All Episodes
Previous Next
Oct. 25, 2012 - Rush Limbaugh Program
36:36
October 25, 2012, Thursday, Hour #1
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Welcome to today's edition of the Rush 24-7 podcast.
And greetings to you, thrill seekers, music lovers, conversationalists all across the fruited plane.
Great to have you here as the fastest week in media, motors ride on.
I mean, here we are already at Thursday, and it only seems like Wednesday night to me.
But we're nevertheless here.
Happy to have you along.
Telephone number 800-282-2882 and the email address, LRushbo at EIBnet.com.
I can actually pour a cup of coffee now without having to waste a bunch of time opening the equal packets to put in there.
Productivity gains.
This is going to easily lop off six months of my life for the remainder of it.
It's a big game changer.
I was able to say I had to wait till the break to open the equal packets and pour them in there.
And what's in the pot would have gotten a cup would have gotten cold and it would have been a mess.
But now the equal is in the pot, just pour it in the cup, ready to go.
My friends, we're going to be all over the place today.
It's not a single theme for today's program like there has been the past couple of days.
We've got more on Benghazi.
In fact, if I understand what I have here correct, CBS, CBS News actually, I don't want to use the word colluded, but gee,
it's close to, they actually helped Obama promote the notion that it was a video that led to the Benghazi attack when Obama had told them during a Steve Croft 60 Minutes interview on September 12th that it was a terror attack.
CBS had that video all this time and never used it until recently.
Until Friday night on the CBS Evening News, a week ago.
But they had it September 12th.
Obama not blaming a video.
They had Obama talking about how it was a terror attack.
And they rolled the dice.
They actually made the conclusion, came to conclusion that, okay, Obama wants to blame it on a video.
So I was watching Greta Van Sustrin last night.
She had a great show last night.
He had Trump on.
And Rudy was great last night.
Britt Hume was on the show last night.
She asked him about Britt in the media.
And Hume said, look, I was with the mainstream media for a long time.
It was ABC News.
And they're not looking at this every day as, okay, how can I help this candidate or how can I hurt this candidate?
They just look at Benghazi and they just don't see anything interesting there.
They probably look at this Benghazi story and it's like, how does this relate to the campaign?
Any big deal?
And I'm sitting there pulling.
How do you say that?
Don't they mean the same thing?
If you're looking at the Benghazi story, the mainstream media and you don't see anything that relates to the campaign, are you obviously not in the tank for Obama?
Or maybe not, obviously, but where is this notion?
No, we're not looking at stories that, and I hate disagreeing with Britt Hume.
I mean, he knows what he's talking about.
He was part of it.
But it was hard for me to digest.
Now with the CBS stuff today, and there's one other stack, story stack in here that indicates the media is doing what they can to help Obama and what they can to hurt Romney.
And we've got a Brian Williams interview with Obama.
He doesn't even bring Benghazi up.
And I guess we would be told, well, they just don't think it's a story rush.
Here we are with two weeks to go in a campaign and they just don't see Benghazi.
Why?
Why is a terror attack?
And here's, by the way, a titular head of the Republican Party, Colin Powell, out endorsing Obama again.
This seals it, folks.
Any pretense to intellectual honesty on the part of Colin Powell blown to the Smithereens now.
I mean, what do you mean I have to understand?
You know what?
You know what, General?
General Powell said that Romney's foreign policy concerns him.
It is not very thorough.
He's afraid that Romney's going to be corrupted by the neocons.
He said that.
In the meantime, he is endorsing a proven disaster.
He says he's afraid Romney will get us into a war.
So what the hell is Libya?
Obama started one.
At the same time, Colin Powell says I'm offended and anybody would say that I'm not a good Republican.
He's the titular.
This is proving to me that what General Powell is primarily interested in is standing in good stead with the people that run the Beltway political and social culture, which would be the left.
And he's one of these people that's profoundly concerned with what people think of him.
He is.
Get mad at me all you want.
But any pretense here that we're dealing with objective intellectual analysis of the campaigns out the window when this endorsement of Obama comes around.
And of course, the press is eating it all up.
The drive-bys are all over it.
This is what the Republican Party ought to be, right?
A bunch of suicidal frauds.
Yes, Mr. Snerdley.
Yes, they do care.
That's the whole point.
Does anybody really care what it calls?
Nobody in this audience does, but the drive-bys do.
The inside the Beltway culture does.
Now, the real question is, is it going to matter?
No, it isn't going to matter.
But there are a lot of people who care.
And that's what you meant to ask.
Is it going to matter?
It ain't going to matter.
Hill of Beans.
All that's going to matter is Colin Powell is going to stay the good guy inside the Beltway that he is now.
They're going to love him.
They're going to like him.
They're going to think he's this or that and everything.
I watched Condalisa Rice was on Greta last night.
Ten minutes, she didn't say anything.
Perfect diplomacy.
She didn't say a word.
Greta gave her every opening.
Okay, your former secretary said, how would it happen?
You got the attack going on.
We got the video.
People are watching it in real time.
And, well, you know, it would go through many different agencies and people, and it would go through very many timelines.
Protocols would have to be followed.
The protocols were followed, and the agencies were looking at this.
Some really well-intentioned people in there.
The State Department's made up of people that really, really care when I get to the bottom of this.
But clearly there's a problem.
Okay.
Well, do you think maybe that something could have been done to prevent the deaths of the always bad when we lose ambassadors?
It's really a shame that when that happens, we never, never always, always mourn the loss of America, ambassadors or a military or whatever, that the protocols were followed.
Maybe they weren't in some cases, but we'd have to look at the protocols, look at the various agencies involved.
It went on for 10 minutes.
Now, she's perfect diplomat.
I mean, that said 10 minutes and didn't say anything.
She stood by the overall integrity of the State Department writ large.
Should it rip anybody in there?
It'd be perfect.
Perfect diplomacy.
You know, the role of a diplomat is never to solve anything.
If you solve something, then you got no job.
And it's also the role of a bureaucrat.
The problem is never solved.
It's also the role of the race industry.
Reverend Jackson, the worst thing could happen to him is if everybody's perception was that the race problem was fixed.
The worst thing could happen.
Anyway, this is what I mean.
We're all over the place on this program today, folks.
We've got a scattershot shotgun approach.
But this Colin Powell business is just, it is what it is now.
White House answered my show yesterday.
What did the White House do?
Well, oh, oh, those emails that just, yeah, Hillary, Austin, you hear what Hillary said?
Well, you know, any terror group can go on Facebook and say that they did something.
That doesn't mean that it happened.
We need to look at the protocols and then the various agencies, and we have to look at the timeline, and then we have to examine the credibility of all the people just because it's on Facebook.
But whatever's on YouTube, go with it.
A YouTube video?
By God, by golly, that's it.
But what's on Facebook?
Can't trust that.
Anybody go on Facebook?
That was Mrs. Clinton yesterday.
He had Bill Clinton running around.
He's campaigning with Obama.
Can somebody tell me the last candidate Bill Clinton endorsed who won?
It doesn't, it doesn't work.
Anyway, just a side reference there.
We have CNN.
I didn't know that.
Remember the arousal gap?
You do?
All right, tell me what it was.
What was the arousal gap?
No, that was soccer moms.
That was soccer moms.
Soccer moms was women who thought Bill Clinton cared more about their kids than their own worthless husbands.
The arousal gap was women who were actually excited, hormonally turned on by Bill Clinton.
As exemplified by all of the female reporters in the White House press room after the Lewinsky story hit, they're all turning and saying to each other, why not me?
That was the arousal gap.
Well, I didn't know this, but I do now.
CNN had to pull a story that they had on their website after a reader backlash.
Following a firestorm of negative feedback, comma, CNN hastily deleted from its website late yesterday virtually all mention of a study about the effect hormones have on women's political preferences.
A message posted on the CNN website at 8:15 last night said, A post previously published in this space regarding a study about how hormones may influence voting choices has been removed.
After a further review, it was determined that some elements of the story did not meet the editorial standards of CNN.
We thank you for your comments and your feedback.
The study, authored by researchers, University of Texas San Antonio, used an internet survey of 275 women who were not taking hormonal contraception and had regular menstrual cycles.
That was the sample group.
275 women not taking hormonal contraception.
For those of you in Rio Linda, what that means is that this was the taking a pill.
The condom didn't matter.
Taking a pill.
And regular menstrual cycles.
275.
The results.
The results showed that ovulating single women tend to support Obama because in the words of the lead researcher, Christina Durante, they feel sexier.
This is the arousal gap.
Now look, Dawn's in there rolling her eyes.
You're probably getting mad at me.
This is a female study conducted by a female scientist, conceived by a female.
It's not some man sitting around.
Let's go get 275 women who are ovulating and having menstrual cycles and they're not taking a pill.
I was asking about their political.
It was a woman doing this.
Don't get mad at me.
Wasn't the Romney campaign doing this?
It wasn't the neocons.
Wasn't Todd Aiken?
Todd Akin was involved in this.
The results showed that ovulating single women.
CNN's taking this down now because there were complaints.
The results showed that ovulating single women tend to support Obama because in the words of a lead researcher, Christina Durante, they feel sexier.
Heightened sexual feelings, according to Christina Durante, lead women to support politicians who advocate for easy access to birth control and abortion.
CNN pointed readers to an article that it published about a separate Durante study, still available on CNN's website, that showed women also buy sexier clothes when ovulating.
So what this study attempted to say is that women are robotic.
They are monolithic.
If you get them all in a regular cycle and if they're taking birth control pills, that is a way to get them to vote Democrat.
Does this all not make sense?
As obsessed as the Democrats are with women getting their birth control pills?
As obsessed with contraception, free contraception as Obama is?
I mean, this is almost on a par with wanting illegal immigration to become amnesty.
Automatic votes.
Well, if you get women in the middle of a normal menstrual cycle taking birth control pills, they feel sexier, and the arousal gap makes them vote for Democrats.
Now, why Democrats?
Married or otherwise committed women, this is only single women, by the way, married or otherwise committed women, by contrast, favored Romney.
I think that they're overcompensative Durante, the scientists.
I think they're overcompensating for the increase of the hormones motivating them to have sex with other men.
It's a way of convincing themselves that they are not the type to give in to such sexual urges.
This was on CNN's website.
And there was a lot of anger, some protests over it, and they took it down.
The article included this warning in its third paragraph.
Please continue reading with caution.
Although the study will be published in the peer-reviewed journal Psychological Science, several political scientists who read the study have expressed skepticism about its conclusions.
So there were story caught fire and there were recommended 7,000 recommendations.
It was the most popular on the website for a while.
It got spread out all over the place.
And what it did, what it attempted to explain the arousal gap, women, single women, how you get them to vote Democrat.
Keep them on the pill and having, don't get them pregnant, no pregnancy, on the pill and having regular cycles.
Married women or committed are always going to end up voting Republican.
Female study wasn't me.
I wouldn't even think of such a thing.
But Kristen Duranty at the University of Texas San Antonio did.
So that's been taken.
Anyway, I got to take a brief time out, sit tight.
Only got started here.
There's much more straight ahead.
Folks, I am terribly sorry.
I really just professionally messed up.
And I've got to do the CNN story again.
I was hoping to be able to drop it and move on, but I got something profoundly wrong.
I just read something terribly wrong, and it totally changes the story.
The study, authored by researchers at the University of Texas San Antonio, used an internet survey of 275 women who were not taking birth control and had regular monthly cycles, not taking birth control.
So for those of you in Rio Linda, it did require a condom.
So the whole thing has changed.
Now, not the arousal gap, that is women who, in a hormonal way, according to this survey, these people, by the way, it might have sounded jocular and funny.
I'm a naturally funny guy when I was talking about this, but you have to understand the woman who did the survey as a full-fledged, real scientist.
This study was published or is going to be published in a peer-reviewed scientific journal.
The people behind this are dead serious about it.
They're trying to figure out and explain scientifically, not politically, emotionally, or intellectually, why women vote a certain way.
They're trying to explain it hormonally.
And it is the old arousal gap.
And I goofed up when I told you it was women who were on the pill.
It's women who aren't.
An internet survey of 275 women who were not taking hormonal contraception and had regular menstrual cycles tended to feel sexier, and that made them support Obama or any Democrat as opposed to a Republican.
Because it has to do with the giving and the sharing of welfare and this kind of thing.
Women who are committed and in a relationship who don't look to government for that, don't the sexiness has nothing to do with it, and they vote Republican.
They're more intellectually involved.
Hang it be tough, folks.
A lot of great stuff coming up today.
There's a great analysis.
Well, great.
Interesting analysis from a guy at National Review Online on why polling data out of Ohio may not be all that accurate.
And it has to do with early voting and likely voters being tabbed and how the party affiliation in a poll ends up being tabulated.
All the early voting and absentee ballots in Ohio may be skewing the actual polling data.
It really is an interesting analysis.
And you couple it with, if you look at the two campaigns, there is, we call it momentum and mitimentum.
But if you look at the Obama campaign, and this is, I'll speak with you, honestly, I look at these polls, and I just be blatantly upfront with you, I'm stunned Obama's within two or three.
This to me is a seven or eight point, nine point win.
I mean, just the whole aura of the Obama campaign, there's nothing to it.
It's in abject panic.
They're losing in various swing states.
Obama, by the way, do you remember back in 2000, George Bush continued to spend money in California?
I was thinking about this the other night because Obama is still spending money in North Carolina, and it's over there.
And he's spending money in North Carolina because he will not allow the perception that he's losing.
So he's wasting money in North Carolina.
He could be spending it elsewhere.
Bush did the same thing in 2000.
Bush campaigned in California in the latter days of that campaign in California.
I remember when we saw that happening.
We talked about it on this program, and we got a little excited, thought, well, there's something going on in California we don't know about.
Because we figured campaigns all have internal polls that nobody else sees, and they can't afford to play games with their polls.
They can't be lied to.
They've got to know the down and dirty.
And so we figured if Bush's spending money in California in 2000, must be something going on out there.
There wasn't.
Bush was trying to create the exact illusion that we, or the impression that we got.
And Obama is doing much the same thing in North Carolina.
Eric Erickson at Red State has a great little post on this about, he chalks it up to Obama's hubris instead of his narcissism.
They just can't allow the perception that things aren't going well.
So he's essentially wasting money.
But you look at the whole Obama campaign and there's just an aura of throw it up against the wall and hope it sticks.
Yesterday, he's all over the place.
I don't know where he was, but he's talking about his plan.
He said Romney's plan for the next four years.
Talk about his plan.
He just introduced his plan this week, and it's a rehash of something that's not new.
It's a pamphlet where over half the pages are pictures of him instead of policy stuff.
But the policy stuff that's in it is not new.
It's just old rehash.
He can't run.
He can't run on this agenda.
He can't run on this record.
And somebody off camera says, where is your plan?
Where's my plan?
Where is my plan?
And it was on the floor.
He had to bend over and pick it up.
I couldn't find my plan.
But here it is.
And he held it up and they started cheering.
There is no plan.
It was just this week he announces a plan because everybody was getting on him for he had to announce second-term agenda.
What is it?
Throwing the big bird.
What else is Romnesia?
These are not things that you associate with winning and with the momentum campaigns.
By the other token, the Romney campaign is filled with that.
Huge crowds, coordinated message.
Yesterday, Paul Ryan just a fabulous speech on poverty, some of which I have here, and I'll play you the sound bites as the program unfolds.
But there's a singular purpose.
There is a coordination.
There's a structure.
Large crowds full of energy.
Even Brian Williams of NBC News is talking about how Obama's crowds of 50,000 four years ago are barely 5,000 today.
There just isn't any surface indication.
There's no vibe.
There's no feeling that the Obama campaign is the one that's winning.
It's the other way around.
And yet these polls make it within the margin of error close.
And those two things just don't meld with me.
They don't make sense.
They don't go together.
So on Election Day, something is going to give here, or something is going to change significantly in the polls next week before the election.
One of two things is going to have to happen.
Because at some point, all this is going to have to make sense if the people involved in polling are going to have any credibility.
So we shall see.
But it's just, by the way, there's nothing scientific about this.
I'm just telling you how I feel.
This is just my perception as I watch this stuff.
And I just do not see elements of even the Obama people thinking they're winning.
I don't see them acting like that.
Obama called the people, the editorial board, at the Des Moines Register.
And he gave them a 30-minute interview with one caveat.
It was off the record.
He did not allow them to publish any of it.
So the Detroit Register editor writes a story that, well, when the president's on line one, you take the call, but they're a little miffed.
And they said he told them some fascinating stuff, some really great stuff about the second term, the next four years, but he won't let them publish it.
Well, that just made everybody curious to find out what it was he told them.
At the same time, the Detroit Register people admit to being a little miffed that they can't publish this stuff because their editorial recommendation is coming up Saturday night on their website.
Their endorsement goes online for the Sunday morning paper at 7 o'clock Saturday night.
So today, the Des Moines Register on their front page tilts this to Romney.
Got two pictures.
Top of the fold.
On the right side is a close-up of Romney surrounded by lovable, adoring people and an appropriate headline.
I don't have it right in front of me, but it's a great headline.
Right next to it, a picture of a mad, dour, angry-looking Obama, smaller in that picture frame, and surrounded by some people, but two pictures side by side that illustrate what I'm talking to you here about.
And that is the aura, the feeling you get, the vibe about these two campaigns.
And it's leading people to believe that the Detroit or the Des Moines Register is, okay, Mr. President, you're going to talk to us.
You won't let us run what you say.
Try this.
And so they run unflattering stuff on him on their front page today.
Now, what are the odds they're not going to endorse Obama?
I mean, it's the Des Moines Register, after all.
Remember who used to run this paper, a guy that, one of the former editors of USA Today who went to NBC, who was in charge when they blew up the truck for one of their 2020 type shows.
I forget Michael something or other.
No, no, that's the founder.
Alan Newharth was the founder.
This is Michael somebody, but his buddy was Geneva Overholter, who was at the time the editor of the Des Moines Register, went on to become a columnist at the New York Times and then an ombudsman at the Washington Post.
My point is, these are the people that populate the Des Moines Register, the typical left-leaning media types.
The idea they're not going to endorse Obama on Sunday is far-fetch.
It'd be shocking if they endorse Romney.
The Detroit News endorsed Romney.
Now, what did Obama say to him about his second term that so excited them?
They thought it was really cool.
What could it have been?
What do they really want to publish that Obama said?
And why won't Obama let them?
Why must it have been off the record?
The only conclusion you can come to is he knows it would hurt.
He knows it wouldn't help, even in Iowa.
But it would not be contained in Iowa.
It would be all over the place.
A bunch of libs would love it.
Des Moines Register would love it.
They want to print it.
Obama doesn't want it out yet.
The conclusion is that Obama might have been honest with him about what his second term is going to be, but that if it gets out, it would hurt his reelection chances, which we all know.
That's why he's not talking about his second term.
In fact, I believe he's not talking about it because in his mind, he's going to have, if he wins, he'll have a mandate to do what he does.
Because he can say, I never lied to you.
I never said I wasn't going to do this.
It's the way they think.
People say, well, you never told us you're going to do this.
I never said I wouldn't.
I didn't lie to you.
I told you we're going to do everything we can to transform this country.
Here it is.
Anyway, I just sitting here.
And by the way, folks, I'm shooting you objectively straight here.
I am not sharing with you things I hope are going on, not telling you things that I hope will happen.
I'm looking out, and I've felt this way for the longest time.
I thought the Obama campaign had nothing.
Their convention had nothing.
It was a rehash of nothing.
I thought, I don't think Obama won any of those three debates.
I don't think Biden won his.
Oh, speaking of that, Ras Musson polling David.
Who won the debates?
49%.
This is all three of them put together.
49% Romney, 41% Obama from Rass Musson.
How's that possible?
Here we got Barack Obama, the smartest man ever to occupy the Oval Orifice.
He was going to heal the planet.
Speaking of, he called Romney a bull, I can't say the word.
He actually called Romney, he doesn't like Romney, he called him a bull crapper, because it's as close as I can get to it.
But he used the real word.
If there's anybody that's bullcrapping us, it's Barack Obama.
Heal the planet, lower the sea levels, all of that happy malarkey.
Most voters consider the three presidential debates at least somewhat important to how they will vote, and a plurality of those who watched think that Romney was the overall debate winner.
The latest Ras Mussin Reports National Telephone Survey finds just 8% of likely U.S. voters didn't watch any.
63% watched a portion or all of them.
14% watched some or all of one of the debates.
15% watched some or all of two of the primetime TV encounters.
But overall, Romney was thought to have won the debates 49 to 41 over Obama.
Let's take a brief time out, folks.
Sit tight, much more straight ahead, including your phone calls when Snerdley starts answering them.
Okay, we're back.
El Rush Bow have my brain tied behind my back.
Just to make it fair, we go to the phones to Hampton, Virginia.
And Pamela, you're up first.
It's great to have you here.
Hi.
Brush, this is such an honor to speak with you.
I've been listening to you since the day they fired Tom Landry from the Dallas Cowboys.
I mean, that's the day I remember meeting you.
That goes way back to the early 90s.
It does.
It does.
And actually, it's late 80s.
I believe it's 1989.
Yeah.
Anyway, I love you, and this is an absolute honor to speak with you.
And what I wanted to call you about is I am a bit concerned that you are being too optimistic.
You're projecting an image that this may end up being a cakewalk.
It's not going to be.
I mean, I don't doubt that we're, I believe we're ahead in the polls.
I believe all those things.
But we are up against the mainstream media.
We all know they're 100% in the tank for Obama.
They're not projecting the good things about what's happening within the grassroots efforts.
They never do.
I know.
How would you prefer that I act, Pamela?
Well, actually, I think maybe just some healthy skepticism.
And here's my point.
I want everybody to act as if we're running behind.
And if their efforts depend on us actually winning this race.
Now, what I'm saying is I'm calling from Hampton, Virginia.
I live in Texas.
I am here because I'm working, knocking on doors.
I'm being a volunteer in the state of Virginia.
I'm going back home tonight.
I'm leaving Monday, and I'll be in Ohio for two weeks until the election's over with.
But my point is we've got to get out and do our part.
Do you think we're being out-hustled?
Do you think we don't have a ground game that can compete?
We do have a ground game that can compete, but they're busy, believe me, guys.
They're working.
The other side does have a good ground game.
I think that that's the issue of the problem.
If you want to hear more pessimism, I can do that.
No, Rush, I'm not suggesting pessimism.
My point in...
Well, you don't like optimism, so...
No, no.
No, Rush, I love optimism.
I do.
But here's what I want everybody to do.
Everybody, get out and do something, regardless of where you are.
You can make phone calls from home.
Why do you think people aren't?
And why do you think that's not being said to people?
Why do you think that you have to call any radio show to urge people to do that?
Do you think most of the people on our side are not engaged that way?
How did 2010 happen?
How did it happen?
How did that landslide happen?
And what has changed to make people less energetic or enthusiastic since then?
Probably nothing.
My point, though, Rush, is just that I want you to somehow project to people that we've got to work hard until the very end and do whatever we possibly can.
Because I sense that there's so many people that are sitting back and they're not sending in $5 to different campaigns.
Why do you think that?
Have you seen Romney's numbers?
Oh, I absolutely do.
Did you see his money numbers?
I did.
Are you, this is very helpful.
Am I creating the impression this election is over and nobody has to do anything?
It's just media is lying to everybody and this is in the tank.
No, no.
Well, I'm not saying that at all, Rush.
I don't, and if I have, I apologize.
I guess I'm just concerned.
I want to make sure that we don't work as if we are a few points behind and that we do our part.
I just, you know, it's difficult sometimes to get people to come to work.
I know that in Dallas we've had a few issues with campaigns or people not coming in when we want them to, and probably because Texas is not a battleground state.
And in Virginia, yes, it's true.
They could use some more help.
All of these states can use some more help.
And if anybody is listening that has any inkling that what they may be able to add to the campaign, you know, in the form of making phone calls or whatever, get out and do it.
Send, you know, and gosh, I'm sorry.
I'm so nervous, Rush.
Well, I understand.
I understand.
I'm up against a time break here I can't avoid.
I've got to take it.
But I'd like to thank you for the call.
And my friend, we'll be right back.
Don't go anywhere.
Sit tight.
EIB Network.
Back with more after this.
Okay, that's it, my friends.
Another exciting hour of broadcast excellence in the can.
I know our chances are dismal and fading.
That Obama ground game is going to be tough to overcome, but we got to fight, folks.
We got to get out of here, fight, and really do everything we can to bring this home.
▲
Export Selection