All Episodes
Previous Next
Oct. 25, 2012 - Rush Limbaugh Program
34:13
October 25, 2012, Thursday, Hour #3
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
And we're back, Rush Limbaugh, having more fun than a human being should be allowed to have behind a golden EIB microphone at the distinguished and the prestigious Limbaugh Institute for Advanced Conservative Studies.
No graduates, no degrees.
The learning never stops.
And here we are, folks, each and every day is a busy broadcast moment, meeting and surpassing all audience expectations on a daily basis.
Just one more little close the loop on this, and then we'll move on to other things.
But we did have a story on this program back in 2009.
It was a study featured in the journal Ecology and Evolution.
Scientists from the University of Sheffield in the UK said that the use of the birth control pill for many years, generations, may have changed women's taste in men over the years.
That women on the birth control pill for quite a while become less attracted to masculine men.
And we're not talking about muscle beach guys, just overall masculine take charge mass man.
You know, you see, so there's a real man as opposed to a wimp.
We all know when we see a wimp.
We all know it.
Might not want to admit it.
We might not say to the wimp, hey, wimp, how are you?
But we know a wimp when we see a wimp.
Do we not?
Mayor of Rielville here.
And what the story indicates here is that wimps have become more attractive to women on birth control.
Now, just in a progressive logical line of thinking here, remember what got all this started today was a story on the CNN website last week.
A female researcher studied 275 women not on the pill.
They felt sexier.
They had political preferences in one way.
Married women who were not on the pill preferred more issue-oriented politicians.
So I just ask question: which political party is obsessed right now with birth control pills being made available as though they were jelly beans or breath mints at a restaurant when you're leaving?
Which political party wants women taking to the point that it's become a major issue in a president's reelection campaign?
Which political party has been pushing free birth control paid for by making the Catholic Church give them away?
The Democrat Party.
Ergo, women on birth control seem to become less attracted to masculine men over the years.
Can we draw a connection?
Can we make a connection, draw a conclusion?
I think we can.
I will just share with you that over the many years of this program, I we've talked about, I've asked you, I've had women call here, try to explain to me why such and such is considered we've made jokes of all these liberal wishy-washy guys because they're real men.
And we may have the answer now.
And we may now know what really is behind Democrat men pushing birth control.
It's the easiest way to get women for them because, after all, that's what makes the world go round.
I don't care who you are, and I don't care what your socioeconomic status is.
The mating dance of the genders is what makes the world go round.
These liberal guys may have stumbled it.
This is how they get women.
Guess, get them on the pill.
You got a double whammy advantage there because they're on the pill.
Then, what can't happen?
Nine times out of ten, whatever statistics are.
And if it does happen, we got Planned Parenthood right down the street.
Don't worry, babe.
Everything's cool.
I mentioned at the top of the program, I watched Britt Hume last night on Greta.
And Britt said, you know, he was with ABC for a long time, part of the mainstream media.
And he said, reporters do not look at stories and say, how can covering that or not covering that help or hurt a candidate?
The Benghazi story came in.
He said, they just look at it and they don't see how it relates, Greta, to the presidential race that's the election two weeks from now.
They don't see Benghazi's big deal.
It's not that they think they can protect Obama or hurt Romney.
They just don't see it's a story.
Okay, so he said that.
I was scratching my head when he said it.
Then we've come to find out something very interesting about this Benghazi business.
There was an interview.
CBS did an interview with Obama on September the 12th, one day after Benghazi.
And in that interview, Obama acknowledged that it was a terror attack.
But CBS kept that.
They didn't put, they didn't, in the interview that was broadcast, they edited that out because all the while Obama was blaming a video.
And so the thought is that CBS was helping Obama spread the notion that it was a video when they had him on tape saying it was a terror attack.
And Obama has, you know, the firestorm that has resulted in the second debate, Candy Crowley, as Obama's debate partner discussing the fact that Obama had called it a terror attack, but as far as anybody knew, he hadn't.
But he had.
So let's go to the audio soundbites.
I mean, I think this is big because, as I said yesterday, watching the news media reporting on Benghazi has been watching, it's been akin to watching Woodward and Bernstein help Nixon cover up Watergate.
That's the best analogy I come up with.
The fact that CBS edited out Obama's comments about the Benghazi attack when their interview was done the day afterwards, and the interview was aired when Benghazi was the biggest thing in the news tells me that CBS was actively helping with the cover-up from the start.
Now, in the clip that CBS left out, when they aired the interview with Obama on 60 Minutes, Obama said to Steve Croft, you're right.
This is not a situation that was exactly the same as what happened in Egypt.
My suspicion is that there are folks involved in this who were looking to target Americans from the start.
Obama said this the next day.
Now, leaving aside how bizarre it is for Obama to call these murderers folks, have you noticed he does that, these folks, us folks, your folks, if I were Bill O'Reilly, I'd sue him because O'Reilly owns the folks term.
But here's Obama appropriating it all over the place, even referring to the murderers as the folks.
He said, leaving aside how bizarre that is, it's clear he was saying this is a terror attack targeting Americans from the start.
It was not like the spontaneous demonstrations against the embassy in Cairo.
So he told CBS it was not a demonstration that went out of hand.
They had that on tape and they didn't air that for over two weeks.
So here.
Here's what we've got.
Friday night, CBS Evening News.
It's a portion of David Martin, a national security correspondent, report about what Obama said about the attack on the consulate in Benghazi and when he said it.
Shortly after he spoke to State Department employees about the attack on the consulate in Benghazi, President Obama sat down with Steve Croft of 60 Minutes for a previously scheduled interview.
How's it going, guys?
It had been about 14 hours since the attack.
And the president told Croft he did not believe it was due simply to mob violence.
You're right that this is not a situation that was exactly the same as what happened in Egypt.
And my suspicion is that there are folks involved in this who were looking to target Americans from the start.
He told Croft that in an interview on September 12th, they didn't air that.
They edited that out of 60 Minutes.
That did not air.
Now, remember, Susan Rice from the regime's staff, the UN ambassador, she went out and said that what happened in Benghazi was an offshoot of what happened at Cairo.
The protests in Cairo started the protests in Benghazi, which got out of hand, which led to the four deaths.
Obama said, she said that a week later, days before she said that, Obama told CBS it wasn't that.
It had nothing to do with Cairo.
It was a bunch of different American people targeting Americans.
CBS said on that, all the while Obama is out blaming this on a video.
They had him on tape saying this, and they didn't air it.
Here's what did air.
September 12th, CBS 60 Minutes.
They posted this note from the website.
They posted online portions of an interview between Steve Croft and Obama.
And during a discussion about the attack on the consulate in Benghazi, Croft and Obama had this exchange.
It's been described as a mob action, but there are reports that they were very heavily armed with grenades.
That doesn't sound like your normal demonstration.
As I said, we're still investigating exactly what happened.
I don't want to jump the gun on this, but you're right that this is not a situation that was exactly the same as what happened in Egypt.
And my suspicion is that there are folks involved in this who were looking to target Americans from the start.
So we're going to make sure that our first priority is to get our folks out safe, make sure that our embassies are secured around the world, and then we are going to go after those folks who carried this out.
The folks.
We're going to go after the folks who carry this out.
Are we making too big a deal out of this?
I don't think so.
He didn't once blame the video on the 60 Minutes interview.
He didn't once blame, not in this section anyway, with Steve Croft.
So my only point is here, why did CBS, my only question, why did CBS sit on it?
He's out there blaming the video for how many, it was eight or nine days and six different references to it in one speech at the UN, and they have him on tape.
And then at the debate with the Candy Crowley debate, it comes up, they still didn't reveal what they knew.
I don't know why they revealed it Friday night.
Their national security correspondent, David Martin.
That's how we know this happened.
CBS eventually came clean with this, but it was last Friday.
That's six days ago on the CBS Evening News.
If it weren't for CBS, we wouldn't know what CBS was told.
Very, very strange.
By the way, this admission here comports, remember that McClatchy article that I mentioned last week, which reported that a review of briefing transcripts and administration statements showed that immediately after the attack, senior Obama regime officials strongly alluded to a terrorist assault and repeatedly declined to link it to the Muslim video.
That McClatchy story we had?
This confirms that.
You want to talk about deception, misdirection, protection, shielding, and so forth.
This has it all.
Every bit of it.
I got to take a brief time out.
We'll do that and come back and continue here on the EIB network.
Now, folks, folks, ladies and gentlemen, there's one thing more about this.
Obama has been taking royal heat for having it assumed that he never called this a terror attack when he did.
Well, didn't use the words, but he knew it wasn't the video.
And he knew it was not a protest.
He knew that.
He admitted that, CBS, on September 12th.
But in the ensuing days, Jay Carney's out there blaming the video.
Obama's blaming the video.
Susan Rice is blaming the video.
Meanwhile, Obama knows it ain't the video.
CBS knows it ain't the video.
Then the second debate comes up.
And Obama then tries to say, I always told it a terror attack, but nobody at CBS comes forth with this.
In other words, Obama had the evidence that would have helped him refute the charge that he wasn't calling it terrorism.
He had this.
CBS had it.
They could have called on it at any time.
They could have sunk Romney with this.
They didn't.
Why?
There is an answer.
And that's why you listen to me, because I, El Rushbo, have the answer.
And it is abundantly clear to me that this was, without question, a political calculation to pretend that this was not a terrorist attack until after the elections.
For whatever convoluted political reasons, and I think it is related to Obama being the giant al-Qaeda slayer, took out bin Laden.
It is one of his campaign themes, Al-Qaeda's on the run.
I think it was a political calculation that they weren't going to acknowledge this was a terror attack until after the elections, even if then.
And they knew, they thought that with the help from their media friends, like CBS, they could get away with it.
And they still might.
I mean, even though CBS put it out there, I don't know to how many people this might matter now because it's gotten so colluded.
But Jay Carney on September the 14th constantly said that the Benghazi attack had nothing to do with the Obama administration or American policy or anything like that.
It was strictly about the video.
Carney was naked out there on this.
Susan Rice and any number of administration people, including Obama himself.
So it was clear to me a political calculation had been made that prior to Election Day, in no way, shape, manner, or form, was it going to be permitted to be concluded that this was terrorism?
This was a bunch of angry, decent Muslims who were worked into a frenzy over an American-made video.
The political calculation was that there were votes to be had in that story, that there were gains to be made by Obama.
But if it came out that it was terrorism, Obama would be hurt because he had supposedly ended terrorism.
There wasn't any terror.
And by the way, we were now loved.
Libya loved us.
How could this happen?
Couldn't allow that terror attack in Libya where we just got rid of Gaddafi.
should love us now if if only they spent the same amount of time tracking down the people who did this and killed the ambassador instead of covering it up You know, the energy they have expended covering this up if they would have just used the same amount tracking down the people.
In fact, we know who did it.
A former Gitmo resident who was let out.
The guy is all over the Middle East on television doing appearances on their versions of the Oprah show over there, their version of the view.
This guy is all over Middle East television bragging about being the brains behind and the leader behind the terror attack.
Okay, here's Lurlene, or Lurlane.
I'm sorry, Lurlane in Lewis, Delaware.
It's great to have you on the EIB network.
Hi.
Thanks, Rush, for taking my call.
It's a privilege to speak with you.
You're my lifeline for so many years that I don't even want to tell you how many it is.
I called because of, I was concerned about Pam from Texas.
She's supposed to be working a campaign.
You know, if she's listening to your show and she's seeing the numbers, I don't quite get it.
Do you?
You're talking about the first, the woman who had today really upset me because she's so negative.
I mean, the numbers.
She said that I wasn't being realistic, that I was being too positive, optimistic.
It was causing maybe overconfidence and that I needed to urge people that the Democrats got a much better ground game than we do and that they're out there.
They could steal the election.
And I wasn't pushing people enough to work hard in the grassroots or something like that.
That's who you're talking about?
Yeah, I don't know what else you can do.
I mean, you keep everybody informed between you and Fox.
If she's watching Fox and she's listening to you, you know, I don't know what her problem is as far as being negative and saying that you're not doing your best because you are.
No, I wasn't negative enough is the way I heard it.
I was being too optimistic, and being too optimistic was making people perhaps too overconfident was her concern.
And when you get overconfident, when you think something's in the bag, you stop working hard.
And she was afraid that my attitude might result in people becoming overconfident and not man phone banks, get out the vote, do grassroots type of work to secure victory.
Well, in my opinion, you're doing a great job.
Well, I appreciate it.
And I tell you, I wanted to jump up when you had Gina on the phone.
I wanted to jump on and say, right on, jump up, but I'm not healthy enough to do that.
Well, she was great.
She was really great.
I mean, the way she said that they were helping elderly people get down so they could hear Romney speak.
And he does have a plan and he's concerned about our economy.
And he can't.
No, I agree.
You know, but it's only recently.
I'm not going to get trouble for this.
It's only recently that it's been about Romney.
This has always been about Obama.
Starting 2010 midterms, it's always been about Obama.
Obama, who's firing everybody up.
What more do I need to do?
Well, we got Obama out there.
And we stick with the phones at Open Line Friday tomorrow.
So we're going to have two days of higher-than-usual phone calls, an added bonus for all of you here on the EIB network.
Upstate New York, Jeff.
Thank you for waiting, sir.
Great to have you here.
Rush, part of your youth listening contingent, 23 years old and glad to be a fan.
Well, it's great to have you here.
Good to be a young Republican in a time when our values are kind of under assault at my H bracket.
Yeah.
You're right.
Pop culture is true.
You're right.
Have you been checking your email today, Rush?
Yes, I've checked them each and every day in the commercial break.
Barack Obama's campaign sent out an email saying he will be the first sitting president to take advantage of early voting, and he wants everyone else to do it too.
And Rush, I think things are just going so terribly and downhill, he hopes he gets all that early vote out because by election day, it's not going to be a good story.
This is exactly the kind of thing that I'm talking about.
Now, we can look at this two different ways.
I am not on the Obama mailing list, but members of my staff are, to be able to keep my inbox from becoming buffected.
But I get people, I got, well, I'm not going to give their names.
I don't want the Obama people to know who they are, but we're on their mailing list.
Their fundraising mailing list, this kind of stuff for thewhitehouse.gov, for the Americans for Forward Action, whatever the hell these groups are.
Doesn't matter.
We get them all.
And one of them that I saw this week was: I really want to win this election.
Not for me and Michelle.
We will be fine.
Parentheses, we are already rich.
It didn't say that, the implication.
What else can it possibly mean?
We will be fine.
We want to win this election for you.
It was pathetic.
It was not the kind of thing that a confident candidate, particularly an incumbent, sends out.
Now you get one urging people to take advantage of early voting.
Just go out any which way you can, folks.
Go out there and go out and vote for me.
Byron York has a story in the Washington Examiner about Obama in Ohio grinding.
Now, I told you about that word earlier this week.
Some of you, I mean, it's pretty self-explanatory what it means.
But for example, on the golf course, you know, golf is a weird, well, any sporting activity.
Some days you have it, some days you don't.
And when you don't have it and you're trying to get it back, is when you're grinding.
You're really struggling.
You're really working it.
You're expending far more conscious effort than on those days when it just seems to be happening and flowing.
So Byron York has his headline, Obama grinding in Ohio.
PMSNBC today had one of their Chiron graphics, Obama grinding.
I think they might have even used the word grounding to combine the two into getting his ground troops going and he was grinding it out.
Now, to me, and this is where I get in trouble with the fatalists, when I see something like that, this is this, and a campaign that's trying to get votes based on Big Bird or what else is romnesia.
This is the kind of stuff that traditionally, go back and look.
This is not my opinion.
Go back and look.
Losing campaigns, this is the media will tell you, by the way, the media is even writing this.
Certain reporters are writing the Obama campaign feels like others that lost.
There's no second-term agenda.
There isn't any stated plan for the second term.
Doesn't dare tell anybody what it is.
I'll tell you what it is.
I'll tell you something.
I'll pretty sure of this, can't prove it, but I will say it with the usual ontological certitude that offends the wishy-washy among you.
He's going to let the Bush tax cuts expire for a massive tax increase on everybody.
If you think the Bush tax rates only apply to the rich, you've got another thing coming.
The Bush tax cuts back in 2001 and 2003 cut rates for everybody.
So he's going to let those expire.
So everybody's going to have a massive income tax increase.
The second thing, he's going to let sequestration happen.
He's going to let it happen.
He's going to let the military, and he's going to tell people those two things can make the biggest debt in a deficit, and we can get a handle on this spending problem in the first six months of my second term.
That's probably what he told the Des Moines Register that he doesn't dare want them publishing.
Something like that.
I'm going to happily let the Bush tax rates expire and I'm going to let sequestration happen and bingo.
That's going to be the best thing anybody could do to get started reducing the deficit and bringing down the debt and yada, yada, yada.
Wouldn't be surprised.
Don't know it.
Don't know it with ontological certitude, but I'm more than wild guessing this.
But I think that's what he would say to people he thinks are friends, ideological friends, such as editors at a major newspaper in Iowa, because they'd eat it up.
The liberals would love to cut the defense budget.
They would love that because they see all that money going to poverty and welfare and social programs.
Gee, we're good people.
And raising taxes on the rich.
Oh, yeah.
I mean, those two things alone could send the left into an orgasmic nirvana.
But he doesn't dare tell the voters that's what he's going to do because that would seal the deal.
That would, you know, if he came out and confirmed a trillion dollars in defense cuts and massive tax increase, what do you think would happen to his campaign?
Sink city.
What else could he have told them that he's demanding that they keep off the record?
To get their vote, to get their endorsement.
Remember, that's the purpose of his call to the Des Moines Register.
He called them.
They're going to post their endorsement on their website Sunday night at 7.
It'll run in the big Sunday paper.
Wait a minute.
Is it now?
Holy smokes.
That is exactly what happened.
I did not know this.
How do we know that apparently What he said to the Des Moines Register has been released.
So here's what he supposedly said to him.
So when you combine the Bush tax cuts expiring, the sequester in place, the commitment of both myself and my opponent, at least Governor Romney claims he wants to reduce the deficit.
But we're going to be in a position where I believe in the first six months, we're going to solve that big piece of business.
The transcripts was released yesterday.
I didn't know that.
The Obama campaign released the transcript.
I did not.
Now I'm feeling, how did I miss that?
Well, see, I didn't need their transcript to know what they were going to do.
But there he is.
There it is.
After promising the sequester would not happen, that's what he told the Des Moines Register.
That he's going to let the sequester happen and the Bush tax rates will come to an end.
So you're going to have a trillion dollars in military cuts and a big tax increase.
That's out apparently now.
In the debate the other night, remember when the sequester came up?
It's come up a couple of times and he has assured everybody that, in fact, what was the argument about the sequester?
It was a fact check that proved he had lied.
Oh, he had said Congress had authored the sequester and it turned out that he had in their negotiations with Boehner, so forth, whatever the fact check was, he had lied about it.
I did not know they had released that transcript.
How did that happen?
I got to find.
Why would they do this?
Why would they release that transcript?
This does not help.
Unless they're really losing their base.
I have to take a break here.
I am in a bit of a shock.
Okay, in the debate, in the debate, Obama said the sequester was not his idea.
And Bob Woodward reported in his book that it was.
Bob Woodward had the quote in the passage in his book that the sequester was Obama's idea.
And Obama had said it wasn't, that it was Congress and Boehner as the trigger.
That was the trigger for the deficit, the debt expansion, the debt limit deal.
Those really acrimonious negotiations.
There were two of them.
And one of the triggers was a sequester, which was thought to be a good trigger because nobody would ever allow a trillion dollars in defense cuts.
And so that would force both sides to finally make a responsible deficit debt deal.
Now, what we've now learned is that Obama is going to let the sequester happen and the Bush tax rates expire as his first major slice at reducing the deficit.
And in fact, the Washington Post just endorsed Obama, and their main argument is that Obama has the best plan to reduce the deficit, and it is the sequester and the end of the Bush tax cuts.
So it's out there now that he's going to allow the sequester.
He's going to make the sequester.
This is his plan.
The sequester will happen.
All you need to know about that is that it cuts defense unbelievably.
And the Bush tax cuts or tax rates expire.
So the top rate would now go from 35 to 39.6, for example.
It is.
It's taken the country over the cliff.
It's taken the country's economy over the cliff.
How many jobs are the defense budget, for example?
Hey, you cut a trillion dollars out of it.
How many jobs are you cutting there?
And then you take it.
So then you allow the Bush tax rates to go back up to what they were with Clinton.
How much more money is that being taken out of the private sector?
And how much bigger is government going to get?
And so here comes the Washington Post endorsing Obama based on that now.
And of course, the Des Moines Register will probably be too.
The Des Moines Register, what's happened here, they wanted to publish that.
They thought they had a scoop.
Obama called them.
He said, I'm only going to tell you this off the record.
And then the regime apparently released it themselves on their website yesterday.
And the Des Moines Register's little miffed that the regime scooped them.
But it was the regime's story.
Here's Laura in Erie, Pennsylvania.
I'm glad you waited.
Great to have you here.
Hi.
Hi, Rush.
I want to join Gina because she speaks for millions of Americans that just really appreciate your optimistic, entertaining show every day and look forward to it.
So keep up that optimism.
We're going to do this all the way, and Romney Ryan will be in.
I'm calling because I didn't believe the polls from the beginning, this gender gap stuff.
I remember, and I think your show probably highlighted it in the archives.
Back in 2009, there was this Gallup poll that said over 50% for the first time of Americans call themselves pro-life.
It was 51% to 42% pro-choice.
And I kept saying, how can over half of Americans call themselves pro-life?
And then, you know, the media is talking about this gender gap that there are more women going for Obama.
It didn't make any sense.
If more women were going for Obama, then why did they need the war on women in the first place?
Why did they have to go out and make this big pitch for him and construct this silly idea that Republicans had this backwards view of it was all folks?
This is just not the stuff that winning campaigns do.
Clinton might have gotten away with some of this kind of stuff, but Clinton had a record to run.
He didn't have this kind of garbage carrying around and shackling him and so forth.
Look, Laura, I have to go because of time constraints.
I really appreciate the call.
Thanks much.
We will be back.
Okay, what we do here, folks, we do pessimistic optimism or optimistic pessimism, something like that.
Anyway, Open Line Friday tomorrow.
See you then.
▲
Export Selection