All Episodes
Previous Next
Sept. 24, 2012 - Rush Limbaugh Program
36:51
September 24, 2012, Monday, Hour #1
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Welcome to today's edition of The Rush 24-7 podcast.
Anybody watch Emmys last night didn't see the Emmy.
Did you watch Emmy Snertley?
Ryan, you watch Emmy.
I didn't even know they were on.
I'm sitting there watching.
This is fun, by the way.
This is fun watching the sports media go nuts over the replacement refs.
This is fun.
I I j folks, I love it.
I absolutely love it.
I thought we're supposed to give everybody a chance.
I suppose we're not we're not supposed to judge people.
I thought, why these poor replacement riffs, it's not their fault.
They're trying as hard as they can.
Why is everybody dumping on these guys?
Isn't this exactly what the left wants?
This kind of everybody's equal, everybody gets a fair shot at it.
But when it happens to be in their bailiwick, they happen to want the best available.
If they don't get it, they start whining and moaning and complaining.
I just sat there laughing myself silly lemon and listen to Chris Collinsworth and Al Michaels and Collinsworth is going to late in the game.
I just they've lost control of it.
And it's it's it's like a it's like a sandlot uh afternoon football in your backyard.
They're broad for this fun.
Everybody's trying to intimidate everybody.
Uh I I love it.
I absolutely love it.
And in the meantime, there's Tom Brady trying to stay focused on playing the game, and everything around him is falling apart.
And I get up today, I read the sports media, and they're just, and they have been, but they're getting worse.
They just beside themselves over these poor replacement, or they're not poor, they hate them.
And I get the well, what about everybody deserves a fair shot?
Isn't that one of Obama's campaign slogans?
Everybody's equal.
We have equality of opportunity, equality of outcome.
We can't judge people.
Uh I think it's made to order.
I think it's a great illustration.
Anyway, folks, I didn't see the Emmy.
Did Obama win an Emmy.
Well, you know, he's the star of a reality show called The New Normal.
And I just I just and it's on every day.
I mean, this show is on every channel every day.
It never ends.
If anybody deserves an Emmy B, Obama.
Did you see Game Change won?
The movie about the book about Sarah Palin, the McCain campaign 2008.
Catherine and I watched that thing, and we got up and left it.
We left our own theater.
We got up and walked.
It was it was a cliche joke.
I mean, it was that that movie illustrated with the two different worlds that we all live in here.
And that movie won best actress, best writing, best this.
Uh just it it not uh not surprising at all.
You see, Obama doesn't have time for nothing yellow.
He's barely got time for the UN, but he's gonna squeeze in what he's gonna see uh Beyoncé, Whoopi, Goldberg, he's gonna go on the view.
But not Netanyahu.
Letterman uh and Jay-Z last week.
I don't know why people are so surprised is what Kim Kardashian would do.
And he's President Kardashian, he's a celebrity of the United States instead of the uh instead of the president.
Did you see this?
This is a frightening statistic.
More people vote in American Idol than in any U.S. election.
Yeah, but it's easy.
I mean, you can phone in.
You can dial a phone, but still, more people vote in American Idol than they do in any U.S. election.
And if that's true, and I have no reason to doubt it.
That might explain Obama's entire campaign.
And his entire presidency.
Grab audio subite number two.
Listen to that, you know, I've so frustrated sometimes.
I know these people, I know them.
It's so easy to know them.
I get frustrated that there's any doubt or misunderstanding about liberals and Obama and who they are.
We've got this uh whole 1998 tape has surfaced.
The one in which Obama talked about loving redistribution and so forth.
Well, there's something, there's another aspect of it.
Um, and it's exactly what this campaign is.
And he says in 1998 what he believes a winning coalition is.
Welfare recipients would be a majority coalition for somebody.
It's exactly what he's doing.
That's his campaign, and we've pointed it out to you.
So let's go grab sound bite number two.
This is um October 19th in Chicago, 1998, Loyola University, then state senator, the one.
When I think we'll re-gate people in politics, is it we're doing significant uh serious policy work around what I will label the working poor, although my definition of the working poor is not simply folks making minimum wage, but it's also families of poor who are making $30,000 a year.
They are struggling.
And to the extent that we are doing research figuring out what kinds of government action would successfully make their lives better.
We are then putting together a potential majority coalition to those agendas forward.
All right, so NBC went and dug up the full audio tape to verify that it was Obama.
Remember, Angrier Mitchell, NBC News would not play the audio tape of Obama saying, and he believed in redistribution because they couldn't they couldn't confirm it.
Even the White House had confirmed it.
The White House said, yeah, that's our guy.
And Ryan Mitchell, NBC News refused to believe it.
They had to independently verify.
What does that tell you?
So anyway, they did.
They want to go to the whole tape now to verify it was Obama.
And what they failed to report is that at a different point in the tape, Obama admits exactly what Romney said on his tape, Obama's intention to build a majority coalition of dependence on the state.
That's what you just heard.
A majority coalition of welfare recipients.
That's Obama's constituents.
And this is back in 1998.
This is many, many moons ago.
Little Elizabeth Warren lingo there.
Do you realize, by the way, William Jacobson, who's doing um good work at the legal insurrection blog, posted recently that he accorded investigations, she'd been practicing law out of her Harvard professor's office illegally, that she wasn't licensed in Massachusetts to practice law, and she's admitted it today.
It won't matter because liberals don't have standards that they're held to.
The law doesn't matter.
It's all that matters is the intentions.
Was she trying to help people?
Yeah.
She would try to help people as law.
Was she licensed to practice?
No, but that doesn't matter because she was trying to help people.
What does it matter with it?
This is the it doesn't mean she doesn't know how to practice law.
She just hadn't bothered to get licensed, but doesn't mean she can't do it.
Doesn't mean she doesn't know how.
We've got to give her credit, man.
She's at least trying.
Well, what about the regulations?
The legal regulations say that she has to be licensed in the state.
Doesn't matter, man.
Doesn't matter because she's she cares.
I fully expect that to be the majority reaction to people.
Doesn't matter.
She doesn't practice the big deal.
There's such a cultural rot taking place.
There's such a disintegration throughout our culture.
Values, morality, I mean you name it.
Uh standards have been relaxed and they're not being held to people's um intentions if they're good and honorable.
That's all that matters.
Whether you violate regulations or not.
But at any rate, here's here's Obama admitting it.
You know, he's admitted so much in all these tapes that we found in 2001 and 2007, talk to his union buddies about single-payer nationalized health care.
He's admitted everything.
It's on tape.
Everything that he's doing is on tape.
Now the drive-by's haven't dug it up.
We in the new media have, and everybody in our audience knows about it.
But the rest of the country's in the dark.
Majority coalition.
Now, just strip if if you can, take away everything else you know about campaign about Obama, about the coach.
What if he just out of the blue in a presidential campaign, you heard or learned that one of the candidates is seeking to build a majority coalition.
Otherwise, he wants to win the election by securing the votes of welfare recipients on the basis that he's going to continue to take care of them as welfare recipients.
That he is not going to try to reduce the numbers of people on welfare.
In fact, he's going to try to increase that number because that's how he wants to get elected.
What would your reaction be.
Who in the world would vote for that?
Not 25, 30% of the country would, or and maybe all the welfare recipients.
Who knows?
But at least.
No, I I'm I'm not happy that I'm right.
I'm used to being right.
I don't get jazzed being right.
What I get frustrated here, that I'm right, and so few people see it when they even right in front of their face.
That's what frustrates me.
Well, who wants to believe it?
It's not a question who wants to, we'd better believe it, because that's our future.
We have to confront it.
It's re I know who wants, I know what you mean by saying who wants to believe it, but it's out there.
Folks, here's another you know you know why we can't believe the 1998 tape?
Because I'm talking about it.
Because I'm talking about it disqualifies everything on that tape that Obama said.
No, no, no, it's it's it's it's because I, according to people on the left, I have been uh what's the word?
I I have been uh my credibility, my my integrity, my uh um reputation have all been successfully tarnished now, so that whatever I say cannot be listened to.
It cannot be accepted, accepted because I'm disqualified.
And I'm gonna prove this uh Sunday morning PBS inside Washington.
It's their version of these roundtable chat shows, and we have uh the politico chief political guests, Roger Simon Politico, Colbert King, known to his friends as Colby, Colby King, Washington Post, and Charles Krauthammer, and they're talking about Romney's attacks on Obama, the 1998 video saying he's in favor of redistribution, a host.
Gordon Peterson says to Roger Simon of Politico, Roger, uh Romney's attacks don't seem to be sticking out there.
Why is that?
All this small stuff is being dismissed by the American people.
Because nobody cares about people consider the source.
They consider the source when you have people like Rush Limbaugh, minute after minute after minute, still making that same kind of argument in face of truth that goes just the opposite way, people dismiss it.
They just tune it out.
Do you hear what he's saying?
Here's what he says.
He's got Obama on uh tape in 1998, and it confirms that Romney says that Obama's big objective is the redistribution of wealth.
Obama says it.
It's undeniably on the tape.
But Gordon Peterson, why isn't sticking?
Why why not why don't people care?
And Colby King says because Rush Limbaugh's the one telling them.
And since Limbaugh has no credibility or integrity, since we've successfully decimated and destroyed Limbaugh, so we can have if Limbaugh says it, nobody's gonna believe it.
That's what Colby King is saying to people.
That that was his point.
I have in here, I have become a well, he's a columnist or used to be at the Washington Post, but anyway, that that's his point.
Look, so I would think these guys would then want to get every bit of this information into my hands, have me be the one saying it, because then nobody believe it.
That's what they believe.
If I say it, then the whole country will reject it because in their minds they have successfully damaged my uh reputation, integrity, credibility.
So it doesn't matter that these words are right out of Obama's mouth.
The reason nobody cares is because I'm talking about it.
Therefore, as far as Colby King is concerned, Romney would be better off if I were to say, take a what a 55-day vacation.
Anyway, that that that's what that's the point of his uh his comment.
Okay, we gotta take a brief time out.
Sit tight, we're coming back, we'll continue after this.
Don't go away.
So Colbert King of the Washington Post, I had it wrong.
He's not, he's not saying that people don't believe it because they've destroyed my credibility.
He's he said people don't believe it because everybody knows I lie.
That's everybody knows I lied.
Now, all I was doing was telling people what Obama himself said.
Obama himself said on the 1998 tape, redistribution.
That's what I believe in.
That's how we make people rich.
That's how we make people well.
That's how we have a solid society.
Redistribution of wealth.
Which, of course, you can only do one time.
The key to this, of course, there are many keys to it.
But you can only take significant amounts of money from people one time.
After that, they're not going to have any more money for you to take.
The old argument you could confiscate every dollar of income over $250,000.
Tax it, confiscate it.
Just take it, every dollar over $250,000 of income from everybody who earns it.
You could run the government for less than a month if that, but you can only do it one time.
You think people are going to work to earn that kind of money if it's just going to be taken from them every year?
The same quote.
Would somebody who manufactures a product continue to manufacture it if they broke even?
If that's all that happened, they broke even.
Why do it?
Because you love Mr. Limbaugh, you love your job and your product, and it's a wonderful thing and product you're providing for the American people.
Yeah, but there's no point in it.
You can't live if you're breaking even.
Well, but there's a service, Mr. Limbaugh to the people.
There's no reason why people should profit in this country.
It's the voice of the new Castrada, you know.
It's basically a Mr. Limbaugh in medicine.
There's no reason that doctors should profit treating the thick.
Right.
That's coming, by the way.
I want you to keep a sharp eye for that one.
That'll be if Obama wins re-election, that's going to be one of the things that'll become oft used in the advancement of Obamacare.
The lower costs, which they're going to have to do.
Well, why should the doctors make a lot of money?
Why?
Who said that?
That's that seems unfair, immoral, unjust.
But you can only do it one time.
You can only take what people have one time, and then you're finished.
And that's just one of many reasons, but it's near the top why redistribution doesn't work.
Then nothing to redistribute after you do it the first time.
But the left doesn't really know they they think people are going to continue to work.
At the rich, somebody is rich.
They're just there.
They don't see the process people went through to get rich.
They don't see the hard work, they don't see the failure, they just see the trappings, the outcome, the result.
Anyway, Colby King saying, now the reason, the reason why people don't care that Obama talked about redistributing wealth is because Limbaugh's the guy's and limball lies.
Okay, really what all I did was repeat Obama's own words.
Does that mean that all I have to do to give Obama cut if if I quote Obama in saying the most damaging thing, all I have to do is be the one to spread the word and Obama gets a pass because I'm the one doing the criticizing.
That's what Colbert King wants you to believe.
That's what he does believe.
Twenty-four years of these assaults and taxes and so forth, and that's where it's ended up.
That's how they erase it as a factor in their minds, and they're gonna be shocked on election day.
I'm just telling you.
By the way, 1998 tape.
Where is it now?
Uh it's gone.
Oh.
1998 tape.
Obama also talked about gun control in that tape.
Want to hear this?
I don't have it, but I can I get the transcript here.
He said, 1990 state senator, the vast majority of Americans would like to see serious gun control.
1998.
He was wrong, but that's what he said.
Vast majority of Americans would like to see serious gun control.
It doesn't pass.
Why does it not pass?
It doesn't pass because there's this huge disconnect between the people, what the people think, and what legislators think and are willing to act upon.
So he's 1998, he believes the majority country wants gun control, but elected Officials don't because they're under the thumb of the NRA is his unstated point.
Now remember, at this point in time in 1998, Obama's a brilliant constitutional scholar.
He was teaching, scary thought, teaching the Constitution at the University of Chicago Law School.
This is the exact kind of thinking that was behind Fast and Furious, which was all about closing this huge disconnect between what people think and what legislators like him think.
And by the way, I just that this is 98 tape is a gold mine, and it's the same Obama, and it's the same guy.
And it's out there.
And of course, it's small.
It doesn't really matter.
So long ago, Limbaugh's the one talking about.
No, no, Obama's the one talking about, we're just passing along his words.
My point is it's all out there for people to learn.
It's all out there for people to understand and learn from about just who Obama is.
On the cutting edge, L Rushball, brand new week of broadcast excellence.
Here we are behind the golden EIV microphone.
So let's go back to 1998 tape for just a second.
1998 tape, Obama sees welfare recipients.
We just played you the tape.
Keep that standing by, by the way.
Can see myself used.
It's hard to hear.
Well, at least it was for me.
Was that low volume to you two mic, or is it just me and my It just old?
All right.
Well, I could barely hear Obama on it.
Was it is it loud enough for the audience to hear is what I'm asking you.
Okay.
Um that tape, Obama sees welfare recipients as a majority coalition.
And now we have record numbers of people on food stamps.
Coincidence.
And we have record, well, not record unemployment, but we've got we've got a government growing bigger and more in debt with more dependent people all over the place than Obama in 1998 said that's how he wants to build a winning coalition.
Coincidence.
And furthermore, on the 1998 tape, there's Obama talking for widespread gun control.
And we got fast and furious.
Coincidence?
No, it isn't a coincidence, folks.
This is who the guy is.
It's it's out there.
This is what's frustrating.
It's out there.
Whether the media tells people or not, okay, I can't control that.
It's out there for people to know.
Vince in Medina, Ohio.
I hope it's Medina, not Medina.
Welcome to the program, sir.
Rush.
Pleasure to uh meet you.
Pleasure to listen to you every day.
Thank you.
A little bit nervous.
Um I just want to say that at the beginning of your hour you talked about how they call you a liar.
Well, the fact of the matter is they don't like you because you're telling the truth, and then quite frankly, they hate you.
That's that's what it's all about.
They hate you because you're right.
And that's basically what I have to say.
Well, they sound nervous.
No, no, you don't sound nervous at all.
You sound forceful, confident.
Beautiful.
Yeah, you sound uh sound fabulous out there.
This is cool.
This is really cool.
Well, I no, you really were worried about sounding nervous?
Yes.
No, no, not at all.
Honestly, I wouldn't, I wouldn't lie to you about that.
Maybe other things, but not that.
Excellent.
Um, so you think that what they're just afraid.
Here I am.
I'm I'm it's it but it's more than just I'm right, if I may, if I might chime in now on this.
Absolutely.
See, truth is the new hate speech.
Yes.
Truth is a new hate speech.
And but but I could be right all day long, and if I had no effectiveness with it, they wouldn't worry.
I think it's the fact that I do have credibility with millions of people, is what bugs them.
I absolutely believe that wholeheartedly.
And uh I thank you for making the call and and and pointing this out.
I really do.
Vince, you did great.
You didn't sound nervous at all.
I define anybody to say that Vince sounded nervous.
Uh Grab Audio Songbite number three.
I'm confused.
Rachel, do you remember David Brooks?
He's a columnist for New York Times, and he said, after meeting with Obama uh once, I think before the election in 08.
He's the guy who said that he was dazzled by the crease in Obama's slacks.
And because of the crease in Obama slacks, he knew that Obama was going to be president.
And furthermore, that he was going to be a good one.
Okay, well, Brooks was on Meet the Press Sunday.
By this show fell apart.
You know, everything's replaced.
We had a replacement refs and we got replacement news.
I kind of look at myself as replacement news.
Replacement media.
Except I know what I'm doing.
I talked, I really have to tell you.
You know, I I love the National Football League.
Something about it is different this year.
I can't tell you why.
Well, no, it's it's it's all the the politic politically correct stuff that's now seeped into it.
I I know where this is all headed, as I've told you.
But I I just laughing my out loud last night, listening to Chris Collinsworth go on and on and on about these refs.
I just love and I love getting up every day and reading the sports media, which they're just as liberal as their news media brethren.
Listening to them write, moan, complain about the replacement riffs and the integrity of the game, and I just said, well, this is this is the kind of culture you'd get across the country if your ideas prevail.
You get incompetence at the top of everything on the basis that we don't have the ability to judge people.
And you guys promise equality of outcome.
How are you going to have equality of outcome if you don't make sure that people not good at something get to be called or get to be selected to do something at the highest level?
That's what liberalism is all about.
It's promoting incompetence on the basis it's fair.
Because people would be the best if they weren't discriminated against.
Okay, so finally, we have some guys who've never refereed in the NFL before, and they're getting a shot at it, and that's what Obama's talking about.
Everybody deserves their fair shot.
And so they're out there doing it, and everybody hates because they're dragging down the quality of the game.
Well, what I love liber when they get what they want, when they get what they want across our culture, then they start wringing their hands and say, what do they want?
Was it in it they want them gone.
They want these guys gone.
They want these guys tarred and feathered.
They want these guys put in jail, euphemistically.
They hate these guys.
They hate Goodell for letting this happen.
They hate it.
You know, I I just the the the left is so predictably predictably, what's the word, um, inconsistent.
Throughout our what do we have?
We have affirmative action, we have all kinds of politically correct programs to elevate people that can't do so.
What look at how we relaxed the requirements to be a fireman.
Because some people couldn't pass the requirements.
Well, that's not fair.
Well, what's the difference here?
These guys maybe in the real world couldn't qualify to be NFL refs, so let's lower the standards and put them in there.
It's called fairness.
It's called being nice to people.
And then when they get in there and prove they can't do it, well, who jumps on them?
They're number one champions philosophically.
I just love it.
I think it's a great, great, great illustration.
So when I see these guys just going nuts, I laugh.
I got I get so much enjoyability, uh enjoyment, enjoyment out of it.
It's hard for me to quantify and describe.
No, I've not lost my place.
Here's David Brooks audio.
Gotta hear this is the the the crease in the pants guy.
I where did he say this?
Meet the press.
Yeah, meet the press yesterday.
Mitt Romney does not have the passion for the stuff he's talking about.
He's a problem solver.
I think he's a non-ideological person running in an extremely ideological age, and he's faking it.
Okay.
Now Romney, he's a non-ideological person running in an extremely ideological age, and he's faking it.
We're in an ideological age.
I thought, See, this is why I'm confused.
Because I thought that the GOP establishment, and Brooks would be part of it.
I thought the GOP establishment had been telling us that we can't be ideological.
We can't because we're ideological.
We won't get the independence.
The independents don't like ideology.
If independents don't like conservative and liberal, that's why they're independents.
We're in an ideological age, and Romney can't do it.
Isn't that why?
You told us he'd be the best nominee.
Am I wrong?
Am I missing something here?
Isn't that why Brooks and others told us we had to nominate Romney because precise because he wasn't ideological, and that would be necessary to get the independence and win the Senate and so forth?
And now it's an ideological age.
Yes, it is.
It's an ideological, highly opinionated age.
And look, folks, and I'm not doing purposeful see I told you so things here.
I'm just reminding you, you've heard how many times have I wished that everybody looked at things ideologically?
That's how Obama would properly be understood.
And I'll give Brooks one thing.
If Romney would go ideological in explaining Obama, it would help.
We've got to stop this.
He's a nice guy stuff.
Nice guys don't do what Obama is doing.
and Nice guys don't say and do and act the way Obama is saying, doing and acting.
Of course it's ideological.
It always has been ideological.
What is the left, if nothing but strident ideology?
But it's these guys like Brooks who were telling us all during the primaries and in the days leading up to it that we shouldn't succumb to the temptation.
Era of Reagan was over.
What's the era of Reagan conservatism?
We can't do that.
The independents don't like that.
Now all of a sudden.
Now all of a sudden, Romney can't pull it off.
Well, isn't that why you told us he's the best guy?
That's why he can win, in fact, isn't that what we were told?
Look at folks, the replacement refs in the NFL.
Isn't all that matters isn't they they look like America.
There's diversity out there.
We've got black replacement refs, they got white replacement.
We got old replacement refs, got skinny ones, fat ones, young ones.
We've even got a babe out there as a replacement ref.
They look like America.
That's it.
Diversity.
It doesn't matter whether they can do the job or not.
Well, it's what the left keeps telling us when it comes to electing people to office.
We need a Supreme Court that looks like America.
Well, we've got the NFL replacement refs, they look like America.
We even got, we've got diversity as our strength.
We get some Hispanics out there.
I don't know that I've seen any Asians, but that's coming.
I mean, affirmative action, that's for it's okay for firemen and presidents and so forth, but apparently it's not okay for NFL replacement refs.
Oh, yes.
By the way, here's Brooks.
I want to go back, David.
We just play the quote for his name.
It's ideological out there.
Romney's not ideological and he's faking it.
Here's Brooks writing in October of 2011, a year ago.
The central problem is, admit Romney doesn't fit the mold of what many Republicans want in a presidential candidate.
They don't want organization man.
They want Braveheart.
The question is, are they right to want Braveheart?
Well, if they want an in-your-face media campaign, it'll produce delicious thrills for the true believer.
If you want an ideological conservative, guess what he thinks of us, then they're absolutely right.
But if they actually want to elect an effective executive who is right for this moment, they are probably not right.
So a year ago, Brooks was writing in support of the Romney that we have right now.
A year later, Brooks writes of his unhappiness With the Romney that we have right now.
If I were Romney, I'd tell these guys.
Well, Romney camp can do what they want.
Here's Obama on gun control, that 1998 tape.
I just want to play it for you because Colbert King says, when I say it, you don't believe it.
So here's Obama himself saying it, October 19, 1998, Loyola University.
The vast majority of Americans would like to see serious gun control.
It does not pass.
Why does it not pass him?
Doesn't pass because there is this huge disconnect between what people think and what legislators think and are willing to act upon.
So in Obama's world, the American people wanted gun control, but elected officials didn't, and that's why we didn't have it.
It's the other way around.
Every president, every Democrat, president, Democrat, Senator, Democrat, House of Representatives, member, they've all wanted gun control.
It's the people that don't want it and never have.
Not the kind of gun control these guys are talking about.
Anyway, that's Obama.
He said it.
Not I. Here is Ned in upstate New York.
Ned, glad that you called.
Great to have you on the program.
Hello.
Hey Rush, am I coming in okay?
Yeah, you're coming in fine.
Well, I was getting in the shower this morning and uh I dropped my phone in the toilet, so I'm amazed that I got through and that you can hear me, so you using the phone that you dropped in the toilet?
Yes, I am.
I dried it off.
What kind of phone is that?
It's uh droid, like a droid X. I've getting uh I'm getting a new iPhone V in two days when my contract's up.
Oh, you're getting an you're getting a five, eh?
Yeah, yeah, yeah.
Well, you know, that's another thing.
The tech media is going bonkers over the iPhone V. What have you heard about the iPhone V?
You know, it's the next phone to get, you know, not much more than that.
Okay.
I'm not sway messy by.
I just need a new phone.
But hey, Rush, I want to steer the uh conversation back to uh polls, and and there are four words we need to stop paying attention to, and that's real clear politics averages.
Let me tell you why.
I spent twenty years in the pharmaceutical industry.
Okay, so you'd go into a doctor's office and you would present a a clinical trial to uh a physician.
And that's in that clinical trial at the end of that study, what the doctor paid attention to was did that study conclude with a with a statistically significant result.
And even and even within that clinical trial, uh a smart doctor can go through and go, well, you know, you had a higher starting baseline here.
This had too many uh patient population that doesn't reflect mine.
Um this is too many old people, too many women.
So even within a statistically significant trial, okay, a physician could find you know fault with how you arrived at that statistically significant conclusion.
And you were never allowed, even if you took uh a body of of data over the course of the lifetime of a drug and went in and said, here's four clinical trials.
Even if they themselves were all statistically clinically significant, you were never allowed to kind of put that in a basket and arrive at some you know random aggregate number that showed your drug in a positive light.
And subsequently now.
Is that because is that because these polls are they're they're they're taken in different ways.
Um each poll in and of itself is utterly flawed, right?
So each poll is flawed.
You've got likely voters and you've got registered voters.
You've got oversampling of Democrats, you've got undersampling of Republicans, you've got older people that are home by a phone, and you got oversampling of uh um sometimes you know y younger people.
Uh it's it's a completely utterly flawed process.
I have an entire not an entire segment, not probably with my talent, I could probably make it a whole segment.
I got a couple things here about polls that I'm gonna get to in the monologue segment of the next hour, which for those of you in real lend is the first one.
And uh uh it it's pretty much it's gonna confirm what you're saying.
I don't pay attention to the in fact uh the real clear politics average is a Bible.
He's right for junkies, and nothing against them.
I just hear when I get in the for example, Jim Messina, who is the Obama campaign manager.
Get this.
Jim Messina, over the weekend, said, forget these polls that show Obama and Romney tied.
Forget those.
We are winning.
Forget 'em.
Something's happening out there.
Forget the polls that show this race tide.
We're winning.
Anyway, he's got a point, and I'll explain why when we get back.
Well, looks uh it looks like uh Obama has quietly canceled his meeting with Egypt's new Islamist supremacist president, Mr. Morsi.
So he's not gonna meet with Netanyahu.
Or Morsi.
He is going to speak to the UN.
But he's gonna go over and have a chat with Whoopi and Baba Wawa and whoever else there on the view.
That's just what Kim Kardashian would do.
▲
Export Selection