All Episodes
Previous Next
Aug. 23, 2012 - Rush Limbaugh Program
32:00
August 23, 2012, Thursday, Hour #3
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Hi folks, welcome back.
Great to have you here, Rushlin Boy, here on the cutting edge of societal evolution.
What does that mean?
It means if you listen every day here, you will know well in advance all that's important.
You'll hear about it here first.
If you don't hear about it here at all, it's not worth knowing.
You can trust that.
Telephone number 800-282-2882 and the email address El Rushbo at EIBnet.com.
This is interesting.
A University of Colorado analysis of state-by-state factors leading to the Electoral College selection of every U.S. president since 1980.
They've never missed forecasts that Mitt Romney will win the presidency and he will win 320 electoral votes.
52.9% of the vote.
University of Colorado analysis.
It's not a poll.
It's an analysis of state-by-state factors leading to the Electoral College selection of every president since 80.
They haven't missed.
The key is the economy, according to the political science professors in charge of this thing, Kenneth Bickers of Colorado University Boulder and Michael Berry of CU Denver.
Their prediction model stresses economic data from the 50 states and the District of Columbia.
It includes both state and national unemployment figures, as well as changes in real per capita income, among other factors.
And they say this based on our forecasting model, it becomes clear that the president is in electoral trouble.
Now, according to their analysis, Obama will win 218 electoral votes.
You need 270.
And though they chiefly focus on the electoral college, they do predict that Romney will win 52.9% of the popular vote.
Obama will get 47.1.
Now, that doesn't factor a third party or minuscule write-ins.
They just look at the two primary candidates.
For the last eight presidential elections, this model has correctly predicted the winner.
The economy has seen some improvement since Obama took office, this guy says.
I don't know where he gets that, but regardless, so what remains to be seen is whether voters will consider the economy in relative or absolute terms.
If it's the former, if they consider the economy in relative terms, the president might receive credit for the economy's trajectory and win a second term.
In the latter case, absolute terms, Romney will pick up a number of states that Obama won in 2008.
Now, again, these guys' model correctly predicted all elections since 1980, including two years when independent candidates ran strongly, 1980 and 1992.
And it also correctly predicted the outcome in a 2000 race.
Al Gore received the most popular votes, but George W. Bush won the presidency.
They predicted that.
Now, while many forecast models are based on the popular vote, the electoral college model developed by these guys is the only one of its type to include more than one state-level measure of economic conditions.
In addition to state and national unemployment rates, these guys look at per capita income, which indicates the extent to which people have more or less disposable income.
Research shows that these two factors affect the major parties differently.
Voters hold Democrats more responsible for unemployment rates, while Republicans are held more responsible for per capita income.
So you can see how they arrive at their conclusion.
They haven't missed since 1980.
They are predicting that Romney will win 320 electoral votes.
And I'm going to throw myself in here.
This does not surprise me.
You know me.
I haven't held back.
I don't have any scientific basis for my belief, just my gut.
And I will admit, I make a lot of assumptions.
I assume that a majority of the country is opposed to what's happening.
I assume a majority of the country does not want to be a bunch of takers.
And I know that many of you disagree with me.
But these guys say in 2012, what is striking about their state-level economic indicator forecast is the expectation that Obama will lose almost all of the states currently considered swing states.
These guys predict, based on their data that hasn't missed since 1980, that he will lose North Carolina, Virginia, New Hampshire, Colorado, Wisconsin, Minnesota, Pennsylvania, Ohio, and Florida.
Now, in Colorado, which went for Obama in 2008, the model predicts that Romney will get 51.9% of the vote, Obama 48.1%.
But they did, and it would only be right to mention this, they did provide some caveats.
Factors that they said may affect their prediction include the timeframe of the economic data used in the study and close tallies in certain states.
The current data was taken five months in advance of the election, and they plan to update it with a more current model and more current data in September.
And we will eagerly anticipate that report.
A second factor is that states very close to a 50-50 split may fall in an unexpected direction.
Let's assume for the sake of the fun of it that these guys are right.
I want you to imagine Election Day plus one.
The day after the election, if the Democrats lose North Carolina, Virginia, Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, Ohio, and Florida, if that happens, there is going to be hell to pay like you haven't seen.
If that happens, no way they can charge fraud.
Well, it won't stop them, maybe, but if that happens, you are going to see one of the biggest soul searches you've ever seen for a while.
And then it won't take them long to get back on track of blaming the stupidity of the voters, which is something that they carry with them each and every day, and that is contempt for average people.
Now, the Washington Times David Boyer story poll shows Romney closing gap with Obama in the swing states.
As the Republicans head to Tampa to nominate Romney for president, the contest with Obama is narrowing in the 10 battleground states that likely will decide the election.
Since the 1st of August, Romney's gained ground in eight of these 10 states, and two of them, Wisconsin and Michigan, are now considered too close to call by some of these pollsters.
Obama has expanded his lead only in New Hampshire.
Everywhere else, it's tightening, significantly so, and it's tightening in polls that have the far out-of-reality weighted Democrat sample.
The AP poll is the late, the APGFK poll is in that poll.
Obama was up 10 points in May, or maybe it was June.
He's now up four, losing ground rapidly, but it's a poll that has an outsized Democrat sample.
If it was the, I saw an analysis of this poll, if this poll, I mean, it's cooked, this latest AP poll with GFK is cooked.
If this poll had an accurate party sample that reflected turnout on Election Day 2008, Obama would be a point down in the latest AP poll.
And a guy named Jason Johnson here, who is a professor of political science at the esteemed Hiram College in Northeast Ohio, said, the reason that this is all tightening up is with, it has to do with people's frustration with Obama rather than an increased appreciation of Romney.
Well, duh, that's not a surprise either.
It's exactly what I thought would be the case.
I thought this was always going to be a referendum on Obama.
And to the extent that Romney and Ryan can make themselves likable, then that's icing on the cake.
But it always was going to be a referendum on Obama.
It still is going to be a referendum.
I don't care what the Obama campaign tries to say.
I don't care what the drive-by media tries to say and how they try to slant this and how they try to portray it.
This is going to be a referendum on Obama.
He is not the likable guy he was.
I don't care what anybody says, folks.
He does not have that aura that he had in 2008.
It's blown.
His cover is blown wide open.
And he is seen to be human and incompetent at that.
Puts his pants on one leg at a time, just like every other guy.
And nothing messianic here.
Hope and change gone.
And don't forget the poll of the toddlers, the 18 to 29-year-olds.
They're claiming that they are so upset that they're going to turn out in record numbers.
Another interesting poll, Washington Times.
What's more important than ensuring that children get a better education?
For most Americans, this election cycle, it's the federal budget.
Do you believe this?
As the regime and Obama continue to assail the Republican ticket for pushing a budget blueprint that they say would cut education, which it doesn't.
There isn't a cut anywhere anywhere.
Not yet.
Polling data that emerged yesterday shows the vast majority of Americans think getting the country back on solid fiscal footing are footing Trump's increasing school funding.
Hallelujah.
Gosh, I hope that, and that makes so much sense to me.
And it tells me that we're not yet a majority nation of morons.
And this is the tea party, folks.
This is the tea party.
When you see this poll and this result, that more Americans want our fiscal problems solved before school funding goes up.
That's the tea party.
And I'll tell you what else it means.
It means that at least the people in this poll fully understand that our problems in education are not money.
We're spending plenty.
It's who we have teaching kids.
It's what they're being taught.
It's the curriculum.
I mean, you've got high school seniors can't read their diplomas.
We have to have job training centers for people that come out of college.
What the hell?
Why do we need one job training center if we've got a decent education system?
What's the point of education?
Among other things, teach people how to work is to help focus them and educate them toward a career and citizenship.
But see, it's not for the Democrats.
Education is indoctrination.
And after you've indoctrinated, then you send them to the work training center.
Because education is not about a career.
Education is not about getting a job.
Education is where your propaganda is.
Education schools at all levels.
That's where you inculcate your ideology.
This is a Gallup and Phi Delta Kappa International Education Association survey.
60%.
60% of Americans think it's more important to balance the budget than to improve the quality of it.
Folks, 24 years ago, if this question had been asked of people, it wouldn't have registered.
Balancing the federal budget wouldn't have mattered to anywhere near a majority of the American people.
Change is ongoing and constant.
Brief time out.
We'll be back.
Your phone calls are up next.
Here is Bill in Seaside Park, New Jersey.
Bill, great to have you.
Hello, sir.
Hello Rochbo.
Muchos Diros.
How are you?
Fine, sir.
Thank you very much.
Good.
Hey, you know, I've been on hold for a while here, and I've been enjoying every second listening to you.
This is a special day for me.
Thank you very much, sir.
I'm getting through to you and, you know, talking about what I want to say.
But, you know, I listened to the soundbite of Bill Clinton vouching for Obama and, you know, the reasons for him to get reelected.
Yesterday, my book came in the mail.
I ordered it, The Amateurs.
Have you read it?
By Edward Klein?
I have excerpts.
I've not read the whole book.
No, you remember the Klein book, Ed Klein?
Yeah.
Yeah.
Yeah, I know.
It's been out all summer, but I went on one of the websites.
I took advantage of an opportunity to, I got it for basically free other than the $4.95 shipping charges, you know.
It's a hell of a deal.
I love stuff getting it.
Even though I can afford anything I want, I love getting free stuff.
It's brand new $28 hardcover, you know.
You can't beat that with a stick.
Isn't that great?
Isn't that great?
I mean, all you had to pay was the shipping charge.
Exactly.
That's great.
Congratulations.
Yeah, thank you.
But I'm two years older than you, Rush.
I'm an ex-teacher, educator.
I taught school for 10 years when I got out of college in 71.
And then I taught school for 10 years, and then I went into the private sector for the subsequent 30 years.
I had my own Sitco gas station.
I had a restaurant.
I had my own new car automobile dealership.
And up until 2008, I even had my own mortgage company in Pennsylvania.
Bill, you didn't build any of that.
You just.
Yeah, I knew you were going to say that.
Okay.
But I'm recently retired involuntarily, and I just wanted to bring up this book, The Amateur, because the prologue is entitled As Bill Sees It.
And it goes into about seven or eight pages of how Mr. Clinton was hammering his wife to run for president.
He even commissioned his own private polling, and he wouldn't let up.
I'm sure you read the prologue.
He wouldn't let up.
And then in the prologue, Chelsea walks in a room.
He was having a dinner party at their residence.
Well, the point of the book is the Clintons really, Bill Clinton particularly, does not like Obama and doesn't think much of him.
Correct.
Correct.
And that's why I just couldn't believe my ears listening to him vouching.
Well, good.
You shouldn't.
Let's grab what he's talking about.
Grab Soundbite 4.
This is what he's talking about.
This is an ad that Clinton has cut for Obama.
And we know that Clinton has ripped Obama for criticizing Bayne Capital.
Clinton likes private equity.
Clinton has been critical of Obama on a number of things.
So when you hear Clinton do this ad, people have been paying attention like you, you read the book.
You wait a minute.
This doesn't compute.
It doesn't make sense because you know, having read that book, if you believe it, that Clinton doesn't believe any of this.
This election, to me, is about which candidate is more likely to return us to full employment.
This is a clear choice.
The Republican plan is to cut more taxes on upper-income people and go back to deregulation.
That's what got us in trouble in the first place.
President Obama has a plan to rebuild America from the ground up, investing in innovation, education, and job training.
It only works if there is a strong middle class.
That's what happened when I was president.
We need to keep going with his plan.
I mean, here's a guy who in this, and he's an ad for Obama, has to plug himself.
That's what happened when I was president.
It's phenomenal.
Obama?
We need a strong middle class.
Who's destroying it?
It was Clinton, by the way, the title of the book, The Amateur, that's what Clinton calls Obama.
According to Klein's book, it's Bill Clinton who called Obama the amateur.
So that ad, when you hear it, if you're up to speed, and those of you listening to this program are, you realize that ad doesn't have any believability.
It doesn't even have salesmanship or passion in it.
But it's still Bill Clinton, and he's still the rock star of the Democrat Party in a party that really wants to try to convince people that it's the Republicans conducting a war on women.
Anyway, Bill, I appreciate the call.
I'm glad that you got through.
I appreciate that you stayed on hold as long as you did.
But it's worth it when you're on hold on this program.
It's unlike being on hold anywhere else.
Something actively some people want is to be on hold to virtually hear every element that we make possible during commercial breaks and everything else are some of the parodies.
In the meantime, another obscene profit timeout.
We'll be right back with much more.
Julie Osage Beach, Missouri.
Hi, and great to have you here.
Thank you.
I've been waiting an hour and a half since you were talking about that earlier.
Thank you for waiting longer.
I've been waiting.
Well, I appreciate it.
I appreciate you wait so long.
Well, let me tell you why, because in 1988, which you brought up earlier, I was an 11-year-old girl, and my mother pulled me out of school, and I started listening to a program called The Rush Limbaugh Show, and I gained those ideals.
Thank you very much.
And I get it.
Well, I appreciate it.
Thank you so much for yourself.
I appreciate that.
I've also seen your brother at a Wellview Weekend conference, so I've also met David.
But anyways, so the reason I'm calling, I really think the Republicans bombed it here with Todd Aiken.
You know, they blew an entire opportunity here to slam Clare McCaskill and bring up her dirt.
You know, she's got so much dirt and so much baggage.
I don't know why they keep talking about him.
It's ridiculous.
We totally, all we needed to do was change the talking points.
Simple, simple solution.
Change the talking points.
All he said.
What did he say?
That maybe a woman's body shuts down under stress.
Big deal.
A man can't say that in our country now.
We don't have freedom of speech as that.
I mean, we throw him under the bus.
Look at all the amazing things that he has done in our government.
Amazing things.
Not only that, but he did the dirty work that a lot of Republicans weren't going to do, like clean up a bunch of women who were going to claim rape.
You know, and it's too bad that we just didn't change the talking points.
It's real simple.
I just said it.
So he speculates that maybe a woman's body shuts down.
That doesn't even have anything to do with whether or not she's conceived or not.
He hates abortion.
You know, the Democrats are already offended by that.
Women who are pro-that are already offended by that.
And we know he's very pro-life.
So I don't quite get why they didn't just quickly use the media for good.
You talked about winning the game.
We could have won the game.
They blew it up.
They blew it up.
Big time.
I agreed with Benny on that.
There was no reason for that.
They're already offended.
Well, but you understand.
There's this naturally defensive posture that conservatives and particularly in Washington, conservatives and Republicans have.
And they don't control the media.
There's no way they can get their talking points on the media.
No matter what they did, the media was not going to start talking about Clare McCaskill, no matter what they said.
So the calculation then became.
Ann Coulter could have talked about Clare McCaskill.
Sarah Palin could have talked about Clare McCaskill.
Plenty of those people.
Sean Hannity could have talked about Clare McCaskill.
I mean, it's ridiculous.
What about the airplane?
Let's talk about her airplane.
How she's hiding hundreds of thousands of dollars that she owes the government.
I mean, there's so much stuff there.
And just saying, you know, he's just a pro-lifer.
Big deal.
He's just very pro-life.
But they just turned this into something that wasn't.
It gave the feminists more reason to hate men, you know, when all they needed to say was, it's okay for men to actually talk about a woman's egg and not make a big deal about it.
They can do that.
You know, and we just feed right into the whole political correctness, you know, that you even speculate.
Well, there's a piece today.
Let me see if I can find this.
Let me see if I, I'm not sure I printed this out, but you would appreciate this.
It's by George Newmeyer, who used to be the editor at the American Spectator, and he might have written this piece there.
It sounds like word for word what you just said.
Neumeier is saying this incident illustrates the fatal problem that the Republican Party has, and that is a desire to please its critics, please its enemies, knee-jerk defensiveness.
No, I didn't print it out.
I don't have it here.
I thought I did.
There's this, oh, we need to be afraid of the left because somehow they're right.
No, they're not.
We're right.
Where are we going?
No, it's not.
No, no, wait a minute.
It's not that they're right.
It's that there's a battle for the hearts and minds of voters, for the American people.
The great fear here was that the Democrats have these caricatures of us.
Julie, I mean, you're well aware.
I'm racist, sexist, bigot, home, anti-women.
So Aiken came along and he said something that was, it's indefensible what he said in terms of fact.
It's simply indefensible.
And so the fear was, oh my God, this guy is helping the media confirm a bunch of lies about us.
And that's what they're.
We don't need to be afraid.
We don't need to be afraid of the left.
And we're acting afraid by saying that.
We're confirming the media.
No, we don't.
We just simply take the talking point.
Explain it differently.
That's what they do.
They sit around and make explanations for Joe Biden and President Obama, who's like, yeah, I'm wrong.
And people love him for it.
People love him.
You know, I was wrong.
I agree.
We shouldn't let them have that power over us.
And some of us don't let them have that power.
But it's very few that act that way.
It's a, you know, being on defense becomes a habit.
And it's a, in some cases, it just doesn't change.
But I hear you.
I thought some of the piling on of Todd Aiken was a little gratuitous.
He's not a pig.
He's not any of this kind of stuff.
I cringe sometimes at some of the criticism.
But at the same time, he's now gone and made himself bigger than the cause and bigger than the purpose here.
And it is making it very difficult to support him.
And we can't change the talking points.
I wish we could.
So some people decided, even if it was reflexively, that this was not the place to plant the flag, that there will be other places.
Anyway, Julie, your mom pulled you out of school at age 11 to listen to this program, and listen how she turned out.
You hear that passion.
You hear that.
You mothers out there should do more of that.
Pull your kids out of school at age 11, let them listen to this program, and they'll be that much ahead.
What do you mean, do a flyover at the convention?
Yeah, I've had, honest to God, I've had three reporters in the last week have sent me emails wanting to know what parties and social activities that I'm attending at the convention so they can cover them.
You do?
You got more?
Well, I've had, so that's HR.
He's had even more requests.
I've had three reporters inquire, not what parties are you attending?
What social functions we can go, I would want to cover.
And I wrote her and says, sorry, I'm too famous.
I'm not going.
And I didn't hear back from him after that.
Oh, no.
Oh, you've got invitations.
I'm talking about press requests to follow me.
They want to know what parties they need to get tickets for in order to cover me.
And one of them did write back, well, if you're not going, I don't know why I should.
I said, I'm not going.
Anyway, Snerdley asked if I was going to go do a flyover, EIB1, do a flyby, dip the wing, and officially kick the thing off.
I hadn't thought about that.
I actually hadn't thought about it.
It's not a bad idea.
I found the George Neumeier piece.
It is in the American Spectator.
Let me just give you some pull quotes from this thing.
A party less cowed by political correctness and less enthralled conventional wisdom would not have cannibalized its own so quickly.
Let's not forget, Barack Obama hired as one of his top Department of Education officials a gay rights activist named Kevin Jennings, who once glibly counseled a 15-year-old student thought to have been statutorily raped by another man, quote, I hope you knew to use a condom.
Jennings also known for having been inspired by Harry Hay, a supporter of Nambla.
Nobody complains about this, and the Democrats aren't even embarrassed.
In a culture that panders to pro-abortion feminists like Sandra Fluck, thought crimes always rank higher than real ones.
Words, not deeds, drive Paul's from public office.
So Aiken has to go.
He simply harbors the wrong thoughts.
Newmeyer, but our new mayor is not happy with what happened.
An authentically conservative party would find Romney's unprincipled position far more chilling than Aiken's gaffe.
If unborn children gain or lose their right to life depending upon the circumstances of their conception, then the party's already conceded that the right doesn't exist.
Reagan understood the implications of that concession, never wavered in his defense of the right to life of all unborn, not just some of them.
And folks, I'm here to tell you, I know exactly what Aiken was trying to say.
I know exactly.
He believes that the baby is the essence of innocence, and there is no exception.
It's never the baby's fault.
And all he believes is that if you're going to allow abortion in the case of rape, then you're really not pro-life.
That's all he was trying to say.
He just didn't know how to say it.
So in order to be persuasive, he came up with this biological lesson.
It's not true.
And it got a fact wrong.
New Mayer here is saying that his stupid remark was turned into a supposedly wicked one and treated as a great crisis.
A party less cowed by political correctness and less enthralled at conventional wisdom would not have cannibalized its own so quickly.
So Newmayer believes that the Republicans just panicked because they are prisoners to conventional wisdom, political correctness, and wanting to be liked or not criticized.
Look, there's a this guy, what's his name?
The Twisted D. Snyder, Twisted Sister.
Apparently, Paul Ryan at his events is using a song by this guy.
And so this guy's out there saying, I'm not letting Ryan use my song.
Who the hell do they think they are?
So D. Snyder has told Ryan, you can't use my song.
And the media loves this.
Why?
Because that, here's a pop culture guy, Twisted Sister.
It's a perfect vehicle for showing that Republicans aren't cool, that Republicans aren't hip, that Republicans aren't likable.
That's why they like it.
That's why these musicians come out and do it.
And that's the kind of stuff that ticks you off.
I know it does.
Because you know exactly what the objective of this is.
Ryan's not a threat to anybody.
So he likes this guy's tune.
This guy's to come out.
You can't do that.
And the media jumps all over it.
Because when you boil it all down, people have a problem with the media.
I think you can boil it down to real simple essence.
You're fed up with the media determining who's likable and who isn't, who's cool and who isn't, who's hip and who isn't.
And totally understand, but you can't change it.
And Ryan using the guy's song doesn't make him hip.
Notice.
Ryan using the guy's song doesn't make him likable.
Doesn't work, see?
You can't change it.
So, if I were Ryan, I'd say, hell with it.
You can't tell me when I can't and can't play your song.
I'm using it.
You know, come make me stop.
I happen to like your stupid song, folks.
That's it.
Have a great day, rest of the day, great evening tonight.
And we'll be back in 21 hours.
It'll be Friday, and that means open line Friday.
We will see you tomorrow.
Thanks so much for being with us today.
▲
Export Selection