after Obama's policies, Rush.
We can't go after him.
We have to go after his policy.
And that's what Romney's doing.
We're going after his policies, as Krauthammer says, his stewardship.
And because, you know, Sterdley, you're right.
They were afraid and still are to go after Obama as what he really is.
Afraid to make the allegation.
And every day the Democrats get up and thank whoever is their God that we leave it alone.
I guarantee you they do, because that's the one thing they're scared to death of.
And I think it may explain why they're upset at Romney's welfare ad because it combines going after stewardship and also illustrates Obama's ideology.
Because it's liberals who don't like the work component in welfare.
And we are coming back.
I have been begging Romney.
I have been begging Romney to do this since he became the frontrunner in the primaries.
When I applauded Newt during the primaries, during the debates, is because he went ideological.
You remember one of the biggest events, I think it was the South Carolina primary debate.
Newt got one of the biggest standing O's, and the first one is when he explained the conservative view about work and how we don't want anybody denied a job.
We want people to be able to go to schools to actually learn things, to be able to read the diploma and come out and own the business.
And remember, the place stood up.
He got a couple of other standing O's afterwards.
He went ideological.
He talked about ideas.
This is the foundation that we're using.
When you learned about all this in junior high, government 101 or civics 101, whatever they call it, the way it was taught to me anyway was that, and it's naive, admittedly, but the people with the best ideas won elections.
It had nothing to do with who ran the dirtiest campaign or the most money or any of that.
This is the idealistic stage when you're being taught this stuff, but it still works.
Ideas matter.
Ideas triumph, particularly when you believe them and can explain them.
That's when you become persuasive.
I told Byron York this did not make the cut, by the way, in his piece.
It's at the Washington Examiner.
And I said all Romney has to do is to get some real conservatives as his spokespeople, and this problem won't happen anymore.
We don't need the Etch-A-Sketch guy, and we don't need people who are not ideological.
I've even used the word.
I have begged Romney and the Republican Party at large, would you please say this is ideological?
Would you please start thinking in terms of ideology?
Democrats are liberals.
That alone tells everybody all they need to know about what somebody in politics plans to do.
Here's Stephen, Indian Trail, North Carolina.
Glad you called.
Great to have you on the program.
Wow, Rush, it is such an honor to speak to you.
Thank you, sir, for having me on.
It's my pleasure.
I'm glad you're here.
Thank you.
No problem.
I know you don't have a lot of time, so here's a quick little tidbit about me.
I used to be liberal.
I still live with my liberal parents, well, family, I should say.
I go to school.
I work.
I'm 24 years old.
A friend of mine referred me to your program.
It'll be four years in October because she recommended you.
She said, if you want to know what's really going on in the political world, you should listen to this guy.
And I have.
And wow, Rush, you are right, especially about the liberals.
And I'm a big sports fan, sir.
Thank you.
Thank you very much.
I appreciate your nice words.
No problem, sir.
I mean them for all they're worth.
I mean them.
I mean it.
And I love your tea.
I love your raspberry tea.
It's very good.
An added bonus.
You're really a good guy now.
Yeah.
And it's even funny, Rush.
I know I'm kind of diverting a little bit from the sports, but when I would buy your tea, I don't buy it much because I don't make a lot of money.
My parents hate the fact that it's under your name.
They hate it.
They even hate the fact that I became a Rush 24-7 member this May.
They hate the fact that I received the Limball letter.
What is wrong with your parents?
Why hate?
They're liberals, sir.
And I used to be that way.
Thankfully, I was converted to the good side about five years ago.
They just don't like you.
They listen to all the left-wing media people.
They voted for Obama, and they believe everything he says to be the truth.
Well, they're your parents, so I won't say anything.
It's okay, Rush.
I have friends who help me out with that, and I have exercise.
So anyway, on to the sports.
On to the sports.
I'm a big football fan.
I'm a 49ers fan, a Buffalo Bills fan.
And since I live in North Carolina, I'm a Carolina Panthers fan.
I hate the fact that now, especially with the bounty, everyone's, you know, you mentioned this not too long ago.
You know, everyone's going to go, oh, this hit it.
Was it a fine?
Is it a bounty?
And I don't know if you know this, but liberals have even invaded NASCAR.
NASCAR mandates everything pretty much for the cars.
The templates of how the body is shaped.
They even only allow the teams to adjust certain things because they want everything to be fair for the smaller teams.
And safe.
It's about control.
I know the whole prospect of listening to a football game this year has already got me ticked off.
I already know, folks, what I'm going to hear.
I already know.
First hard hit, I know what I'm going to hear.
I just don't know what to deal with it.
Look, Stephen, I appreciate the call, and congratulations.
Thanks very much.
We will be back, folks.
Folks, I hope you have a wonderful weekend, a great next couple of days, and we'll be back here kicked up and revved up and ready to go on Monday.
We'll see you then.
▲
Export Selection