All Episodes
Previous Next
Oct. 8, 2012 - Rush Limbaugh Program
33:34
October 8, 2012, Monday, Hour #3
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
And have my brain tied behind my back.
As always, we do that to make it fair.
Rush Limbaugh, the all-knowing, all-caring, all-sensing, all-empathizing, all-sympathizing, all-feeling, all everything.
Maha-Rushi.
And we are here at the distinguished and prestigious Limbaugh Institute for Advanced Conservative Studies.
A little prelude on the unemployment numbers segment coming up in just a few moments.
The Gallup poll, which the Gallup people, by the way, which is again being sued by the regime.
Gallup, I'm not kidding.
David Axelrod asked Holder at the DOJ to look into Gallup when they published some polling results.
They didn't like, I'm not making that up.
So Gallup is under investigation by the regime.
The chief economist at Gallup is saying that Obama's job numbers look like they have been cooked.
The number last week, the 7.8%, Gallup's guy under investigation by the regime.
Jack Welch thought the numbers have been cooked.
I thought the numbers have been cooked.
A number of distinguished conservative thinkers in the Beltway cautioned all of us, don't go there.
Don't get into this conspiracy on the regime cooking the numbers.
It's a statistical anomaly.
Well, whatever.
It's still, when you boil it all down, what we're being told is that 7.8, 7.9, 8.1, 8.2, it's a new normal, right?
Whatever.
The bottom line is, I don't want to settle for an unemployment number 7.8%, folks.
And we're being told to settle.
That's good news.
It isn't good news.
8.2 is not good news either.
The U6 number, 14.7, that's the total unemployment number of people who are looking and who've given up looking for work.
And that's the real number, 14.7.
And it's obviously probably higher than that.
But the cost is in real human terms.
These numbers are just statistics.
They represent real human lives severely damaged.
And I resent deeply this notion that we're to be pleased with 7.8%.
But Mithrilimba represents a positive trend.
It does not represent a positive trend.
It represents a new normal, a new country where we're not expected to do any better than that.
We're being told to re-elect Obama on this basis.
Why?
Is this as good as it gets then?
And there's a reason for this.
There's a reason why this country is being asked to accept a bunch of new normals that are morally depraved, culturally deficient.
And there's a reason for this.
I used to believe that the election of George W. Bush represented the rebuke of Clintonism.
And by Clintonism, I mean everything that came along with Bill Clinton.
Lying is now good for you.
It's okay to be convicted.
Well, it's okay to be found to be lying under oath.
It's okay to have sex in the Oval Office as long as it didn't affect your job.
It was basically okay to be as depraved and morally deficient as Bill Clinton was.
I thought the election of George W. Bush was an official rebuke.
The country was rebuking that.
And finally saying enough is enough.
I remember I was invited to have dinner with some baseball people at the White House a month or so after Bush had been elected.
And I let a toast expressing appreciation for the fact that the White House and the Oval Office were now in much better hands, morally and spiritually, in any number of ways.
And all the baseball people agreed with me.
They all said, I agree with what he said, which I'm used to.
But I don't think we've rebuked it now.
I think I was wrong.
I think the eight years of George W. Bush were just an interval.
If Obama and the Democrats and the media succeed in redefining current economic circumstances as the new norm, I believe we can trace this acceptance, this lowering of standards right back to Bill Clinton.
And I'm speaking both politically and morally as it relates to the culture of our society and the political nature of our society.
Bill Clinton was the architect of the acceptance of moral failure and decline at the upper levels of leadership in our country.
Sex in the Oval Office with an intern that basically ruined that girl's life.
All the Kathleen Willies and the Walleen Broadwicks, I mean, the women are legion.
And we were told, no big deal, none of our business.
Newsweek spiked Lewinsky's story.
Stop and think, what was going on in the Oval Office?
I remember that night with the baseball guys and their wives, dinner at the White House, Bush gave everybody a tour, and we get to the Oval Office.
Everybody wanted to see where the Lewinsky stuff happened, which kind of ticked me off.
I mean, I can understand it.
But of all the things that have gone on in the Oval Office, historically, to want to see where Clinton and Lewinsky did the deeds, it kind of ticked me off, if I can be honest with you about it.
Not at the people, just at the situation.
It was a natural thing to be curious about.
They didn't ask Bush.
They asked Nicholas, where do you think it was?
Where's the study?
Mr. President, where is the study off of the Oval Office?
Because they all knew that's where it happened, so Bush would show them.
Nobody said Clinton's name.
Everybody knew what was going on.
I'm sitting there, you realize the really historical stuff.
Bill Clinton used to show up here all sweaty from a jog in his t-shirt and jogging shorts.
Ronald Reagan would never even take his jacket off in the Oval Office.
And nobody could deny that we've had declining standards, morally and culturally.
And every adult generation thinks that.
But at the highest levels of leadership, it's a relatively new thing.
This kind.
So I believe just as Clinton is the architect of the acceptance of moral failure and decline at the upper levels of leadership, so is Barack Obama the architect of acceptance of moral failure and decline within the culture at large, including our economy.
The triumph of morons who just accept the current economy as it's the new norm.
That's just what it is.
Maybe they're too young to remember it even any better.
Maybe they've got hero worship or idolatry of Obama, the celebrity of the United States rather than president.
And since he's so cool, that whatever happens is thus cool.
But it isn't cool.
7.8% unemployment, not cool.
14.7% total unemployment, not cool.
47% of the country on food stamps, not cool.
$4, $5 a gallon gasoline, not cool.
Our ambassador in Libya is dead.
Uncool.
There's nothing that has happened these last four years under Obama's tutelage that's cool.
But it is.
Many people just accept it.
It's the new norm.
Accompanying all of this is a suspicion.
This is the real troubling thing.
While we have 47% on food stamps, and while we have 14.7% unemployed, 25 million or whatever, while the universe of jobs has shrunk, while there is no economic growth, while we're going in debt like mad, we are sentencing children and grandchildren to lives of servitude based on the tax rates they're going to have to face in order to deal with this debt, the entitlement miss.
It's an absolute disaster that Obama has wrought.
And in the midst of all this, the people we now suspect are those who've achieved.
Those people of success and achievement and accomplishment.
People in those categories, in those groups, now represent what's considered threatening.
They're now the targets of our society, not the people responsible for the moral failing, not the people responsible for the lowering of standards, both in the new norm economically, the unemployment number, and culturally as well.
But if you succeed, if you have a good income, if you are improving your quality of life and your family, you have become what is threatening in our society.
And you are the one that has to be dealt with.
You somehow have to be gotten even with.
You are the one as a target on your back.
You are the one.
You're not paying your fair share.
You're not carrying your full weight.
You're not doing what's expected of you.
It's upside down.
So while we accept, or some, not all, but while there is a general acceptance among the moron class for all of this deviancy and economic activity defined down, there's now a suspicion of accomplished, educated, achieved people.
And they somehow represent what's wrong with America.
People like Mitt Romney, for example, Paul Ryan, they are told, we're told that they represent what's wrong.
And I think all this is traceable to Bill Clinton and the acceptance of the new norms that we were told were the new norms during his administration.
I actually believe, and I've thought about this, I was reflecting on this over the weekend.
I actually think Bill Clinton himself has been more damaging to our country than Watergate was.
Watergate considered the scandal of all scandals.
I think Clinton's eight years.
And I'm not talking about just policy or issues.
I'm just the overall decline in what was expected of leaders, the overall decline in the requirement that we had of people leaving us that they be better people than average, smarter, morally rock-solid, as much as anybody can be.
I mean, everybody fails.
If it were to happen today, just to illustrate, if Watergate were to happen today and it was a Democrat president, it'd be accepted.
It would be, in fact, maybe praised as a brilliant political move in winning the election because that's all anything is about is the re-election of a Democrat.
So if a Democrat today perpetrated a Watergate, or worse, it'd be accepted.
And anybody who criticized it or raised questions about it would be considered to be a troublemaker or a rabble-rouser or an extreme right-winger or what have you.
And all because of the permitted and accepted rehabilitation of Bill Clinton to the status he now holds, all the stuff that he did has been forgotten, thrown away, or not kept properly in context.
And it just, you know, I just hate hearing it.
I'm offended to no end at 7.8% unemployment is the new norm and that that's something that somebody deserves to be re-elected for.
Yeah, because it's way down from 8.9 or whatever.
Oh, yeah, nothing's any better.
And everybody knows the job situation is any better.
Everybody knows that people are not advancing in their careers.
Everybody knows that if there are jobs being created, they're part-time.
Everybody knows this is an absolute mess.
And yet we're being told for the pure sake of re-electing a Democrat that this is the new norm.
In other words, get used to it.
And it's much easier to get used to it if we've been told previously, just accept that we're going to have leaders getting Lewinsky is in the Oval Office.
It's not a big deal when a Democrat does it.
We got a scandal out there right now for the second election in a row, the Obama campaign soliciting campaign donations from foreigners under $200 so they don't have to be reported.
Watergate every day is the new norm with your average Democrat administration.
And anybody who wants to call attention to it, just a rabble-rousing troublemaker.
Do you remember that we had a soundbite from a woman in Cleveland last week who was there protesting a Romney?
She'd end up being paid.
Do you remember this woman?
You got Obama phone?
Yes, everybody in Cleveland, no minority, got Obama phone.
Keep Obama, president, you know?
He gave us a phone.
He gave you a phone.
How'd he give you a phone?
You sign up if you're a full step.
You want Social Security.
You got low income.
You disability.
Okay, what's wrong with Romney again?
Romney, he sucks.
I have a story here from the Washington Free Beacon dated today.
A wireless company profiting from the Obama phone giveaway program is run by a prominent Democrat donor whose wife has raised more than $1.5 million for Obama since 2007.
One of the major providers of the free cell phones, 3.8 million subscribers as of late 2011, is Miami-based TrackPhone Wireless, a company whose president and CEO, Frederick F.J. Pollock, has donated at least $156,500,500 to Democrat candidates this cycle, including at least $50,000 to Obama.
His wife, Abigail Pollock, campaign bundler for Obama, who has raised more than $632,000 for this presidential cycle and more than $1.5 million since 2007.
And she has personally contributed more than 200,000 to Democrat candidates and committees since 2008.
And they hosted the Pollocks hosted Obama, their Miami Beach home in June, $40,000 per plate.
Hosted a similar event with Moochell in July of 2008.
So the Obama phone program is administered and being profited by an Obama donor and his wife.
Be right back.
Don't go away.
Here's that story from the Gallup Chief Economist.
Friday's labor report: 7.8% unemployment seemed to surprise everybody.
The problem is that even though the household survey tends to be volatile, this decline seems to lack validity, particularly after the month or the prior month's numbers.
Gallup is questioning the 7.8% unemployment number.
And even if you don't question it, even if you don't want to go there, you don't have to accept it.
It's not acceptable.
We don't have to settle for this.
This should not be the new norm.
I want the old American norm back.
Welcome back, El Rushbo Talent on loan from God.
Last summer, I told you about a couple of guys from Colorado who predict every presidential election based only on economic activity, and they have not been wrong since 1980, I believe.
And these two guys this past summer were predicting Mitt Romney to win and win big.
Well, these two guys are back.
An update to an election forecasting model announced by two University of Colorado professors continues to project that Mitt Romney will win in November.
According to their updated analysis, Romney will now get 330 electoral votes.
Obama will get 208.
That's down five from their initial prediction.
They had Romney at 325 and Obama 213.
Well, these guys haven't been investigated yet.
They're academics.
The new forecast by political science professors Kenneth Bickers of CU Boulder, Michael Berry of CU Denver, based on more recent economic data than their prediction back in August.
The model didn't change, just the data in the model.
And so they've added five electoral votes to Romney, now a total of 330.
And these guys have not been wrong since 1980.
They've been using their models since 1980.
They haven't been wrong.
Now, you can look at that one of two ways.
Either they're not going to be wrong or it's time for them to be wrong.
So don't, I'm just passing it off as something interesting to talk about, but it is scientific.
F. Chuck Todd, audio somebody six and seven here, Mike, as I'm changing the order on the fly.
F. Chuck Todd, NBC News.
Republican enthusiasm is a huge problem for Democrats.
This is during the Meet the Press roundtable yesterday.
Seniors are an important voting group to Mitt Romney now.
He leads them by about 10 points in our NBC Wall Street Journal poll.
Look at this in engagement in the election.
Four years ago was 81%, pretty high, even higher this time at 87%.
And Romney's doing better among seniors than McCain did.
Let me go to an important voting group for the president.
Young voters, look at this engagement level.
52% now that call themselves, of voters 18 to 34, call themselves extremely interested in this election.
Four years ago, it was 72%.
That 20-point gap.
The president wins young voters by huge margins.
He's winning them by some 20-plus points.
But if you don't have this kind of enthusiasm, they're not going to show up to the polls.
Right.
So he continued on that.
This is, I think, the most important one, and that's Hispanics.
The president's winning Hispanics by 50 points.
He hit the 70% mark.
However, look at this in terms of interest in the election.
59% now, it was 77%.
What does that mean?
President got 65%, I believe, of Hispanics four years ago.
So even though he's going to get more Hispanics, if less of them turn out, it's a net zero.
And yet you look at Republican enthusiasm up, senior enthusiasm up.
It's a huge problem.
And by the way, all of this?
Pre-debate.
Yes, yes.
So Obama still leads in these corrupt polls by these overwhelming majorities in these special interest groups, but the enthusiasm gap is huge.
He may lead in them, but if they don't show up, if they're not energized, they're starting to see a different picture now.
The magic of October, the desire to be right on Election Day.
And there's no question.
And the latest Gallup registered voters pre-debate.
Romney up 16 points in independence.
A Princeton economist says that the Obama campaign is misrepresenting his study on Romney's tax plan.
He has studied Romney's tax plan.
He says it'll work.
A Princeton prof says Romney's tax plan will work.
The regime's out misrepresenting his analysis.
In other words, they're lying.
Speaking of which, Paul Krugman was finally put in his place on ABC yesterday by Mary Madeline.
A lot of people don't understand Paul Krugman's appeal to the extreme left.
And I have to explain it to them.
Krugman is the Bible to the extreme left.
He's a Nobel Prize winner.
He's a New York Times columnist.
That is 85% of it.
He's in the New York Times.
That's all you need.
Thomas Friedman is a glittering jewel of colossal ignorance.
Thomas Friedman is out there saying, we need to be more like China.
We need to be more like China.
China's really, he's actually got a piece.
China is aggressively, properly cutting down.
They're cutting down on the size of homes people can build.
And China's going great guns into solar.
China's losing their rear end in solar because there have been so many solar panels manufactured, there's not a market for them.
They're losing their shirts on solar in China just as everybody is here.
And still Thomas Friedman's out touting this stuff.
And he's saying the Chikom government's doing the right thing by telling people they can't build big houses.
You ought to see a picture of the house that Thomas Friedman lives in.
This thing may be 30,000 square feet.
His swimming pool is bigger than your living room and master bedroom combined.
It's his wife's money.
But it doesn't matter.
He's still living in the house.
So, Tim, here's Thomas L. Friedman.
I don't know what he's talking about half time, but he's in the New York Times, and that's all it takes.
He's brilliant.
Friends of mine done at golf buddies.
Tom Friedman comes to town to go to some Square Arts luncheon.
They can't wait to get there, Thomas L. Friedman.
He's an idiot.
I said, what are you going to think?
I don't know what he's talking about.
It's the New York Times.
Yeah, that's even worse.
Well, Krugman is the same.
Paul Krugman, the ferret-like Paul Krugman, these leftists love Krugman because he is them.
He is a mad.
And I'm talking about sanity.
Mad, extreme, angry, lying leftist who makes it up that because his venom is directed at conservatives and Republicans, he is loved and adored.
So yesterday he was on this week during the roundtable.
George Stephanopoulos has got George Will on there and Mary Madeline, I think, is there.
I don't know if George Will was there yesterday or not, but Mary Madeline was and Carville was there.
And they're having a discussion about the presidential debate.
And Stephanopoulos said, this is a brand new format.
Jim Lara said he basically wanted to get out of the way.
He says, I guess, a lot of critics that he was effective in getting out of the way.
And this is Paul Krugman.
I don't know whether to blame Lara or to blame the president, but it was kind of amazing because Romney was not only saying things that are not true, he was saying things that his own campaign had previously said were true.
The one that got me was not the stuff about taxes, but the thing about covering people with preexisting conditions, which his plan does not, which he has said that before, and his campaign has walked it back in the past.
And there he was, right again, saying, well, my plan covers people with pre-existing conditions, which is displaying a kind of contempt.
So you think it's modernary's job to call him out of the country?
No, I'm not sure whose job it is, but it is, you know, but there's contempt for the whole process.
It just doesn't know how to handle untruths.
So the press doesn't know how to handle Romney's lies.
Obama didn't know how to handle Romney's lies.
These guys are lying through their teeth, and the press doesn't know how to handle it.
Can you believe this?
So the little bedwetters at the Democrat Underground and so, they just cream over this.
They just love Krugman.
They just love this guy, and he's a classic.
He's a Nobel Prize winner.
He's an economist.
He's a no-nothing.
He's a pure partisan, which is fine and okay, but he's never right.
Paul Krugman economics would end this country.
He thinks we're not spending enough, for example.
Government isn't big enough yet.
That's where Obama's blown it.
So anyway, he continued on here, and Mary Madeline couldn't take it anymore.
When you say my plan covers preexisting conditions when it doesn't, and when your own campaign has admitted in the past that it doesn't, what do you say?
That's amazing.
You have mischaracterized, and you have lied about every position in every particular of the Ryan plan on Medicare, from the efficiency of Medicare administration to calling it a voucher plan.
So you're hardly credible on calling somebody else a liar.
Somebody finally took it to Krugman.
They are.
They're out calling Ryan's Medicare plan a voucher plan.
Obama did it in the debate.
It isn't.
If you're 55 and older, you can stay on Medicare as it is.
If you're younger than 55 and we reform the program, you're going to have the option to stay in Medicare as it is.
Nobody is ever done going to be forcing you into a voucher.
The Obama administration is going to be forcing you into government-run health care if you're not careful.
But Ryan's not going to force you into anything.
You'd be a fool not to take the voucher option, but that's for another day.
The voucher option is the fix.
But if you're 55 or older, you don't have to do it, and Krugman's lying through his teeth about it, as is Obama.
And Mary Madeline called him on it.
And again, he's not used to being calling.
Nobody ever.
Paul Krugman, he's the world's second most authority, Obama being first.
Now, Friedman thinks he's smarter than both of them.
I mean, it's just an absolute joke.
So we'll be back here today.
I better get back to the phones here.
I just noticed this.
Ashley in Marshall, Minnesota.
I'm glad you waited.
Great to have you on the program.
Hi.
Hi.
Thank you for having me.
I am a newly Republican voter, and I seem to be surrounded by a lot of Democrats, including my parents and my fiancé.
Yeah.
And I have tried to tell them, you know, the different things, you know, that I hear on your show, and they just seem to be stuck in their ways.
And I'm just wondering if there is something that you can tell me that I can say to them.
Well, there might not be a magic bullet.
You're talking about family.
That's very tough because it can disintegrate real fast into very hurtful arguments, you know, politics, religion, this kind of thing.
Your fiancé and your parents are both committed to Obama.
Do you, when you talk to them, do you think they know why they're voting for Obama?
Or are they just doing it out of party loyalty?
Or are they doing it because, for example, they think Obama cares about people and Romney doesn't?
What's the reason that they like Obama?
I don't know.
They don't really say.
I think they don't even know.
Here's what you could try.
I'm not, you know, I don't really like busting up families.
And this can do it if you're not careful.
But I wouldn't tell them what you hear anybody else say because that's an opening for them to say, well, they're a liar or they don't.
Or they can say, well, don't you tell me what you think.
I think you need to do it from a standpoint of offense.
And an example would be to say, look, if you like 47 million Americans on food stamps and climbing, and if you want to pay higher taxes, and if you want health premiums going up, if you want the new norm being 25 million people out of work, go ahead.
Make my day.
Go ahead and vote for Obama.
If you like the country as it is and its path that it's on, by all means, go ahead and vote for him.
Then you said, I just don't like the direction.
I can't support this.
This is not the kind of country I want to live in.
Is there something I can say because they're farmers, so they work for themselves?
They're farmers.
Yeah.
That means that they probably think that do they get subsidies from the government?
Are they paid, for example, not to grow certain things?
Do they get assistance from the government somehow?
Yeah.
They do?
Okay, then they think that'll end if a Republican is elected.
You should ask him, do you think the country deserves four more years of this?
What has the country done to deserve it?
And you can tell them, you can look at energy prices.
Look at the gas price, diesel.
The costs are skyrocketing.
Ask them, is that your future?
Endless increases in fuel prices and so forth, the cost of doing business.
And if they hit you with the notion, well, Republicans don't care, and they're going to take away what we've got, ask them to explain to you where that's written, where they saw that.
But I just put it in the context of the country as opposed to them individually.
Most people vote self-interest, and if they think the Democrats are giving them things, you're going to have a tough time talking them out of it.
Okay.
What have you tried that hasn't worked?
I'm just, you know, just giving them facts about.
Yeah, no, no, no.
They're not dealing with facts.
They're dealing with emotion.
You're going to have to find a way to make them think their feelings are wrong, that they're investing their feelings in the incorrect way.
I'd guilt trip them.
Ashley, I just make them feel guilty.
You guys, you want to participate in the downward spiral of the country?
You want it to continue to get worse like this?
Go ahead and vote for it.
Fine.
And then walk out and be happy about it.
Be happy.
You are saving the country.
If they want to help destroy it, by all means, you know you can't stop them.
But don't take it any further, Ned.
They might not let you back in the house.
Your fiancé might take drastic action.
You never know.
Anyway, I appreciate the call.
I really do, Ashley.
I wish I had more time to discuss this in detail.
Maybe get her phone number.
Get her phone number.
We'll think about this because I need to get more specifics from her on the real reason that her fiancé and they're farmers, but I want to know what that specifically means.
Obama has congratulated Hugo Chavez on his re-election.
I think Obama probably now relieved that Axelrod could come back and concentrate fully on his campaign now that they got Chavez back in office.
I hope you have a great night tonight, folks.
▲
Export Selection