All Episodes
Sept. 17, 2012 - Rush Limbaugh Program
35:28
September 17, 2012, Monday, Hour #2
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Greetings and welcome back.
Great to have you, Rush Limbaugh, the Excellence in Broadcasting Network, Limbaugh Institute for Advanced Conservative Studies.
Here's our telephone number, 800 28282, the email address, Lrushbo at EIBNet.com.
Mr. Schnerdley, have you noticed today, over the weekend?
Seems to me a cacophony, wrong word, a rising number of stories about the disarray the Romney campaign is in.
And in fact, if you uh if you listen to the Fox News channel, you can hear certain conservatives uh say the same thing.
The reason these conservatives are saying that is because they're not getting out of the campaign what they would do if they were campaigning.
So the the foreign policy uh crowd in the Republican Party is upset that Romney not talking enough about that, and the uh the social issues crowd's upset they're not talking enough about that, and the economic crowd is uh said he's not talking enough about that.
But if you ask me, the real disarray is in the Obama administration, not that not the least of which it would include the campaign for crying out so it's clear that what's happened.
Talk about the media bubble last week.
It's clear what's happened, the order has gone out on high from on high that the Romney camp is in disarray.
That that's the narrative.
And it's to cover up the fact that there is an implosion going on in this administration.
How in the world can this econom that this administration and this campaign of Obama's not be in disarray?
Look at what they've got to deal with.
They have destroyed the U.S. middle class.
They are destroying the American economy.
Foreign policy is an embarrassment.
We weren't prepared for attacks on our embassies on 9-11, blaming it on a YouTube video.
The glaring incompetence for anybody willing to spend more than five minutes looking, the path takes you right to the White House.
And so we get all these stories about the disarray in the Romney campaign.
Now Romney's not doing this, and Romney's not doing that, and Romney's not doing the right thing on foreign policy, and Romney's not doing this and so forth.
Let me tell you something.
I got a story here.
Associated Press had cleared yesterday.
President Obama will launch a new trade enforcement case against the ChICOMS today, using the power of incumbency over Mitt Romney's criticism that he is ceding American jobs to the ChICOM.
This action comes.
I saw the ad.
You know, I've I don't I don't actually see too many political ads because I don't watch local TV.
So I don't see, for example, local ads that would be running on local TV stations here where I live.
I never have, other than when you have to to watch a football game.
But I watch DirecTV.
Now they my local stations are what's on local TV, local networks.
But I I I you know I I fast forward to commercials.
I don't see them.
But I did happen to see a Romney ad ripping into Obama for not holding the ChICOMs to task.
Fairness in in trade matters and other things.
And then lo and behold, here comes this Obama story.
Obama is spontaneously reacting to every criticism Romney made in that ad within a day or two.
So Romney goes out and accuses Obama of incompetence, malfeasance or whatever, boneheaded policy, and within a day or two, Obama responds to the ad and does exactly what Romney says he's not doing.
In other words, Obama goes out and fixes it.
So it means Romney's on to something.
I saw the ad and be honest.
What the hell is this a campaign issue?
Fairness with the ChICOMs?
I mean, with everything else out there, is that how we're gonna change minds?
Apparently the regime thinks so because they got in gear and send this AP story, Obama launching trade case, accusing China of unfair practice.
That's exactly what Romney's ad was.
That China is exit is is engaging in unfair trade practices and Obama doesn't care.
And Obama isn't doing anything about it.
Bam o Obama goes out.
Now, the AP doesn't say that Romney's ad ran.
It doesn't say that Obama's responding.
You know, and given the idiots in this country and what they pay attention to and don't, who knows how many are going to put it together themselves that Obama is responding to Romney, but the fact is he is.
So this this again, we've got a we got a fake narrative, a phony meme out there, that the Romney campaign is in despair, or in disp is uh unraveling and and not organized.
When in fact it's entire, it's Obama's entire administration that is.
And therefore the country and his campaign as well.
Both sides have supporters who are saying, my gosh, I can't believe the Romney camp say, I I why is this race so close?
Romney ought to be up 10-15 points given the economy, given all that.
And the Obama people are saying, why aren't we 15 points up?
Because they've launched everything they've got at Romney, and he's still there.
They call him a felon, they call him a murderer, they've called him everything.
And yet he's still right there in these polls.
But I again I want to hearken back to F. Chuck Todd, folks, last Friday.
This was big.
This was very big.
I told you it was big then, it hasn't gotten any mention, but don't doubt me on this.
NBC Wall Street Journal had a poll out that showed Obama wrapping it up in Florida, Ohio, and Virginia.
Was over.
The only way that Romney had a chance in these three states was to go get Obama voters and change their minds.
The undecided had made their minds up and had gone with Obama in these polls.
It was over.
That poll came out on Thursday night.
I got the Wall Street Journal Little News Flash blurb on it.
So I expected F. Chuck Todd and the MBC boys to be literally throwing a party Friday morning.
I mean, with the balloons and little hats and the kazoos and everything.
I thought it was going to be over with.
And we played for you the soundbite.
There's F. Chuck Todd talking about how polling bothers him.
That hasn't kept up with the technology.
Or the technology hasn't enabled him to keep up with the reality or what it was clear he didn't believe his own poll.
And he was wise not to believe his own poll.
Those states haven't been decided yet.
We haven't even had the debates for crying out loud.
So what we have here is the media, NBC Wall Street Journal, or polling unit, again making news to try to shape public opinion rather than reflect it.
And F. Chuck finally admitted it.
Chuck Todd actually admitted.
I'm very nervous with this polling.
I'm very nervous.
He did not want to hang his hat on this poll.
I think it had an elevated Democrats.
Oh, yeah, and one sample are only 4% independence.
No wonder the independents already made up their minds.
Only 4% of them.
Yeah, there were in these three states.
There was one state, I forget which, but the Democrat percentages way up over the 2008 or even 2010 turnouts.
So there wasn't a whole lot of celebrating Friday over that poll.
Now, wouldn't you think if these guys really believe that, if you got a poll out that says it's over in Florida, Ohio, and Virginia?
Because if the poll's right, it is over.
If you got a poll that says that, if you believe the poll, aren't you literally orgasmic?
They weren't.
I think these polls, Here's Mike Flynn posting it at Breitbart, the big government website.
CBS Obama leads in our poll where we have a 13 percentage point advantage for Democrats in our sample.
Anyone following the presidential campaign through the prism of media polls is doing themselves serious disservice.
Virtually everyone uses a polling sample that's so heavily skewed toward Democrats that it distorts the actual state of the campaign.
Of course, that's a feature, not a bug of the polls.
The polls are specifically designed to drive a narrative that Obama's surging, that Romney is struggling, Romney's camp is in disarray.
Increasingly, though, the polls are having to go to ridiculous efforts to support this Fridays.
CBS New York Times poll, for example, uses a Democrat plus 13 sample of registered voters, not likely voters.
This is absurd.
Likely voters are the only polls that count.
That's all they're going to be taking in the week, two weeks for the election.
CBS should say that they do apply a likely voter's screen to the head-to-head matchup.
The LV sample is Democrat plus six.
Likely voter sample is Democrat plus six.
Similar to the makeup of the 08 election, and in that one, Obama leads Romney by just three points.
49 to 46.
In it in Rasmussen the same day last Friday, it was Romney up three.
There's a Rasmussen out today.
I just saw it.
I better not quote it, because I don't remember really what it was about.
But in it, Romney's up by a couple points.
So what is going on?
What's going on here is that everybody on the Obama side knows that it's the Obama camp that's in disarray.
Now don't misunderstand me.
I'm not saying that that means it's over for Obama, and don't get super confident about anything.
My point is that this is nowhere near over.
We're not even to October yet.
The elections in November.
These people are doing everything they can to suppress your vote and dispirit you.
And they're using polling data to do it.
They're using stories such as the uh the Romney camp in disarray.
And they're, and you know, our side, I think actually contributes to this with all these why isn't Romney up by 15, why isn't Romney up by 10?
Which led me to this never-ending question we're all asking.
What does explain the partisan divide in this country?
Why?
You know, I'm curious for my I would love to know why certain people who I think by virtue of the rest of their lives are demonstrably intelligent.
And these people are self-starters, and they are entrepreneurs.
They're very successful.
I ask myself, how can they intellectually not just support Obama but fundraise and bundle for him?
A lot of high-tech people, Silicon Valley, uh Silicon Valley come to mind when I think of this.
There are answers to this.
There are answers to these questions.
And that's what I've spent a lot of time pondering.
I saw something that made me think about this in a different direction.
A Rasmussen report poll.
Let me quote it to you, a portion of it.
Among those who rarely or never attend church or other religious services, Obama leads by 22.
Among those who attend services weekly, Romney leads by 24.
Among people who go to church now and then, it's pretty much equal.
So look at this divide.
Look at this partisan divide.
Now this told me that policy couldn't have anything to do with this.
This has got to be cultural.
This has to be cultural, pure and simple.
And then I thought back, as I do frequently, of the story I've probably bored you silly with telling it so many times about the highfalutin Republican establishment Hampton's dinner party, where I was approached and jabbed in the chest and asked, what are you gonna do about the Christians by a bunch of Republicans?
What are you gonna do with the Christians?
These pro-lifers, they're embarrassing us.
And I think right there, that word, they're embarrassing us, tells us, I'll speak for myself, tells me a lot of what I have been trying to find or trying to learn.
Let me take a brief time out, my friends.
We'll be back, we'll continue, gonna get your phone calls in the mix as well here on the EIB network as we start out a brand new week of broadcast excellence.
I have come to believe that.
Let's let me give you this example.
Let's take a for now nameless, although I have a person, there is this person I'm gonna describe, exists.
CEO, major major Silicon Valley Internet company.
Huge Obama bundler.
Huge, I mean fundraisers at the family abode, raises money, donates money, bundles money, is totally devoted to Obama.
It can't be because of Obama policy.
It simply can't be.
Obama's policies are diametrically opposed to every economic philosophy implemented by this person.
It simply cannot be policy.
This partisan divide, when I saw this religion breakdown, 22% of people who vote for Obama don't go to church, 24% of people voting for Obama do.
And the people that go once a week now and then, it's evenly split.
That's cultural.
There is no question.
Now, what what makes cultural?
What comes under that umbrella?
Well, it's any number of things, including religion, but it's also pop culture.
It's movies, television show, what's cool, what's hip, who's smart, who isn't smart, branding, all those things are what come to the fore.
So I've been asking myself, what would make it?
What or what would make otherwise smart people support somebody who's got policies that will harm their company?
Why would they do this?
Why would they raise money for this person?
Why would they donate money?
Now, allowing for the possibility that they don't really understand that Obama is harmful for them.
I I have a tough time with that.
I often say we need to redefine smart because there are a lot of high IQ people do dumb things within the realm of common sense.
A lot of people who are highly educated that do even stupider things.
But it it again, it led me to conclude that these people, it could be Hollywood, could be Silicon Valley, could be Wall Street, could be, it's not policy.
Because in most cases, these people, unless they have a crony, corporate relationship with Obama, unless that exists, they're voting against their own company's interests.
Why would they do that then?
Well, they're not even looking at that.
Has to be the answer.
They're not looking at policy.
And this matters because if like if we think that we want to pick those people off and convince them that our policies are far better for the country, that'll create more customers with more disposable income for their businesses than Obama or liberal Democrat policies will.
If we think that we can persuade them with policy, we're barking up the wrong tree If they're choosing Obama for things that have nothing to do with policy.
And I think, going back to that Hampton's dinner, and that one word embarrassment.
Branding or whatever you want to say, but I think is I think there's some blockheaded thickness out there.
And I think the people I'm talking about actually think.
Well, put this, they would be embarrassed to be openly Republican.
They'd be embarrassed because of what people would think of them.
And what would that be?
Well, they're pro-choice or pro-life, but that they're they're not cool.
And it may in fact be stupid, which I think a lot of them think of conservatives.
So how then do you pick them off?
How do you go get them?
More in a moment.
In fact, my friends, I would go further.
I would say that it is true that a majority of people who vote for Obama are actually voting against their own self-interest.
Even the people on welfare and food stamps, they don't understand.
They don't understand the destruction that he is wreaking out that's going to interrupt the flow of their benefits.
But let's let's let's take Sigmund Freud.
Sigmund Freud, for example, used to think, now that got snerd leaser.
You mentioned Sigmund Freud, people will listen to you.
Sigmund Freud used to think that sex was the ultimate motivating power in people's lives.
And when they issued Viagra, I was tending to agree with him.
I had never seen anything like it.
But it turns out that as Sigmund Freud got older, and as most people who get older he got wiser, he realized that it was not sex that was the ultimate motivating power in people's lives, but rather it was the drive to be respected by their peers.
And even further, a desire to be respected by the elites who decide who is respectable or not.
So let's take this a step further.
If it is true as I surmise, that people are not voting against Romney for policy or for Obama for policy reasons.
If they're voting for other reasons, then how do we pick them off?
Is it a mistake to run a policy-oriented campaign?
You take this, again, this mythical CEO.
And for this example, this is not this CEO does not have a knowingly traceable crony relationship with Obama, simply political fundraising, simply uh uh of the mind or emotional.
As opposed to say somebody like like the cylinder guys, who frankly wouldn't have cared whatever Obama was going to do, because he was giving them money.
He was funding their business.
So policy didn't matter.
This this mythical CEO I'm talking about, that's not the case.
In fact, this mythical CEO knows that Obama's policies are harmful.
Yet something is stopping her from voting for people that will actually give her more customers with more disposable income, which will grow her business.
So what is it if it isn't policy?
And I think it goes back to that word embarrassment, and I think for whatever marketing or branding reasons, there are people to whom they it's the most embarrassing thing in the world is to be a conservative or thought of one or a Republican or be thought of one.
Just embarrassing as it can be.
Now we could go through the reasons why, and if I did, you would you would probably be forced to agree with me.
But the point here is the point is they're running a campaign, we're trying to win an election, and if policy is not how you go get people, then how do you do it?
That's a huge question.
Now, it it could well be, there's also this this factor, that this mythical CEO assumes that by being such a vocal public supporter of Obama, that the CEO is going to end up being in the elite circle.
Who decides who's hip and who's not and who's respected and who's not, or respectable or not.
The older I get, the more I learn that people are totally, and it frustrates me to no end, as I've said, I don't know how many times, governed by what people think of them.
And so the desire to be respected by their peers.
Well, if you are in Silicon Valley, you are not going to be respected if you're a Republican.
It doesn't happen.
You're not going to be respected if you're a conservative.
It isn't going to happen.
And policy won't matter.
If you, as a Silicon Valley CEO can explain why conservatism is better for you, better for everybody else, better for the country, better for Silicon Valley, better for customers.
The fact that you're still a conservative will not help you be respected.
And that's what they all want.
Conservatism is considered uncool, and it's backwards and it's rigid and it's judgmental and it's old fashioned, it's almost Victorian.
This is the branding.
Plus it has the pro-lifers in it.
And nobody, nobody, nobody wants to be associated with them.
And the Tea Party has been branded as similar, and nobody wants to be associated with that.
Nobody wanted to be a Republican during Bush because everybody was an idiot, a cowboy idiot.
I can't tell you a number of people I go to California, I could get frustrated out of my Gordon.
Literal idiots would tell me how stupid Bush was.
I know he's not stupid at all.
Anyway, Harvard MBA, for example.
Reagan was able to make being conservatism or conservative attractive and cool.
And they learned their lesson with that.
What was the lesson?
Never again is a prominent conservative going to be thought of as nice and jocular, and never again is a conservative going to be portrayed as having beer with Tip O'Neill at the end of the day and getting along with Democrats.
It ain't gonna happen.
They're not letting another Reagan get created in terms of in terms of branding.
So Romney's going to continue to be no matter what he is, stiff, rich, heartless, the whole the whole cliche.
But it it boils down to the fact, I think that Freud ended up being right.
What people want is to be respected by their peers, and as they get older and as they move up their own ladders of success, that stuff that being respected by others then changes.
It becomes being respected by the elites.
And they the elites they want to be, the the elites they want to be part of, the elite, the small group of elites who will be exempt from all the new policies, who'll be exempt from all the high taxes, who will be exempt from all the regular.
That's what they're striving for.
To not ever be considered to be part of the hoi polloi.
To not ever be considered to be part of the hoi polloi.
That's why Hollywood, ever since Reagan, Hollywood is going to continue to destroy or try to everything and anyone in show business who might make conservatism seem hip and cool and attractive.
The last thing that these people can allow to happen is for prominently successful conservatives to be seen as hip and cool and likable, respectable.
And I've I'm just sharing with you my thinking about this.
When I saw these religion numbers, and when I saw that that's that's what clued me in here that and by the way, it it should have occurred to me years ago, but beating my head up against the wall, arguing with Democrats and liberals on policy, winning every argument on taxes, lowering taxes, growing revenue.
The reality is what it is.
It happens every time it's tried.
That's the solution to the problem now.
The lowest taxes on the largest amount of people that broadens the base that funds the government that lowers the debt that promotes economic activity, it's simple.
That's what needs to happen, and it works every time it's tried, but that's not gonna persuade anybody because policies doesn't matter.
We have gotten so partisan, so polarized, and it's not the policy that's doing it.
Not totally.
To some people, of course, it is the policy.
And the lower down you go on the IQ scale, the more the lies about policy matter.
Okay.
Anyway, let me take a brief time out, we'll come back, and I prom I promise, I promise, we'll get started with your phone calls.
So don't go away.
As promised, we're gonna go to the phones, we're gonna start Waldorf, Maryland.
This is Janet.
I'm glad you waited.
I really appreciate your patience.
It's great to have you here.
Hi.
Thank you, Rush.
It's a pleasure to be on your show today.
I really don't have much to say.
I just wanted to introduce a topic to you for discussion.
If we are to believe that the trailer for that low budget anti-Islamist video is to blame for all the violence in the Middle East, then what should we expect when Hollywood releases the big budget production of Obama killing Obama bin Laden?
Right up my alley.
You're gonna help me make my point even further.
Okay, here's a great, great, great, great question.
Here we've got on one hand, some unknown who has produced something nobody's ever seen.
A video that is reputed to make fun of Muhammad.
It's been seen by twelve people back in June at a screening in LA.
This video is being blamed by the Obama administration for virtually every terrorist act last week in the Middle East.
Upcoming is a Hollywood production of a movie highlighting the death of bin Laden.
It is produced and directed or directed by Catherine Bigelow, who did the Hurt Locker, which won an epidemic award.
And it comes from Sony Pictures.
And Janet here is exactly right.
This movie, in fact, it was originally scheduled to be released during the campaign, and it was designed to help Obama and carry forth this tough guy, big guarantee protector of the United States president, Barack Hussein Obama.
And they moved it back a little bit, but it's still gonna come out at some point.
And it doesn't matter when her question is right on the money.
If a if an unknown YouTube video of 15 minutes can cause the death of an ambassador and protests and fires and flags being torn down at 21 embassies, what the hell is a full-fledged Hollywood two-hour movie celebrating the death of bin Laden gonna do.
What do you think, Janet?
How would you answer your own question?
I really don't know the answer, Russia.
I'm sure that Obama will talk to his friends in Hollywood and insist that they not release them.
No, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no.
It will not cause any problems.
But even if it does.
No, because the right people produced it.
No, that's true.
Right people produced it.
The right kind of people are behind it.
Respectable people, not Hayseed hick kooks, Coptic Christians.
These are good Hollywood liberals that did this.
But even if, my point is that even if it does cause problems, if it caused terrorist activity, if if it if it makes these terrorists go nuts, um, it it will not be blamed by the media or by Obama or Hollywood,
or It'll be praise a work of art, gutsy, courageous, and then we will all of a sudden hear that there's no excuse for terrorists to behave this way, and they will be blamed by the media, by Obama.
It's not going to get the same treatment as this little guy's YouTube video.
The regime wants this movie.
They want this movie produced.
Their convention was all about this.
They'll find something else if there is an uprising or a series of uprisings because of this movie, the killing of bin Laden or whatever it's called.
I think pretty close to that, this title.
They will find a way to blame their political enemies for it.
Or certainly find a way to absolve the movie and the people that produced it, and Obama himself and the uh and the regime.
It's just the way these things work.
You would think, I know the thinking here that Janet has is, well, but they got to cancel this movie now.
They can't let this movie be released.
I mean, for crying out loud, if a little YouTube video caused all this, what is a full full-length feature film gonna do?
We can't let the movie out.
That's not the way Obama's looking at this at all.
They want this movie.
This movie's gonna make Obama look like the biggest hero on the face of the earth, and they'll find a way for that message to be the one that gets out.
And they will make it comfortable for that message to be supported by people in the entertainment world.
You would think, folks, that if Obama is re-elected, there would be riots in the Muslim world.
Stop and think of that.
Here's Obama 21 times as a convention.
I killed him.
I did it.
I'll pull a trigger.
Ah, killed Osama.
Twenty-one times they made a big deal.
Osama's dead, and I did it.
And I run the drones.
And whoever's gonna die, I say so.
Okay, so they don't like that.
If this guy wins re-election, shouldn't that cause riots in the Muslim world?
If what they say about this video being the cause of all this is true, shouldn't his re-election cause problems?
Why won't it?
Well, the answer to that is right in front of your face.
You may not want to say it because there are people like media matters out there waiting for you to say it.
But the fact of the matter is that you filony, you know the answer.
I don't need to tell you.
You know exactly why.
Bill Maher.
Bill Maher did a movie.
I I think it religious religious or religion.
It was a, I can't remember the title, but it was anti-all religion.
And the last 20 minutes of this movie, Bill Marr skewers Islam.
Just rakes Islam over the coals.
And the movie's a year old or two years old or what have you.
Nobody.
Obama took his million dollars for Super PAC.
The Middle East did not go nuts when Mars movie came out.
Didn't care, couldn't have cared less.
Islam said not a word about Bill Maher's movie.
Why?
Export Selection