All Episodes
Previous Next
Dec. 5, 2013 - Rush Limbaugh Program
37:48
December 5, 2013, Thursday, Hour #1
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Welcome to today's edition of the Rush 247 podcast.
And greetings, my friends, and welcome.
It's great to have you here once again.
As always, Rush Limboy and the EIB Network, the Limbaugh Institute for Advanced Conservative Studies.
And as always, a telephone number if you want to be on the program 800 28288 to the email address, L Rushbow at EIB net.com.
You know, it's it's it's well, I was gonna say it's fascinating.
It's not fascinating, it's just interesting.
All week long, uh, ladies and gentlemen, I when I got back here on Tuesday, I one of the first things I did was reference a piece I'd stumbled across on Saturday, written by uh Andrew McCarthy at the National Review Online about how the media treats what goes on in Washington as a soap opera.
And you have probably heard me reference this, and it's worth repeating.
A soap opera is unreal, but it hooks viewers with never-ending suspense and drama and cliffhangers and heroes and villains.
But the important thing is it is a device that is designed to hook an audience to escape whatever the humdrum reality they face, just like sports is.
And by the way, speaking of those, there's a great piece.
Somebody said what I have been trying to say.
This burns me up when this happens, by the way, because I think of myself as a primo uh communicator, and it's I think it's Daniel Flynn.
We've interviewed him for the uh Limbaugh letter.
He's written a lot about NFL, how it's changing.
And it's it's a real simple headline.
And it, you know, I must have talked about this for days combined, and I could have said it all with this one headline.
I wish I'd said it.
Everybody thinks football's getting too rough.
No, society's getting too soft.
That's real, that's what's going on.
Football hasn't changed.
It's the same as it's always been.
We're just turning in, it's the chicken of things.
What I've meant by we're going soft.
Nothing against women.
I mean, it's actually a compliment in a way.
But you know, the touchy feely taking the manliness out of things.
It's exactly what happens.
And it's it's happening not just in football, but in a lot of places.
But that's not the main thing I want to talk about.
I won't get to that in in uh in due course.
Uh I'm gonna try to ring it in my stream of consciousness here.
Back to the soap opera business.
Because I'm telling you that is just a perfect characterization.
It is not real.
The characters are not real when you get down to it.
The way they're covered is not real.
The impact of every item in the news, supposedly covered by the media, the impact on people is never talked about.
It's simply always put within the context of the suspense and the drama of the soap opera that is Washington, D.C., and our government and the people in it.
And so what's happening?
What's happening is the bottom is falling out of Obamacare.
He's losing women, he's losing the millennials.
Nobody, I don't care what kind of numbers they give you, nobody is signing up anywhere near in the numbers necessary to keep this thing going.
It's an absolute disaster.
It's worse than even they want to admit.
And so what?
We're back to income inequality, and now that's the big story.
Income inequality and the minimum wage, and it's just it's amazing how this happens.
Thirty-six hours ago, income inequality was not on anybody's mind.
Thirty-six hours ago, income inequality minimum wage, nobody was thinking about it.
But here comes our lead protagonist.
President Barack Hussein Obama.
Who, as the hopeful hero, but the current villain in the soap opera needs to change the subject.
Not used to this kind of coverage treatment.
Never uh not experienced with being involved in things that don't work.
Losing the favor of the audience, not the people.
And so we've got a pivot on a dime, and now all you if if if it no matter where you go, everybody take the the media follow suit.
Oh, president wants to talk about minimum wage.
Okay, here's what this think tank thinks about it.
This is what they've been thinking about it, what they've written about for 35 years.
Let's recycle it.
And let's recycle what everybody's been saying for 35 years on income inequality.
Let's just recycle that.
It isn't news.
It is an agenda.
It it's it's it's amazing.
They play this strativarius, and everybody falls in line with it.
And you would think, I'm I'm serious.
36 hours ago, the whole notion of income inequality, I mean, in terms of what's being talked about in Washington, what's on people's minds, and what to tackle next as an issue.
Nobody was thinking about it.
And the minimum wage, nobody.
And all of a sudden, Obama, our hero slash villain, needs a change of subject.
So they got to the writers, they went to the writers and said, we need to change the script.
We're losing audience here with our primary attraction, Obamacare.
Oh, okay.
Let's go back to something that polls really well, the minimum wage.
Let's say that we're for raising that again.
That always works.
If you look at polling data on the minimum wage, 70% of the big-hearted American people will always tell you, yeah, it ought to be more.
They don't know what they're talking about.
They don't know what they actually mean.
They're simply responding emotionally.
Do you think a minimum wage should be?
Yes, yes.
Everybody should make more money.
Fine.
Pollswell, let's go back and let's put our hero on the side of raising the minimum wage, and let's revive the villains who had become the heroes.
The anti-Obamacare people, the Republicans, the Ted Cruz's, the Rush Limbaughs, everybody that had been advocating against health care had become the heroes.
Can't have that.
Let's now convert them back to villains, and let's make Obama the Democrats a heroes again.
Let's trot out the minimum wage.
There's nothing that I can tell you about the minimum wage that I haven't told you in 25 years.
Philosophically, factually, statistically, strategically, nothing new.
It's still, it's nothing more than a political device.
The minimum wage has not made poor people richer.
It has not elevated the lives of poor people.
It doesn't work that way.
It never has.
And that's not its purpose, really.
But that doesn't matter because the misperceptions and the emotional attachment to it is what gets recycled.
And always works.
What always also works is this income inequality.
We'll attach that to the minimum wage.
We'll have a new story.
And then you know what we'll do?
We will have a strategy session at the White House, and we'll plan a strike by fast food workers, and that will give our friends in the media some visuals of people in pain and angry and agitated, not at Obama and not at healthcare.gov, but at people in the private sector.
So it's it's simply time to change the focus of the script.
And it's so damn predictable.
And I'm not gonna get sucked into it.
You know, I'm gonna tell I'm gonna stay focused here on what what's going wrong with Obamacare because that's what's driving all of this.
Now I do have, I've got some fascinating stuff here on the minimum wage and income inequality.
And if you want to know where it started, you want to know where income inequality.
The reason all of these stats on income inequality don't work anymore is because the baseline for the statistical start is the 50s.
Now, what was happening in the 50s?
Well, in the 50s, we had this thing called a nuclear family.
There was a mother, a woman.
There was a father, a man.
They had babies by engaging in coitus.
Leave it to Beaver, uh to Ozzy and Harriet, uh, hell, even the Beach Boys for Crying Out Loud, they were, they were, they were seemingly clean and pure as the wind rivers anyway.
And that's, and then after the coitus in the bedroom.
Then Little Beaver was born and in Wally, and there were 2.8 of the kids at a little picket fence, and if the dad got a vice president, there were two cars in the garage.
And mom, the female, you know, make that distinction.
The mother was a woman, wife was a woman, stays home, raises the kid, fixes breakfast, sends them off to school, talks to the PTA, does all that.
There was one breadwinner.
And there was a there was an economic boom going on at the same time following World War II.
And incomes in America rose dramatically.
Then something happened.
The left didn't like that arrangement.
That was just that they didn't fit in.
They didn't like the idea of coitus in a bedroom.
They didn't like coitus with some of the opposite sex, necessarily.
And they didn't even like coitus as a reason and means of producing a kid.
In fact, most times they didn't even like the kid.
They wanted to have the abortion.
So what happened was that the nuclear family became under assault by progressive forces of uh modernization.
And today, we can't, you can't compare family income today to what it was in the 50s when a boom time is the family's not the same.
You've got single women, single parent families, fewer nuclear families, incomes have been divided.
It just doesn't work.
But the you you can, if you know what you're doing with statistics, you can make the point that income inequality is all out of whack, and the richer getting richer and the poor getting poorer.
What they don't tell you is that the primary reason that's happened is that the left has succeeded in busting up the family.
Well, I've got all this, I got the stats.
I'll I'll point all this out as the because that is something I think it's a it's a new um, it's a new perspective.
But it's clear what this is being used as.
It's a distraction from Obamacare.
It's once again painting people who were all of a sudden becoming the heroes.
The Republicans, conservatives.
They had been truthful.
They were right, warning people about Obamacare.
Can't have that.
No, no, no.
These are the people that could have war of women.
Uh these are the people to racist sexist, bigot homophobes.
They can't have them be seen as heroes.
That just doesn't work.
I mean, J. R. Ewing has got to remain J.R. Ewing.
J.R. Ewing cannot become a good guy, or we lose the audience.
So we got to go back to Obama is a hero.
He can't become the bad guy.
It just doesn't work.
At least as far as the writers are concerned.
That would be the Democrat National Committee and the uh White House staff.
So you got to turn it around now, and then the usual bad guys are the bad guys, and the way you do that is you go back to an issue, and your buddies in the media follow right along because they're nothing more than lap dogs, slavish lab dogs, and they follow right along and create this out of nowhere idea that the Republicans hate the poor again.
Thirty-six hours ago, the Republicans were the great friends of the poor, trying to make sure they didn't get left out of Obamacare or health care.
Thirty-six hours later, Republicans hate women again.
Republicans hate the poor.
Obama once again has the high ground.
And we shift from debating the absolute disaster of the entire Obama agenda to what a great compassionate guy Obama is all of a sudden now concerned about income inequality and the minimum wage.
It's just amazing.
It's just to watch this, to watch them change direction, take the audience, people at Consume News, right along with.
Yeah, I know Obama, Obama met secretly with a bunch of left-wing radical pundits and bloggers last week to ask them how to change the subject from the failure of Obamacare.
This is what they came up with, I guarantee you.
In fact, one of the uh one of the women leading this march on the fast food joints attended a strategy session in the White House with Obama about this.
And what the left always, when they are in trouble, when the bottom is falling out, when the audience is on the verge of discovering the truth of the villain.
The villain always goes back to class warfare.
Which makes them the hero.
And turns the Republicans and the conservatives into the villains again.
And I'm sorry, I'm worn out.
Twenty-five years, I'm not playing the game.
Because it assumes that you are an idiot.
The game assumes that you're nothing more than a lapdog.
The game assumes that you're nothing more than some slavish prisoner to the daily media narrative.
And I know, because you listen to this program that you aren't.
So let me take a brief timeout.
I mean, look, folks, you think you think Barack Obama would rather play Santa Claus with the minimum wage or talk about a hundred million Americans had to lose their health insurance?
What would he rather do?
He's gonna try he's gonna play Santa Claus with a minimum wage.
He's got no successes to brag about.
He cannot talk about a robust job market.
In fact, the very fact he's talking about the minimum wage is evidence there is no robust job market.
The fact that Obama talks about a minimum wage is evidence that his economy is in the tank, is in the toilet, is in the septic tank.
You can't have a robust economy and all starts whining and moaning about income inequality and the minimum wage.
So he's tantamount admitting to people in the know, and you are among those people who know his economy sucks.
He can't talk about the slick rollout of healthcare.gov.
He can't talk about how you're saving 2,500 on your insurance premium.
He can't talk about how you are able to keep your insurance.
He can't talk about how you're now able to keep your doctor.
All he can do is pivot back and start promising utopia again if only the Republicans would get out of the way.
The president is tanking in the polls.
It isn't going to get any better.
He's trying to change the subject.
The elephant in the newsroom, and that's exactly the way to look at this.
The elephant in the newsroom is the story of 100 million Americans on the verge of losing their health insurance and their doctors in a matter of weeks.
Next year is in a matter of weeks.
That is the story.
That's the bombshell.
It's the law.
The president wants to bury it like a landmine.
So he's out now changing the subject and back into playing Santa Claus.
It's December.
It's the minimum wage.
It's income inequality.
Let's go back to the greatest hits from the Obama grooveyard of forgotten favorites.
Except I'm changing the station.
I'm not listening.
Okay, grab uh grab somebody 20, what is it, 26 just came in.
This is this illustration.
This is Nancy Pelosi this afternoon.
In Washington, mere moments ago during a Democrat steering and policy committee hearing on unemployment benefits.
Yes, unemployment.
Oh, the president said yesterday it'd be a terrible thing if they had to lose their insurance.
And insurance.
Nobody looks at unemployment count as insurance.
Everybody thought he was talking about health care.
He wasn't.
He was talking about unemployment benefits.
Notice the pivot.
And right on schedule, here is Pelosi.
She, closing statement, this is just a little bit of what she said.
We cannot, cannot support a budget agreement that does not include unemployment insurance in the budget or as a sidebar in order to move it all along.
It would undermine who we are as a country.
Unemployment benefits.
That's who we are as a country.
Is anybody even talking about this?
So we're now talking about a budget agreement.
We're talking of a budget agreement, cutting on employment benefits, raising the minimum wage, income inequality, all overnight.
As though it's the only thing that's on anybody's minds.
In fact, there's a Gallup poll.
Do you know nobody cares about income inequality?
I have it right here.
According to a recent Gallup poll, income inequality is, quote, the most important issue facing the country for just one percent of the population.
That's it.
In a gallop poll of issues, people being asked what's the most important thing facing the country?
One percent say income inequality.
So you put it all together, and you've it's you've got the recipe.
Income inequality.
Democrats trying to extend federal unemployment benefits again, which is again, I'm telling you, it is on your face evidence that the Obama economy is miserable.
Wouldn't be talking about the minimum wage otherwise.
Anyway, I got to take a break here, folks, as we have reached the bottom of the hour.
But you sit tight.
We'll be back.
There's much more when we get back.
Hi, welcome back, Rush Limbaugh.
Let me uh uh address something here.
Right when the program began, uh, Mr. Snurdley asked me, so are you gonna play all these Pope sound bites that you've got building up?
And I said, No, I'm not gonna play them.
And this is why.
Exactly what we're talking about now.
That this is another manufactured controversy.
I happen to be a villain in this massive soap opera script.
I give you an illustration.
You remember there was a woman once who testified before a fake congressional committee who demanded $3,000 worth of birth control pills, paid for by everybody else, and we calculated that you'd have to be having sex, I mean, 25 times a day to run through that much birth control pill.
So I used a word to describe it, and I actually did not use the word I meant to use, but I used the word, and you remember for two weeks, that is all anybody was talking about.
And they were massive efforts to cancel this program and get me thrown off the soap opera to get me written out of the script, if you recall that.
You do, you recall that?
Okay.
Now let's go back to this guy named Martin Bashir.
I told a joke.
I was I used an inappropriate word.
I didn't even use the word I intended to use, because I frankly, I don't even know if it makes sense to revisit this.
The word I did use, I thought it meant the same thing as the word anyway.
So the point is the writers of the soap opera then hopped on that for as I mean, they didn't let it go.
And I was the scum of the earth, and anybody associated me with this scum.
Over here, you have Martin Bashir, who basically thinks it'd be a great thing if somebody defecated and urinated in Sarah Palin's mouth a number of times.
And the same people who did everything they could to run me out of town off the soap opera didn't say a word about Bashir.
So this business with me and the Pope, look, it is what it is.
I read on numerous blogs summaries of what the Pope had said.
There is no question that the Pope had some very critical things to say about capitalism that are echoed by what you hear your average leftist say about it.
I was kind of surprised by it.
I said so.
I said it sounds Marxist.
And so now the writers of the soap opera have decided that I have stirred things up enough that I can once again become an elevated villain.
I I I got I mean I'm getting emails from people.
So what do you think about the stir you've caused?
And I'm writing about what stir.
I've been out of the country.
I'm not aware of any stir, and I'm not.
Okay, so they may be talking.
I'm not gonna feed it.
I don't have to explain myself.
Everybody knows, just like they did back then exactly what I meant.
They knew exactly what I said.
When I when I said I hoped Obama fails, and they had they had you know conniption fit over that.
They knew exactly what I meant, while they're mischaracterizing it.
So I'm I'm not gonna feed it.
Not even for the entertainment value.
Because I'm I'm it's just none of it's real, folks, and I'm sorry.
I'm the mayor of Realville.
And I just I don't like immersing myself in this contrived phony these people acting like they're so outraged by this.
They're not outraged by it.
They're energized by what they think is another opportunity to take me out.
They don't care what I really said about the Pope.
That's not the point of it.
The point, oh wow.
I mean, every day they're hoping I step in it, as they define stepping in it.
So to heck with it.
I'm not gonna, I'm not, I'm I'm not gonna allow these people, at least I'm not gonna participate, these people making me the bad guy, because I am not.
I am one of the guys in the white hats in this soap opera, and I always have been.
And I and I am not gonna let them turn me into a black hatted character.
Just not gonna do it.
Because it's, you know, it's all made up, this anger, this outrage.
It's all phony.
I mean, you got people who themselves hate the Catholic Church, all of a sudden now, having to weigh, well, who do we hate more?
Limbaugh or the Catholic Church?
And they've decided me.
And they're really conflicted, because the Pope is also saying, while he's saying what they want to hear about capitalism, he's also telling them they can pack it in on abortion because he's not changing his mind, and nor is the church.
And that really ticks them off.
But even with that, they still decide that I'm the black hat.
Well, I mean, it's just so funny.
These people, without me being involved, they nobody would have cared what the Pope said.
In fact, nobody did till I brought it up.
Nobody was even talking about it till I brought it up.
And my experience is I must have been right to the point of irritating them, which is why they then brought it up.
Jonathan Turley was on, let's see, where was this is Tuesday, who said testifying before a House Judiciary Committee on the constitutionality of some of Obama's uses of executive branch power.
Now this is important because this is right.
Turley, the leftist, moderate, so he's at uh George Washington University law school, and Bob Goodlat, Republican from uh from Virginia, was uh was questioning.
And he said, Professor Turley, the Constitution, the system of separated powers, not simply about stopping one branch of government from usurping another, it's about protecting the liberty of Americans from the dangers of concentrated government power.
How does the president's unilateral modification of an active Congress, meaning his willy-nilly granting of waivers, delaying implementation, all of these things he's doing with his own health care law are unconstitutional?
He cannot do what he's doing, according to the Constitution.
And so Goodlet is asking Turley here, constitutional professor, how does the president's unilateral modification, just acting willy-nilly, acting like a dictator, you know, pretending to playing dictator.
How does that affect the balance of power between the political branches and the liberty interests of the American people?
The danger is quite severe.
The problem with what the president is doing is that he's not simply posing a danger to the constitutional system.
He's becoming the very danger the Constitution was designed to avoid.
We have what many once called an imperial presidency model.
The tape.
Did you hear that?
Jonathan Turley, otherwise a close associate of Obama's and one inclined to hope Obama would succeed, actually said the president of the United States is becoming the very danger the Constitution was designed to avoid.
Amen.
That is exactly right.
The Constitution was written in order to prevent this kind of coalition of power, a coalescing of power by one man or by one branch.
It was designed to prevent this and stop it.
But if you've got a doormat Congress or a doormat court system that's not going to stand up for themselves and their branch, then he's gonna get away with it.
And it's exactly what's happening.
He is becoming, and you think I'm gonna let them turn me into the black hat here.
I'm not gonna let them turn me into black.
This is the guy who is becoming the very danger.
The Constitution was designed to avoid.
Turley went on to say, we have what many once called an imperial presidency model of largely unchecked authority.
And with that trend, we also have the continued rise of this fourth branch.
We have agencies that are quite large that issue regulations.
He's exactly right.
The EPA is issuing regulations that they are not empowered to issue.
The EPA is telling you how you can and can't run your business, organize your home and your property in ways they're not empowered to do.
But if nobody stops them, if everybody in opposition is a doormat, they're gonna do it and get away with it.
And Turley is right on the money.
And in order to keep people from discovering this or figuring this out on their own, or for in order to prevent this that Turley's saying from getting traction, it's time to play Santa Claus.
It's time to income inequality to raise the minimum wage.
Let's start bashing the poor, let's do class warfare, and let's go back to the mean Republicans.
Let's go back to the Trident Crew.
And that's exactly what the Did you see the story today?
I've got a soundbite on it.
I don't know where it is.
Uh but it's the fact that Obama hasn't met with Sabelius in three years.
One time it once in two and a half years.
Now, Kathleen Sibelius is the otherwise inept and incompetent Secretary of Health and Human Services.
But because she's the Secretary of Health and Human Service, she is empowered to basically run Obamacare when Obama forgets to be dictator.
It's number 17.
Okay, it is.
Peter Schweitzer's written books about the regime.
He's at the Breitbart Darnell.
He was on Hannity last night.
And Hannity said three and a half years leading up to the uh Obamacare launch, Obama held zero one-on-ones with Sabilis.
I know you looked at calendar records, 277 one-on-one meetings with other secretaries, zero with Sibelius.
Is it possible that it happened and just is it recorded?
We looked at the White House visitors' logs, which show that Sabelius went to the White House, but on every occasion it was for a social function with dozens or hundreds of people.
There are no recorded meetings except for one in April of 2010, where she and Secretary of the Treasury Geithner met with the president.
But that's more than three and a half years ago that they had any kind of small meeting together whatsoever.
This is his signature domestic policy.
One-sixth of the entire U.S. economy is being reconstituted under government control, and he can't take the time for a meeting in three and a half years with the person implementing it.
That's really pretty shocking.
No, it's not.
It isn't shocking at all.
And I don't I don't mean To sound like one of these people, if you knew what I knew.
But I'm just telling you, it's not shocking at all.
He doesn't care about the details.
He doesn't care that he lied.
He doesn't care.
He doesn't want to be bothered by the details of any of that.
That's not what this is.
All that matters to him is it's the law now.
The hell with what happens between now and when they get to total government control, total socialized medicine.
That's the objective and what's happening now.
He doesn't care.
That's why he didn't meet with Sibelius.
He doesn't care.
He never has cared about the minutiae, the detail.
It's not because he's above it or it's beneath him.
It just thinks he'd rather do.
He's he's he's not worried it's going to be repealed.
And if he ever does really get worried it's going to be repealed, he'll do something to try to stop that.
Maybe he might have some concerns about that now, but but he doesn't care about all of these little details.
They're beneath him.
Why talk to Sabillius?
If he look it, if he cared, it's real simple.
Signature issue.
You think about this in terms of it being you.
You have this one.
You care about this more than anything in the world.
I don't know about any of you people that run your own businesses, but the things that really matter, you don't farm it out, particularly in the early days.
You shepherd it.
Your passion is what drives it.
You are aware of every potential flaw and every real flaw.
You can fix it because you've put your life into it.
That's not him.
This is a theoretical dream.
This is a this is a you know, a socialist Marxist, just it's what it is.
How you get there and the all that, that's for other minions to worry about.
Why meet with Sibylia?
He doesn't.
I think I think the fact he didn't meet with her is the only evidence anybody needs that he really doesn't care.
In a compassionate sense about people.
I gotta take a break.
I just saw the clock.
I'm a little long.
Be back.
Don't go away.
Okay, gonna get a phone call in in this hour, among other reasons, just to be able to say I did.
And we're gonna start San Francisco.
This is uh Chris, great to have you, sir.
Welcome, and you are up first today.
Thank you, Rush.
It's an honor.
You better.
Just have a quick question.
Um Obama's pivoting back, as you said, to a strategy he's been relying on that involved the media quite heavily.
Uh and I'm wondering now that he's kind of going back to the same well, uh, can we expect the media to jump in with both feet?
Or do you think they're gonna be a little bit more skeptical this time?
Jump in with both feet.
You mean go where he is?
I don't think Obama could have done what he's done in the past if the media wasn't fully supporting him, correct?
Yep, that's pretty good bet.
I mean, he needs a slavish media that is covering up for him, ignoring 90% of what he does, and basically acting as a PR firm.
Yep.
Right.
So now that he's kind of going back to the trying to change the subject, but but it but he now has this recent track record where things are not going well.
Mainstream media were skeptical this time.
Mainstream media like Pab loves dogs.
I'm gonna tell I mean uh that's my point today, actually.
No matter everywhere I look.
Last night on cable TV, on the blogs, everybody taking it seriously.
Everybody reacting with the stats on the minimum wage, and that's that they've been printing for 25 years or 30 years, everybody reacting with the truth about the level of income in a quiet way.
Everybody's buying it, everybody's I mean, Obama says this, everybody reacts to it, the media's talking about it, everybody's all in.
I mean, that that was my point.
It's not everybody, even conservative blogs.
They bought it.
So Obama pivots and they respond not by describing what Obama's doing, but by taking his challenge and trying to prove it he's wrong with what he's saying.
The same battle we've been fighting for 25 or 30 years.
The Democrats come out and say we need to raise the minimum wage, conservative Republican media then responds with, well, let's get the truth about a minimum wage is this, this, this, this, that, and that.
Rather than Deal with the strategy and the tactic.
The Republicans take the bait and deal with the substance, never reaching the low information voter, and never bridging the emotional gap.
The Democrats know, talk about raising a minimum wage.
Who is opposed to people making less money?
Nobody is.
Everybody wants everybody to make more money.
So have the Republicans start saying, well, the minimum wage, if you look at them, they start citing statistics that are esoteric to people.
That's what they're doing now.
And the same thing.
I can't tell you the number of stuff people sent me.
Rush, here's the truth about income inequality.
Make sure you tell them that it's the same.
I've been saying for 25 or 30 years.
And it's it's to answer your question short version, they're all in.
Wherever Obama goes, they're gonna follow.
The mainstream media are Obama's first responders.
When he's caught in a tree trying to rescue the cat, neither can get down.
The fire department shows up, that's the media to get him out of there.
They are the PR firm, the first responders, Pavlov's dogs, whatever.
Even now, nothing's changed.
And we will be back.
Okay, Snerdley, I'll tell you what I'm gonna do.
I'm gonna go back on this Pope business.
I'm gonna go back and I'm gonna replay what I said, and then you compare to the way that is being portrayed by the writers of the soap opera inside the beltway and the way they are starting and framing the discussion.
And you just that's all I'll have to do.
I'll replay what I said.
It was tasteful, it was exact, it was accurate, and there was nothing wrong with it in any way, shape, manner, or form.
▲
Export Selection