Skip to comments.RUSH IN A HURRY -- Rush to GOP: Just Say ... Hell No!
Posted on 02/10/2010 3:16:31 PM PST by GOP_Lady
On Today's Show...
February 9, 2010
The Rush Limbaugh Show® Premiere Radio Networks © All Rights Reserved, 2010.
Premiere Radio Networks, Inc. 15260 Ventura Blvd. Sherman Oaks, CA 91403
To be added or removed from the "Rush In A Hurry" Ping List, FReepmail GOP_Lady.
RUSH: Blizzard in Washington. Blizzard in New York City. What's happening here, folks, I have it on good authority, what's causing all of this -- and this comes from our official climatologist, Dr. Roy Spencer, University of Alabama Huntsville, UAH -- all of these storms and the chilly Florida winters are being caused by El Nino, you can count on it. Whenever you hear there's an El Nino you're going to get mudslides in California, you're going to get colder weather here in the south and southeast, and you're going to get a lot of rain. Now, normally the rain would be going further north and the global warming models all predict that the cold weather would be going north and it's the exact opposite. All of this is much southerly, much more southerly than it ought to be. These two storms are merging here and they're El Nino storms, Mother Nature can't do anything about that, and it's just another nail in the coffin of the whole global warming thing, and each time, you know, every day like this, where is Algore? Where is the media asking Algore what's going on with this? I mean the IPCC has been destroyed credibility-wise. It doesn't mean that the leftist goons are giving up by any stretch, but nobody's had any curiosity to go out and try to find Algore and ask him to explain this or at least comment on it. I find that fascinating.
RUSH: Now, the National Guard is out in Washington, we have snowplows out all over from Chicago to Washington to New York. What is it that's powering these snowplows? What is it? It's the internal combustion engine. And of course it's either diesel or gasoline powering these snow blowers and the snowplows. I think we all need to have a good laugh here at the expense of the environmentalist wacko communists in New York, Washington, Baltimore, and Philadelphia, and every other snow-packed town or city whose houses are equipped with Ed Begley Jr. recommended solar panels. You got people relying on solar panels and windmills and all of these other green energy technologies. Imagine how frustrated these people are who say they're going to save the planet and they can't even save themselves. Their own technology could not get them to the grocery store during a situation like this. Their own technology would not enable them to feed themselves. They have to rely on snowplows powered by gas-guzzling combustion engines in order to get out of their driveways to drive or bike or go to a global warming protest in the middle of a blizzard. I just find this ironic, and, of course, you know me, my friends, I laugh at it.
If Congress wasn't shut down due to the weather today it could be declared National Combustion Engine Day, a tribute to one of the truly great inventions in the history of mankind. (interruption) No, no, no, Snerdley, I'm serious about this. You look at what's happened. If we relied on the green people, if we relied on the green Nazi police, if we relied on these people, we wouldn't be able to clear snow. What are we going to clear the snow with? Segues? And how about another shout-out to the blizzard first responders? Do you know who else is closed, if you want to really have a laugh, FEMA. The federal government's closed today, and along with it FEMA. The FEMA office in Washington is closed. The Federal Emergency Management Agency is shut down, totally shut down. There are people nevertheless working 24/7 to clear the streets, to fix power lines, to get entire cities back to work. These are unsung heroes, and they are using the internal combustion engine and traditional energy sources in order to do their work. They never complain.
Liberals will soon be able to get back to work making life a little more difficult for every one of us while they impose higher taxes, more regulations, never ending stream of condescension and scorn on everybody, yet they sit toasty warm inside their homes, not for anything they've done, and not for any contribution they've made. You know these guys that drive snowplows, they also drive to tea parties. These are the guys that love Sarah Palin, probably listening to me at this very moment as we give them a shout-out, unsung heroes, the people outside their homes clearing the streets so everybody, including the environmentalist wackos, can get wherever they have to go to feed themselves, to restock their shelves at the grocery store, clearing the path so that the restocking trucks can get to the grocery store. Thank God for the internal combustion engine, my friends. Thank God for the hardworking Americans who make and drive 'em.
RUSH: I want you to listen to a couple sound bites. We're going to start here with number one, Mike, I changed my mind here on the fly. The left is clearly calling these snowstorms in the Drive-By Media the snowpocalypse to make it sound like it's being caused by global warming. Snowpocalypse, and they've also called it Snowmageddon. I think Obama came up with that. So here's a montage of a bunch of Drive-By Media types.
RATIGAN: These snowpocalypses that have been going through D.C. and other extreme weather events are precisely what climate scientists have been predicting, fearing and anticipating because of global warming.
LIU: Some called it the snowpocalypse.
DEAN: Two storms combining to bring us snowpocalypse.
CHANG: What's now being called snowpocalypse.
GREGORY: The snowpocalypse.
WYDEN: We're looking at snowpocalypse.
TAPPER: The snowpocalypse.
RUSH: The snowpocalypse. Is it not amazing? Is it not amazing, somebody comes up with the word and they all repeat it. That first quote was from Dylan Ratigan, who keeps being shuffled around to different time slots over at MSNBC. "Extreme weather events precisely what climate scientists have been predicting, fearing and anticipating because of global warming." Global warming is causing these blizzards and record cold temperatures.
RUSH: I spoke too soon out there, ladies and gentlemen, in praising the snowplow operators. This just in. What is the term? Breaking news: "From Washington, DC, and neighboring Montgomery County, Maryland. They have just lived up to reputation as wimpy weather warriors. FoxNews.com is reporting that DC and Montgomery County, Maryland, have suspended snowplow operations as a blizzard bears down on the region." Now, remember, 25% of their snowplows were sitting idle anyway because they're in disrepair. So the government officials in DC and Montgomery County, Maryland, are failing take advantage of the internal combustion engine and just giving up. They can't keep up with the blizzard. They'll deal with it after the blizzard hits.
RUSH: "Fifteen months ago Robert Kennedy Jr, the son of Robert Kennedy Sr. ... By the way, this is the Robert Kennedy Jr. "who flies around on private planes so as to tell larger numbers of people how they must live their lives in order to save the planet." according to David Freddoso, the Washington, DC, Examiner. "Robert F. Kennedy Jr. ... wrote a column last year on the lack of winter weather in Washington, D.C. 'In Virginia, the weather also has changed dramatically. Recently arrived residents in the northern suburbs, accustomed to today's anemic winters, might find it astonishing to learn that there were once ski runs on Ballantrae Hill in McLean, with a rope tow and local ski club. Snow is so scarce today that most Virginia children probably don't own a sled.'" Anyway, it goes on to say that global warming would mean no snow or cold in Washington, DC. Everywhere you look these people who have no credibility to begin with in the first place (other than having it bestowed on them by a sycophantic media), their credibility is falling apart.
|Read the Background Material...
| Dr. Roy Spencer, Principal Research Scientist, University of Alabama
AP: Blizzards Pound Snowbound Mid-Atlantic to New York
WTOP: 25 Percent of D.C. Plows Out of Commission
American Thinker: Crippled By Blizzard, DC Announces New Global Warming Agency by Phone
ABC: Shovel Ready: Nation's Capital Finds Winter Weather Boon and Boondoggle
Washington Examiner: RFK Jr. Never Saw this Much Snow When He Was a Kid- David Freddoso
National Review: RFK Jr. vs. 'Deliberately Blind Corporatists'
RUSH: Yesterday and the day before, when I got wind of this invitation from Obama to House Republicans to come up and have a televised six hour meeting on health care on February 25th, I implored them not to go. Be the party of "no;" be the party of "hell, no." The polling data all shows that 80% of the American people disapprove of the liberal Democrat Congress. There's no majority anywhere among any group that wants Obamacare. Obama has said day in and day out that he's not going to start over, so I said, "You can't lose here by not showing up." It seems that many disagree with me, including the panel at Fox & Friends.
KILMEADE: That's true but, Steve, as you saw the Washington Post came up with a poll: 63% of those polled say they want Congress to keep trying to tackle the issue --
KILMEADE: -- of health care and six in ten say the Republicans are not doing enough to forge a compromise. And if the president looked sincere yesterday and if he continues to look sincere and act sincere --
KILMEADE: -- the Republicans could look like a part block.
CARLSON: This is why I was saying yesterday: I just don't think it was a win-win for the Republicans not to show up at this thing, because if in fact it's going to be broadcast live on TV you as the American viewer will be able to see who's being partisan and who's not.
DOOCY: Besides it's the optics. If they don't show up, the president will say, "Well, I invited the Republicans. Can you zoom out? You can see. Yup. It's an empty room. The Republicans didn't come."
RUSH: And Monday night Special Report with Bret Baier. Bill Kristol, the Weekly Standard magazine editor, was on and said this.
KRISTOL: Obviously when the president invites you to the White House, you go, and they should politely go and tell him that he should kill this terrible bill that the House and Senate -- or two bills the House and Senate -- Democrats have put together and start over. Republicans should hold their ground. They shouldn't be apologetic. They shouldn't snipe at the president. This letter they sent today, I think that's silly.
RUSH: That was not a silly letter. I respectfully disagree here. This was not a silly letter. It was a letter to... What the hell was silly about the letter? My gosh, do some people still not know what we're up against here? Apparently so. It's people that have this inside the Beltway life. You get caught up in the way things happen there. What's the proper and improper way for decorum and so forth? There was nothing silly about that letter. That letter was awesome. I mean, that letter took it right to Rahm Emanuel and pointed out all the hypocrisy and all of the mistakes and all the errors and it set up some ground rules for the Republicans to show up. What am I missing here, folks? Last night on Greta Van Susteren's show on Fox, she talked to John Boehner, the Republican leader. She said, "You were quoted saying, 'Why are we gonna talk about a bill' that can't pass in connection with the health care bill? Do you say that to the president or the press?"
BOEHNER: I've been pretty clear that you've got a health care bill that the president and House and Senate Democrats been working on, that they can't pass. And why they would want to start the conversation there is beyond anything I can understand.
RUSH: Oh, he understands precisely what's going on. They want to start it there because they want their bill. Hell, folks, even CBS -- even CBS! -- sees it. It's on their Web page, one of their blogs, Mark Knoller. I mean this is remarkable. "Obama Says Bipartisanship but What He Wants is GOP Surrender," and Boehner knows that's what the objective here is. "Unannounced, President Obama took to the lectern in the White House briefing room today to give a personal readout of his meeting earlier with congressional leaders of both parties. 'Despite the political posturing that often paralyzes this town, there are many issues upon which we can and should agree,' he said. It was more a plaintive plea than a political observation. His top legislative priorities are going nowhere and he's searching for a way to get them out of lockup. In this 13th month of his presidency, he's anxious to pass a jobs bill and be seen addressing an unemployment rate that only last week declined from double digits," but it really didn't.
"And his efforts to enact bills on energy, financial regulatory reform and especially health care are stuck in Congress despite the solid majority his party holds in both chambers. He's appealing for a spirit of bipartisanship - urging Democrats and Republicans alike 'to put aside matters of party for the good of the country.' It's a familiar refrain from U.S. presidents who can't get their way in Congress." But "What these presidential appeals for bipartisanship always mean is: do it my way. ... When a sitting president calls for bipartisanship by the opposition -- he really means surrender. And if they block his proposals, its 'obstinacy' and not political views they hold as strongly as he holds his." Exactly right. Now, CBS, Mark Knoller, can put this on a blog... Obama wants Republican surrender. Boehner knows what's going on. These guys know precisely what the purpose of this is. Now, here is more Boehner. Van Susteren said, "Well, February 25th do you intend to go to this meeting that the president's calling and having televised at the White House?"
BOEHNER: I want to have a bipartisan conversation with the president about how to fix our health care system, but Eric Cantor and I sent a letter to Obama-Emanuel posing a series of questions about, "Really, what is this?" You know, the White House let us know about an hour before the American people saw this in his interview on Sunday afternoon.
VAN SUSTEREN: So it was a stunt?
BOEHNER: Well, I don't know. That's what we're trying to get to the bottom of.
VAN SUSTEREN: What would it take for you to go to that February 25th...?
BOEHNER: I want to have this bipartisan conversation. But I want it to be productive, and I want it to be real. I don't want to walk into some trap. I don't want to walk into some political event.
RUSH: Well, that's what it's designed to be. It is a political event, it is a political trap, and it's designed to make you guys look like the obstacles. It's designed to make you guys... See, there are two things going on here. The Republicans are the hot commodity. Obama wants to be seen with them. He doesn't want to be seen with a bunch of Democrats right now. Their negatives are so sky-high he don't want to be seen with them. H e wants to be seen with the Republicans. The Republicans, in every poll that's taken, are given much higher marks for being able to do this. To cut taxes, to manage the economy, the generic ballot, it's all Republican in big leads in practically every poll you look at. So Obama wants to surrender himself with these guys, but he's not going to give up what he wants in the way he wants it and the details of what he wants. He wants to portray these guys as the obstacles to get his party out of the vise! His party is in a blazing fire. He can't get his party to agree on anything. The House Democrats are saying "no" to the Senate Democrats and vice-versa.
So Obama wants a picture where at the end of the day his willing accomplices in the media can say, "I tried, but these guys don't want to compromise with me." He wants pictures that he can show that it's the Republicans obstructing this -- and how convenient! How convenient he gets a poll from the Washington Post, which is not borne out in any other poll I've seen: "63% of the American people want the country to work together. Those polled say they want Congress to keep trying to forge a compromise"? That's not what this is. That's the only poll that says that. Every other poll on health care says, "Don't do this!" Every other poll on health care says, "We don't want Obamacare." But somehow ABC/Washington Post produces a poll, "63% of those polled say that they want Congress to keep trying to tackle the issue"? And "six in ten say the Republicans are not doing enough to forge a compromise"? Frankly, my friends, I'm a little suspicious because I haven't seen that in any other poll anywhere. I haven't seen a poll blaming the Republicans for anything on this. The Republicans, up until Scott Brown, couldn't have stopped it anyway. This is a big-time trap. And Boehner knows it. He said this further with Greta Van Susteren.
BOEHNER: I don't want to walk into some setup. I don't know who's going to be there. I don't know how big the room's going to be. I don't know what the setup's going to be. And so on behalf of the American people we've asked the White House: Just scrap this bill. Let's start over. I think that's where most Americans are on this bill, and I just want to continue to push the White House to do this. The president of the United States, you know, when he offers an invitation to go to the White House, you know, naturally you want to go. I'm just trying to make sure that this is as productive and honest a conversation as possible.
RUSH: Well, right there, his suspicions are aroused that it's not going to be that if he's trying to confirm it's going to be something -- and he's very wise to have these doubts. But there's a story here from NationalJournal.com, actually from yesterday: "House Speaker Pelosi's top healthcare adviser today outlined a plan that would allow both chambers to make changes to the Senate healthcare overhaul before the overhaul becomes law. Wendell Primus said the plan is to have President Obama sign the Senate bill before signing the legislation making the changes, even though Congress will approve them in reverse to satisfy skeptical House members who refuse to pass the Senate bill before changes are made.
"'The trick in all of this is that the president would have to sign the Senate bill first, then the reconciliation bill second, and the reconciliation bill would trump the Senate bill,' Wendell Primus, told health policy experts gathered at the National Health Policy Conference hosted by AcademyHealth and Health Affairs." That's Pelosi's strategy. Now, what the hell is this meeting all about, then? If they've already got a strategy to get the Senate bill enacted as health care reform that Obama can sign, then what the hell is this meeting all about? Pelosi said, "There's a certain skill, there's a trick, but I think we'll get it done." So Pelosi's aide has spilled beans on what their health care endgame is, and it doesn't involve Republicans at all -- and this came out yesterday right here in the face of Obama demanding this meeting on February 25th that a bunch of people on our side think the Republicans ought to go to!
RUSH: Well, just as sure as you coulda predicted it, here are a bunch of Democrats now all over television this afternoon touting this Washington Post poll that says 63% of the American people want the Republicans to work with the Democrats to forge a compromise on Obamacare. So now they're out there saying: "See? The American people blame the Republicans for not doing enough." There's no other poll that says this. Not one. This is a coordinated attack. It is designed to bring pressure on the Republicans. The real numbers are 80 to 90% of the American people disapprove of the liberal-Democrat Congress. Obama's approval ratings are in the mid- to low forties now, depending on which poll you look at. The Republicans are leading everything in the generic ballot to winning elections everywhere. The idea that Republicans are being held accountable for this is just BS, pure BS. I mean, being held accountable or to blame by the American people.
So the hard press is on, which means that this thing on the 25th at the White House is a pure setup - and don't forget! Don't forget the National Journal has a story, somebody in Pelosi's office told 'em what the endgame here is, and it is to get the House to pass the Senate bill. You send it up to Obama and he signs it; then the reconciliation begins in the Senate, and then they start adding things to it that the House wants. That's the plan, without talking to the Republicans. They're just bringing the Republicans in there. The Republicans are smoking. The Republicans are hot as hell. The Democrats have to cool 'em off. The Democrats have to somehow (along with their willing accomplices in the media) make it look like Obama's failures are only due to Republicans not willing to compromise, not willing to engage in bipartisanship. That's the trap. Now, they know that's what the trap is. But if they go up there, even knowing it, can they avoid falling for it? 'Cause he's going to run the meeting. If they want to have a meeting with him why don't they call it and they run it? Ah, never happen.
RUSH: Eric in San Mateo, California, you're next on the EIB Network. Hello.
CALLER: Hi, Rush. Thank you again for a wonderful program. That last call was perplexing. That was very interesting. My point has to do with Obama trying to call the Republicans to what he calls a health care summit, and I think Republicans have an incredible opportunity. Obama has called great attention to the fact that the Republicans haven't been heard. Well, Republicans should -- on the exact same date at the same time propose to -- hold their own summit just for themselves called Health Care Unfiltered, put their plan out there and make their own media event leveraging Obama's media event.
RUSH: Maybe. I think that's not a bad idea. The odds of it being covered, however, are slim, 'cause you know the media is on their side. They could try doing that if they're going to go up. It sounds to me like they're going to go up there. It sounds like they're getting enough advice that: "White House calls, the president calls and invites you, you gotta go. You don't say no to that." But they're going to have to be really careful when they get up there and they're going to have to stand their ground when they do. I think, folks, there's another reason why Obama wants this. I want to take you back to the Republican retreat a couple weekends ago in Baltimore. They invited Obama to show up and Obama showed up, and it's as I said on Monday. You cannot have whatever number of Republicans in the room debating the president of the United States.
There is not an elected Republican leader with anywhere near, in our party, the stature that Obama has. We just don't have that. So here's Obama, as the president, who's talking to 15 or 20 or however many Republicans are going to be there just as it was in Baltimore at the retreat. Well, what happened after that retreat? After that retreat, the press and the blogs went nuts. They thought, "It was the smartest thing Obama has ever done. It revived Obama! It showed Obama to be much smarter and much more nuanced than the Republicans, and it showed the Republicans to be nothing but petty, and they were just trying to sink a battleship with BBs," and I think the White House heard that and thought, "Wow, here's a way to get our stature back." Because you have to treat the president, whoever he is (if you're Republican) with a certain amount of respect.
The Democrats, of course, throw that out the window. So it's a risk to go up there even if they do hold firm because the whole point of this is for the press to write how much smarter and how well informed, much more nuanced on this than the Republicans are -- and second, to portray the Republicans as the obstacle here, when nothing could be further from the truth. My instincts say that that's risky thing to go do because what we need to be focusing on here is conservative victory and rolling all this back and continuing to stop it. Stopping it dead in its tracks. Health care. Stopping cap and trade and anything else. Now, folks, we've got a lot of things to do here and not a whole lot of time to do them. Now, you look at the fact that the elections are coming up in November, and that's the first opportunity we're going to have to put the brakes on this.
|Read the Background Material...||
| CBS: Obama Says Bipartisanship, But What He Wants Is GOP Surrender
FOXNews: Obama Says He'll Meet GOP 'Halfway' on Health
Heritage Foundation: Obama's Health-Care Summit - Gimmick or Negotiation?
HotAir: CBS: Obama?s Bipartisanship call is Really Demand for GOP Surrender
Okay, fine. Frankly I didn't know that professor had become the number one dig, but if it is, fine and dandy. Now, gets get it this: Charles J. Ogletree, Harvard Law professor, "founding and executive director of the Charles Hamilton Houston Institute for Race and Justice, says he sees the 'professor' label as a thinly veiled attack on Obama's race." Yes, my friends, you heard me read that. I heard myself read it. So now when we call Obama "a professor," we are racist. "Calling Obama 'the professor' walks dangerously close to labeling him 'uppity,' a term with racial overtones that has surfaced in the political arena before, Ogletree said. Describing his divisive confirmation hearings as a 'circus,' Justice Clarence Thomas called the proceedings 'a high-tech lynching for uppity blacks who in any way deign to think for themselves, to do for themselves, to have different ideas. ...'
"It is perhaps ironic, then, that Ogletree, who represented Anita Hill ... now sees a bit of the 'uppity' label being placed on Obama." This is two different kinds of uppity that are being discussed here. So now is professor "the P-word"? We've got the N-word, we have the R-word, and now we have the P-word? He gotta speak in code, and only people who know what the P-word is will understand what we're saying? "'The idea is that he's not one of us,' Ogletree says of the professor label. 'He has these ideas that are left wing, that are socialist, that he's palling around with terrorists -- those were buzzwords, but the reality was they were looking at this president as an African American who was out of place.'" You know, Professor Ogletree, I hate to burst the balloon, but the single most important reason Obama was elected was his race.
A bunch of white people who thought electing a black president would assuage all of their guilt and erase our racial past, voted for Obama. They couldn't have cared less what he thought, what he said. They didn't think of him as uppity; they were being selfish! They didn't like feeling guilty over our racist past, slavery, and so they thought pulling the lever for Obama would absolve them. It wasn't for his policies as we are now quickly learning! What Clarence Thomas meant by "uppity" was he wasn't a liberal black. When Clarence Thomas says "uppity black...thinks for himself," means he's off the reservation, so to speak. He's not following the civil rights speech codes set forth by the Reverend Jackson and Al Sharpton and whoever else in charge of them. Obama is "uppity", but not as a black. He is an elitist. He does think he's smarter and better than everybody else. That's what he was taught. He's "a Harvardman." There's no question about.
And what about this post-racial society Obama was supposed to bring us? None of this was supposed to be going on. But now calling him "professor" is racist? It's "thinly veiled" racism? Wow. "Thomas L. Haskell, a professor emeritus of history at Rice University, agrees that racial bias may be implicit in the attack on Obama's professorial past. 'For me and a lot of other academic types, we identify with Obama precisely because he is an intellectual,' Haskell says. 'But what does that mean to John Q. Public? I don't know. John Q. Public may be frightened of these people, especially because this particular intellectual is a black.'" Let me ask you a question here, Mr. Haskell. How many intellectuals pronounce it "corpse-man"? And how many intellectuals think that there are 57 states in the United States? And how many intellectuals think that a breathalyzer is the same thing as an inhaler?
This notion that Obama is smarter than everybody else tricked a whole lot of people, including a bunch of uppity white Republicans who thought they were going to get one of their own in the White House. We're not frightened by Obama as a person. We are alert to his policies. We think they're idiots. You know, we need to redefine "smart." We really need to redefine "smart" and "intellectual" and all that. Intellectual is a behavior mode anymore. Intellectual is how I speak. Intellectual is where you come from. Intellectual cannot have anything to do with what you know because Obama's dead wrong on virtually everything. So how smart is he? Whether he's a professor or professorial or whatever, he's just wrong on everything, and that's what our objection is. He is so wrong, it is ruining the country! If you're small business, you do not go to the bank for a loan to increase payroll, as he said yesterday. I mean, that put me on the floor. It is closest I have ever been to speechless, listening to the sheer ignorance and naivete from this intellectual professor that we have as a president.
So "professor" is the new racist term. By the way, it says here that "Obama isn't the only modern Democrat to see his higher education credentials derided as handicaps. Campaigning for reelection to represent New York's First Congressional District, Democratic Rep. Tim Bishop has taken shots for the 29 years he spent as an administrator at Southampton College. Bishop said he's faced such criticism periodically throughout his public life, and his Republican opponent, Randy Altschuler, revived the anti-academic charge in a press release last month." Whoa, folks, do you realize what you learn just listening to this program? Now you just have to be an academic and people who attack you are racist, and calling Obama "a professor" is racist. This is the attempt to shut down as much criticism of Obama as possible. These people know what Republicans, particularly elected Republicans, are afraid of and this is just designed to shut them up because the criticism is working. The criticism is accurate. The criticism is persuasive.
RUSH: Now, also for - Professor Ogletree at Harvard: One of the reasons I don't call Obama "professor" is because he never was one! Calling him a professor is elevating him. He was a visiting lecturer. It's just like Robert B. Reichhhh. He was never a professor. He was a guest lecturer, but he was never a professor. And this guy that said this is traceable back to Socrates? Socrates could not have been called a professor in his lifetime because professor is a Latin word. It woulda never happened. Socrates was Greek!
RUSH: Gail, Birmingham, Alabama, I'm glad you called and waited, welcome to the EIB Network.
CALLER: Yes, how are you today Rush?
RUSH: I'm fine. Thank you.
CALLER: Listen, I'm a longtime listener but I called in to defend professors. I was a professor for about ten years at the university here in Birmingham and I worked on assignments occasionally with what was then called the Bureau of Education of the Handicapped. I have lots of experience with professors so let me defend them to this extent. I think what is offensive about Obama's presentation is, let me tell you what happens to professors that go awry. Professors get in front of that lectern, Sarah Palin is right, they get in front of it and they become arrogant, they turn into this elitist little model. They surround themselves with similar professors, they think the same way, they use big words when little ones would do far better, they talk too much, they intimidate the students, and the students learn pretty quick to agree with them. I agree with you, there's a bunch of professors out there like that. So what we're complaining about when we say -- and I agree -- he comes off like an arrogant professor, he's at the lectern, he tries to ridicule anybody including members of our Congress, be they Senate or congresspeople. You know, you become uncomfortable if you disagree with him because it's either his way or it's no way.
RUSH: Right, because there's an arrogance, "I'm smarter than you, you aren't in my league," but no way have you ever before today heard that the term "professor" has racial connotations.
CALLER: No, but they actually stretch for things. They have to do that because they can't really get their arms around the fact that Sarah Palin talks more like the average person. She can talk and she completes her sentences. She may not be right or wrong from the point of view that other people agree with --
RUSH: Well, I think that's true, but I don't think that's what's going on here. I said it before the election, people said, "Rush, this is going to end racism." No, it's not. Every single bit of criticism of him is going to be called racism or rooted in race. And this is just the latest example of it. He's doing such a bad job, they're trying to deflect from that and once again discredit the credibility of the people criticizing who are dead right.
|Read the Background Material...||
| InsideHigherEducation.com: Professor in Chief
CALLER: Hi, Rush. It's really wonderful to talk with you.
RUSH: Thank you very much.
CALLER: I have been going really up the wall over this talk about how intelligent Obama is, and I wanted to share something that I learned a number of years ago that might explain how we got to this point and why people think he's intelligent and why I have to disagree. Back when I was teaching school, I went and got my master's degree in guidance and counseling. Probably the one fact I learned the whole time I was taking the masters was in a course called Testing and Measurements. It was a fact that jumped out at me that I'd never seen talked about since. I think it's extremely important in our world, everybody should know that.
RUSH: What is it?
CALLER: It is that there are over a hundred different kinds of intelligence that a human being can possess and yet in our school system we only have six or seven that are followed, pushed, and so on. So anybody that has those six or seven kinds of intelligence is deemed to be really smart. Whereas people who happen to get the other kinds of intelligence think they're stupid.
RUSH: Well, what are these six or seven kinds of intelligence?
CALLER: Well, the ones that they teach in schools: Reading --
RUSH: Oh, reading writing, math, science, all that kind of stuff?
CALLER: Memorizing, spitting things back out. They don't teach reasoning. They don't teach analysis that much in the world.
CALLER: They're just a lot of things.
RUSH: Well, you know what? I think the reason people think Obama is smart is two things: They made Bush out to be an idiot, and because Obama can speak, and that will convince a lot of people you're smarter than you are.
RUSH: One thing about Obama and being smart: Is it smart to say "corpse-man"? Is it smart to think there are 57 states? Is it smart to have such ignorance about how things work in the private sector? Is it smart to have a cabinet with nobody that has any private sector experience whatsoever? Is it smart to have a close circle of advisors who only know the thug way of getting things done? Is it smart? Obama's agenda, the big-ticket items, are in tatters, with a majority of his own party in both houses, until recently. Is it smart to not be able to get something done with that kind of power? Where's his academic record? That would settle a lot of this. But that is jealously guarded, ladies and gentlemen. We are not allowed to see his college transcripts. They are more secret than national security secrets. Zip, zero. We don't know.
But I think Obama's the kind of guy that had people turning C's into A's for him if he needed to for whatever reason. Now, the last caller said that there are six kinds of intelligence and some people say there's a hundred kinds of intelligence. Some guy named Howard Gardner here: "Overview of the Multiple Intelligences Theory, Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development and ThomasArmstrong.com." That's, I guess, who Howard Gardner is. This is just the first one we found when looking this up on the break. So here are "The Nine Types of Intelligence" this guy identifies. I want you to see if you think any of these describe you. "1. Naturalist Intelligence ('Nature Smart'). Designates the human ability to discriminate among living things (plants, animals) as well as sensitivity to other features of the natural world (clouds, rock configurations).
"This ability was clearly of value in our evolutionary past as hunters, gatherers, and farmers; it continues to be central in such roles as botanist or chef." Right? "2. Musical Intelligence," that is pretty much self-explanatory. It's "the capacity to discern pitch, rhythm, timbre, and tone. ... 3. Logical-Mathematical Intelligence (Number/Reasoning Smart) Logical-mathematical intelligence is the ability to calculate, quantify, consider..." So far, none of these apply to me. None of it. I can't carry a tune. I can't recognize pitch. Especially now, since I'm deaf, I cannot discern pitch or tone. I couldn't create music. I can't even play it. "Nature smart"? I think about it a lot but I'm not "a botanist or a chef." You know, I would never grow a garden in the back of my house. (interruption) I do not have a garden in my house. I've got landscaping. I don't have a garden.
I don't grow fruits and berries and vegetables and stuff, but I've got a lot of landscaping out there, but I had nothing to do with it. I tell them what I said but I couldn't do it myself so I don't have that. "4. Existential Intelligence Sensitivity and capacity to tackle deep questions about human existence, such as the meaning of life, why do we die, and how did we get here." Okay, I might fit into that in a way. "The meaning of life," I ponder that a lot. "Why do we die"? I don't ponder that. We do. That's enough. I don't need to know why. And "how did we get here?" I'm not... I'm curious about that. "5. Interpersonal Intelligence ('People Smart'). Interpersonal intelligence is the ability to understand and interact effectively with others. It involves effective verbal and nonverbal communication, the ability to note distinctions among others, sensitivity to the moods and temperaments of others, and the ability to entertain multiple perspectives.
"Teachers, social workers, actors, and politicians all exhibit interpersonal intelligence." (interruption) You think I got that? Okay, there's two of them: "6. Bodily-Kinesthetic Intelligence ('Body Smart') Bodily kinesthetic intelligence is the capacity to manipulate objects and use a variety of physical skills. This intelligence also involves a sense of timing and the perfection of skills through mind-body union. Athletes, dancers, surgeons, and craftspeople exhibit well-developed bodily kinesthetic intelligence." (interruption) Yeah, yeah, I golf, but I... (interruption) Yeah, I did win the Miss America Judges Dance Contest. Okay, "Bodily-Kinesthetic Intelligence," I'll circle that for me. "7. Linguistic Intelligence (Word Smart) Linguistic intelligence is the ability to think in words and to use language to express and appreciate complex meanings." That pretty much sums me up.
I mean, that would be the number one kind. I'm word smart. "Linguistic intelligence allows us to understand the order and meaning of words and to apply meta-linguistic skills to reflect on our use of language. ... Young adults with this kind of intelligence enjoy writing, reading, telling stories or doing crossword puzzles," although I hate those, but mainly 'cause you gotta go to a newspaper to see one. "8. Intra-personal Intelligence ('Self Smart'). Intra-personal intelligence is the capacity to understand oneself and one's thoughts and feelings, and to use such knowledge in planning and directioning [sic] one's life. ... It is evident in psychologist, spiritual leaders, and philosophers. ... 9. Spatial Intelligence ('Picture Smart') Spatial intelligence is the ability to think in three dimensions. Core capacities include mental imagery, spatial reasoning, image manipulation..."
That's like an interior decorator or a painter. "[M]ay be fascinated with mazes or jigsaw puzzles." That's not me. So I've got one, two, three, four of these nine. Snerdley has 'em all. All right. I don't know about that. Snerdley claims to have them all. I know you've got the musical stuff. I didn't know you were a home designer, a home decor and all that. There's nothing here about food smart. I didn't see anything about food smart in here, which a lot of people are. (interruption) Well, that's "chef," yeah, but I'm thinking more like Michelle Obama. Well, no, no. Michelle Obama is food smart. She's out there federalizing fat now with this new executive order directive that she got from her husband.
|Read the Background Material...||
| SkyView: The Nine Types of Intelligence - Howard Gardner
CALLER: Hey, Rush. Really nice to speak with you.
RUSH: Thank you, sir.
CALLER: I'm a Rush Baby. I've been listening to you since I was probably nine years old, I guess, back in --
RUSH: That's a good thing for you and for me. Thank you.
CALLER: Yeah, and actually, I don't know if you've coined the term yet but I'm working on a Rush grandbaby, my two-year-old really enjoys listening to you.
RUSH: Well, good.
CALLER: Anyhow, I'll get to my point. Say, you were speaking about these comments Obama was making yesterday, and one of the things he said is: (paraphrasing) "I know that small business owners are saying that they want to hire people, that they're hiring people, and that all things are looking positive, generally speaking." I just have a hard time believing that. I mean, I'm a small business owner myself. If I had the president of the United States coming to talk to me, I don't think I'd have the guts to say much negative, if anything negative, even though I'm about as anti-Obama as a person could get, but I don't buy it that he's out there having these one-on-one meetings with the small guy, the little business owners and they're being real honest.
RUSH: He might have. You know, he's done a lot of workshops at the White House. He might have had one of those workshops with small business people in there, but that's not the point. The fact is he has to. He doesn't know anything about it. He has to. I'm like you, I don't believe it. He's being told that they have profits now. It makes no sense. It was a frightening quote that he had, just bugaboo all over the place. You don't go borrow money to expand your payroll. It's never, ever done. That's not the point of it. Now, people say, what can we do, what can we do? Look, we're going to have to hold on 'til November but, folks, even that is just barely a stopgap. There are several things at work here that we're going to have to stay on top of. Most of you know these. We need a conservative victory, not a Republican victory per se, because if we get what is said to be a Republican victory, not much is going to change. The GOP leadership, to me, now -- I hope I'm wrong about this -- but the GOP leadership still doesn't understand what we're facing and who we're facing and the perilous state of the nation.
They're inside the Beltway, and to them this is just the latest Democrat president, Democrat Congress, although I do think that they're a little bit more aware of the genuine radicalness of this bunch than they were at the outset. But this election in November is the first step in what must be several electoral cycle victories if we are to start the process of returning to a limited and legitimate government. We have to find or nurture the leaders who are articulate and strategic and can actually make a difference not at all at once but with a big-picture view that puts in place plans and policies that will reverse all of this from one generation to the next. This is going to be an ongoing thing. It took the Democrats a hundred years to get to this point. Now, we still have not taken back the GOP. There will continue to be some confusion about the GOP of old and conservative efforts to remake it as a Conservative Party. We have to continue to challenge in the primaries, win or lose, advance our philosophy. And, you know, you can't go out and demand perfection from anyone or expect it out of anybody in any election. But you have to demand that every reasonable effort be made to return to constitutional government so that every compromise, should there be a compromise, must be focused on this purpose.
We don't have a whole lot of time to stop what's occurring and promote our principles. We are confronted by people who believe in the destruction of this society, and we have to get hold of the levers of power as fast as possible to stop this. Now, there are people out there that claim to be conservative or Libertarian or some Third Way, promoting third parties or worse, lecturing that we should ignore politics. They argue that all the parties are the same, all politicians are dishonest, and it's a new form of populism, and it is not the case. I don't think you could find one Republican -- I know you haven't. Take it back. That idiot from Louisiana who voted for the stimulus bill. But you won't find any Republican fingerprints on this health care bill. There's just a huge difference. So we all have our roles, and we all have our motivations, and we all have our opportunities. We all should do all that we can in our own way to advance our ideals. There's simply no alternative here if you love the country.
The ideals that we hold dear are under assault, and they have been for decades. It wasn't until this election cycle that the American people got befuddled by a cult leader and airy promises of utopia after a strategic seven-year hit on the Bush administration which gendered up a personal hate for the man so that anybody else would look better and make the whole concept of change and hope to anything, an improvement. But it took them 50, 75, hundred years to get to this point. It's going to take a longtime, concerted effort to reverse all this, and it's gotta start now and the first election. We're going to have a chance to put the brakes on this is in November, but it's gotta continue long past that as well.
RUSH: I was just talking to Snerdley in his office here at the top-of-the-hour break, and he said he couldn't sleep last night. And I said, "Why?" He said, "Because of your show." "What about my show was so frightening?" He said, "Obama's statement on what small business need to do." I mean, he was asked a question by Jake Tapper. I think for the first time I became speechless for a couple seconds yesterday when I heard this. Jake Tapper said, (paraphrasing) "What small business people say is it's not that they can't get loans, they can. It's that they don't know what's coming down the pike policy-wise to make it harder for their business to grow, cap and trade coming, if there's going to be health care, tax increases," and Obama said, (paraphrasing) "No, no, no, I've talked to a lot of small business people and they tell me they can't have access to credit." And it got me to thinking. Here's a guy who has to go out and talk to small business people because he doesn't know anything about it. He doesn't have one person in his cabinet that has private sector experience in business. Well, John Kerry ran a muffin shop, yeah, but look at how that turned out. That didn't turn out well. There's not one person in his cabinet. All they have is a bunch of theoreticians.
And these people live in their own world, and they look at the real world, and they start criticizing what they think about it doesn't work. They've never been in it. Whenever he walks into a room we have the most inexperienced and unqualified guy as president. I don't care what room he walks into, he never even was a full-fledged professor. So if he walks into a smoke room, brandy and cigars, he's still the most inexperienced, unqualified guy in the room. He happens to be running the country. That quote was sort of frightening. He says small businesses, they need to borrow money to expand payroll. You never do that. My gosh, you hardly ever borrow to make payroll. If you're having to do that you're in deep doo-doo already. But you never borrow money to expand payroll. Business circumstances cause that to happen. And he says he's talked to small business people who said, yeah, they would love to do that but they can't get loans, which is not true.
So today, I get up, and I'm bombarded with news that the left is just livid at Obama, from the Huffington Puffington Post to an MIT professor. They are livid. And you know why? Because Obama's got an interview coming out with Bloomberg on Friday in which he says, yeah, it's okay, I have nothing to say against these big bonuses at JP Morgan Chase for Jamie Dimon and Goldman Sachs for Lloyd Blankfein. Blankfein's bonus is nine million, and Jamie Dimon's is $17 million. And Obama said: "I know both those guys; they are very savvy businessmen. I, like most of the American people, don't begrudge people success or wealth. That is part of the free-market system." And his supporters are just livid because they think he's sold them out because he just not long ago was calling these bonuses obscene and was wanting to punish all these executives and he had a pay czar out there that was gonna make sure that this didn't happen. So the Huffington Post is fit to be tied.
This MIT professor, Simon Johnson, says: "Taken separately, these statements are undeniably true. But put them together in the context of the Bloomberg story -- we have to wait until Friday for the full text of the interview -- and the White House has a major public relations disaster on its hands," meaning, with its base. "Does the president truly not understand that Dimon and Blankfein run banks that are regarded by policymakers and hence by credit markets as 'too big to fail'? This is the antithesis of a free-market system." We bailed these people out! They're the ones surviving because of the taxpayer. Free market system? "Not only were their banks saved by government action in 2008-09 but the overly generous nature of this bailout means that the playing field is now massively tilted in favor of these banks."
So it appears that Obama has chosen JP Morgan Chase and Goldman Sachs as his two preferred banks, and they're going to be fine, and they're going to be able to pay bonuses whenever they want. And this Mr. Simon -- professor, sorry -- Professor Simon Johnson at MIT: "The incentives for the people running these megabanks is now to take on reckless amounts of risk. They get the upside (for example, in these compensation packages) and -- when the downside materializes this is belongs to taxpayers and everyone who loses a job. Being nice to the biggest banks will not save the midterm elections for the Democrats." And here's the exact quote from Obama in the upcoming Bloomberg piece. Here's the question: "Let's talk bonuses for a minute: Lloyd Blankfein, $9 million; Jamie Dimon, $17 million. Now, granted, those were in stock and less than what some had expected. But are those numbers okay?"
Obama: "Well, look, first of all, I know both those guys. They're very savvy businessmen. And I, like most of the American people, don't begrudge people success or wealth. That's part of the free market system. I do think that the compensation packages that we've seen over the last decade at least have not matched up always to performance. I think that shareholders oftentimes have not had any significant say in the pay --" blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah. So, not happy. They are not happy out there. Let's listen to a couple sound bites. This will help you to understand why people are upset. Obama blasted bonuses last year. This is March 18th, 2009.
OBAMA: People are rightly outraged about these particular bonuses. But just as outrageous is the culture that these bonuses are a symptom of, that have existed for far too long, a situation where excess greed, excess compensation, excess risk-taking have all made us vulnerable and left us holding the bag. I hope that Wall Street and the marketplace don't think that we can return to business as usual.
RUSH: Now, that was on the South Lawn of the White House before he was leaving for California for something. He blasted the bonuses and then December 13th, last year, on 60 Minutes, Steve Kroft said, "At three of the biggest banks they're expected to total $30 billion. That's roughly what it will cost the government to finance the surge in Afghanistan." And President Obama is furious.
OBAMA: I did not run for office to be helping out a bunch of, you know, fat cat bankers on Wall Street. The only ones that are going to be paying out these fat bonuses are the ones that have now paid back that TARP money, and the people on Wall Street still don't get it. They don't get it. They're still puzzled, why is it that people are mad at the banks? Well, let's see. You know, you guys are drawing down ten, 20-million-dollar bonuses after America went through the worst economic year that it's gone through in -- in decades? And you guys caused the problem? You know, we got 10% unemployment, why do you think people might be a little frustrated?
RUSH: So, the left heard all that, and of course his base hates corporations, his base hates bonuses, hates these people. They believe the banks are the ones that got us all into trouble. And so they expect Obama to hammer them. He comes out and says, "I know these guys. These are savvy businessmen. I don't begrudge people success or wealth." A little known factor, by the way, ladies and gentlemen, JP Morgan Chase is just one of many Wall Street firms who are fed up with donating money to Democrats in exchange for being made the whipping boys for all these problems. So JP Morgan Chase has declined Democrat Party solicitations this year and instead has given $30,000 to the Republicans. Now, could that be a factor? Could Obama be that petty? Could he see that JP Morgan Chase is not going to give any more money to Democrats, "Oh, I gotta go back and make these guys think that I'm their friend." I wouldn't doubt that at all. So for you people on the left, those of you who are fit to be tied -- and I'll tell you some of the headlines at the Huff Po are just livid: "Chicago Team Sinking Obama Presidency." "Meghan McCain Disagrees with Palin's Double Standard on the R-word." "Andrea Mitchell Mocks Palin with Notes Written on --" by the way, so did Gibbs.
You know, are these people a bunch of kids? Gibbs went out there with some stuff written on his hand, amid stories that there's no laughter in the pressroom anymore because Gibbs is not forthcoming with any news, and it's much more serious and somber in there because nothing's working. He has to take this little petty shot at Palin which does nothing but elevate her, but this is the office of the president of the United States, to be engaging in this kind of stuff shows you who these people are, how small-time and how petty. So all you people on the left, Obama's done a 180 on you, and I know you hate corporations, I know you hate these banks, you hate high bonuses, you hate big time compensation, you hate the free market, and here's Obama out there praising it. So I want to take you back, October 29th just before the election in 2008, Charlie Rose Show, had Tom Brokaw on. And they had a conversation trying to figure out who Obama is.
ROSE: I don't know what Barack Obama's worldview is.
BROKAW: No, I don't either.
ROSE: I don't know how he really sees where China is.
BROKAW: We don't know a lot about Barack Obama and the universe of his thinking about foreign policy.
ROSE: I don't really know. And do we know anything about the people who are advising him?
BROKAW: You know, it's an interesting question.
ROSE: He's principally known through his autobiography and through very aspirational speeches.
BROKAW: Two of them. And I don't know what books he's read.
ROSE: What do we know about the heroes of Barack Obama?
BROKAW: There's a lot about him we don't know.
RUSH: Ah, these guys were covering their bases just before the election in case he turned out to be exactly what he is. So you got people running away from this guy in droves here, and here are the Republicans ready to ride into the rescue on February 25th on his health care televised mumbo jumbo.
RUSH: A groundswell, ladies and gentlemen, is building. Paul Krugman of the New York Times has weighed in on his blog with Simon Johnson of the MIT and the Huffington Post. "The lead story on Bloomberg right now contains excerpts from an interview with Business Week which tells us: 'President Barack Obama said he doesn't "begrudge" the $17 million bonus awarded to JPMorgan Chase & Co. Chief Executive Officer Jamie Dimon or the $9 million issued to Goldman Sachs Group Inc. CEO Lloyd Blankfein, noting that some athletes take home more pay. The president, speaking in an interview, said in response to a question that while $17 million is "an extraordinary amount of money" for Main Street, "there are some baseball players who are making more than that and don't get to the World Series either, so I'm shocked by that as well." "I know both those guys; they are very savvy businessmen ... I, like most of the American people, don't begrudge people success or wealth. That is part of the free- market system."'"
Krugman writes: "Oh. My. God. First of all, to my knowledge, irresponsible behavior by baseball players hasn't brought the world economy to the brink of collapse and cost millions of innocent Americans their jobs and/or houses." That can be traced right to the liberal federal government, Mr. Krugman. "And more specifically, not only has the financial industry has been bailed out with taxpayer commitments; it continues to rely on a taxpayer backstop for its stability." He goes on to call Wall Street banks "wards of the state," that they have nothing to do with the free market anymore, and he says, "If the Bloomberg story is to be believed, Obama thinks his key to electoral success is to trumpet 'the influence corporate leaders have had on his economic policies.' We're doomed," writes Paul Krugman. Whoa ho-ho-ho-ho-ho. Don't discount and underestimate, ladies and gentlemen, the viciousness of this anger at Obama from his own side.
|Read the Background Material...||
| Bloomberg: Obama Doesn't 'Begrudge' Bonuses for Blankfein, Dimon
New York Times: Clueless - Paul Krugman
New York Post: Obama Does Not 'Begrudge' Bonuses for 'Savvy' Financial Chiefs
Wall Street Journal: The Jimmy Carter Jobs Credit
That started it basically a year ago. Everybody, everybody was gunning for me. Obama and his minions in the White House had targeted me as the leader of the Republican Party. And, by the way, I made the CPAC speech as well. I don't know if it happened yet, CPAC's coming up this weekend, I believe, CPAC speech combined with "I hope he fails" and so forth, and they were coming after me, they were blaming me for everything, urging Republicans not to listen to me. James Carville came out and they were running polls that I'm the leader of the Republican Party. They were doing everything they could as they've done for 20 years to destroy me. And it was me. The Republicans were nowhere to be seen, they were scared to death, they were not criticizing Obama, they didn't want to be called racist and, you know, they were having meetings with him and they didn't understand what radicals we faced in Obama. It was just one year ago.
Now, I know this sounds like an ego thing, it's not. I'm trying to make a point here. Imagine if I had gone with the flow and said, "Okay, he's a new president, deserves a honeymoon, we gotta give him a chance," that was the Republican call to arms, that was the conservative intellectual call to arms. We've gotta give him a chance. He's a centrist, he's well spoken, we gotta give this guy's ideas a chance. I was the most public opponent to all this. What if I had gone along? If I had gone along, I don't know where we would be. Would we have gotten health care in August? Well, that's arguable, Snerdley. I don't know that we would have. We might have had cap and trade. Would there have been a Scott Brown? The grassroots from which came the tea party, they were out there, too. They weren't buying any of this. They weren't going to give Obama a pass and look where we are now. I consider myself a grassroots person.
I'm not a political aficionado in some media capital. I'm a guy on the radio who has closer ties with the people who make this country work than I have with politicos, politicians, intellectuals and effete snobs in Washington and New York. And it's this bunch of people that stopped this. It's not any leadership people. They've gotten on board, they got on board late in the game, but I mention this because it's never appropriate to give up your principles. It is never appropriate to silence yourself, if that means silencing your principles. A year ago the era of Reagan was over. A year ago there was one person, "The era of Reagan is over? No." Yesterday I said the era of McCain is over with that letter the Republicans sent to Obama. All of those things, it was just a year ago, and what if we had all caved? What if we had all just gone silent because a new president and he's a centrist and can't get any worse, Rush. Oh, I heard that, too, from Democrats. Can't get any worse than Bush. Well, here we are. It is so much worse that the country as we know it is hanging in the balance.
|Read the Background Material...||
| CPAC Speech: Rush's First Televised Address to the Nation - 02.28.09
RUSH: To the phones we go, Dabel in Manhattan on the way to 16 inches of snow. Welcome to the EIB Network.
CALLER: Good afternoon.
RUSH: Good afternoon, Dabel.
CALLER: I want to know why is that you cannot say anything good about your president?
RUSH: I haven't seen anything yet to praise.
CALLER: Are you serious?
RUSH: Uh, yeah.
CALLER: No, no. You cannot be serious.
CALLER: He's the president of the biggest country in the entire world.
RUSH: It's a shame, too.
CALLER: No, it's not.
RUSH: It's a joke. It's a shame.
CALLER: It's a shame for guys like you!
RUSH: It's a travesty, and our country as we've known it hangs in the balance.
CALLER: All right. You just run a clip earlier about Tom Brokaw saying they don't know anything about Obama when he was running for president. So who knows anything about anybody that's running for election? Let's take you, for example. You telling me you want everyone to know everything about you?
RUSH: Now, Dabel, wait a minute. I played that sound bite, it's from Charlie Rose. Those were two of Obama's most ardent supporters. I was playing the entitled to show irony. Obama's now out there disappointing his base by approving of these big bonuses for Wall Street hacks, and the base is upset about that, his most ardent supporters. And I played that sound bite to illustrate that nobody knew who this guy was. Except the people who didn't know who he was, nevertheless ardently supported him for reasons that had nothing to do with who he was but rather what he was.
CALLER: I thought the reason for you to go on a rampage day in and day out on his case. That's not fair.
RUSH: Well, I don't actually "go on a rampage." I do news analysis and commentary.
CALLER: No, you think you're making commentary. But when I'm listening to you on the radio... Remember I've been listening to you when I couldn't even speak English, back in 1988. Now here 22 years later I'm listening to you, you haven't been improved at all. It's always bashing the Democrats all over and over.
CALLER: And because of you, I change my party, because the Democrats are not able to push back against your rampage.
RUSH: Really? Fascinating. What party? You mean you changed and became a Democrat?
CALLER: No, I was a Democrat, now I'm in the Family Life Party.
CALLER: Family Workers Party, I'm sorry.
RUSH: Family Workers Party? Oh, the Communist Party. The Communist Party.
CALLER: Family, family. Family Workers Party.
RUSH: Yeah, Family Workers Party. It's the Communist Party.
CALLER: They're not communist. What are you talking about?
RUSH: Anything with "workers" in it is a Communist Party.
CALLER: You making that up. That's not true.
CALLER: What do you have to back it up?
RUSH: No, I don't make things up.
CALLER: What do you have to back it up?
RUSH: What do I have to back it up? I've heard of them.
CALLER: You've heard of them? That's enough?
RUSH: I mean, the Communist Party USA has changed the name of their magazine from the Workers Daily or whatever it was to a new name. I forget what it is, but they're out there. The Communist Party's endorsed every item Obama has.
CALLER: That's why you call them a communist, huh?
RUSH: Well, you know, I don't hedge around here. I don't play around the edges. You know, I've gotta tell you go something, Dabel. I think the only way to save this country as we've known it is every liberal Democrat must be unseated. They are destroying the country.
CALLER: It's not going to happen.
RUSH: And, frankly, I'm not interested in being nice to them. They're not nice to me. When's the last time any of those people had anything nice to say about me?
CALLER: Well, you don't have to worry about them being nice to you as long as you know you're doing the right thing because that's what you're doing.
CALLER: You're always saying (garbled) stuff about them.
RUSH: That's exact right
CALLER: So why should they be nice to you?
RUSH: See, I don't care and I don't think if Obama thought he was doing the right thing he wouldn't care what I say about him.
CALLER: Okay. I got a piece of advice for you: Remember, Obama is your president.
CALLER: He's our president.
CALLER: So get that into your head so when you think about that --
CALLER: -- you will see his president of the United States of America and he cannot be wrong in all aspects as you've been saying every day in and every day out.
RUSH: Dabel, just so you have no doubt about this: It is in my head that he is our president, so much so that it keeps me awake at night.
CALLER: Come on.
RUSH: I will never, ever, ever forget that he is our president. Do worry about that. I can't escape it. He's on television a thousand times every month. The Super Bowl! We're trying to watch the Super Bowl pregame show and there we hear this phony offer to Republicans to come up and save his (ahem) on health care. Don't worry, Debel.
CALLER: We don't have health care in this country! We have next door to us Canada. They're having a national 'ealth care. Why can't they have it here in America?
RUSH: A Canada premier just came down here for heart surgery, not available in Canada. We don't want to destroy our system.
RUSH: Okay. Time for a shout-out to Dabel in Manhattan, who said he's been listening to me for 22 years, before he learned to speak English, and I haven't improved at all. (laughs) In twenty-two years, I haven't improved at all. Dabel, look, I felt a little guilty about having a little fun with you about not being able to say anything good about Obama. So I will. I mean, everybody has good qualities. Everybody has aspects about them that are likable, so here you go. He's "clean," he's "articulate," he's "light-skinned," and he can speak "without a Negro dialect" when he wants to -- and he's not an "F-ing R-word," although he is "the P-word." But not the F-ing R-word. Is that better? Besides, I had a lot of people -- Snerdley asked me -- asking, "Was Dabel speaking with a Negro dialect?" No, no, no. That was a liberal dialect. Dabel was speaking with a liberal dialect. There's a distinct difference. Here's Dean in Chicago. Dean, you're next on the EIB Network. Hello.
CALLER: Yeah. Hi, Rush. Actually this is a liberal dialect. I don't think Dabel really had it. I think I can -- I can put it out there more.
RUSH: All right, well, I'll sit here and I'll compare and let you know.
CALLER: Okay, you do that. I'm a liberal. You were asking about how liberals are running for the hills because of the things Obama is failing at. And I don't think he's failing at much of anything considering the -- the state we were in, uhh, last September when Lehman was going down. Now, I know -- I know you guys want to -- want to throw the deficit around and how he's destroying the country. And I know a lot of your listeners really want to believe that, but some of us actually know where the deficit stood before he took office, and we also understand what the ramifications were in that -- the things that were passed in Congress, even with the prior administration through the initial TARP bailouts and the bank bailouts.
RUSH: Yeah, do you know how much of the TARP money of that bailout, which was "crucial to save the world financial system," is left?
CALLER: Well, you shoulda let it go down! You've got four banks holding 90% of the deposits in this country. Let 'em go down. Would that be a brilliant move, Rush? That'd be brilliant.
RUSH: No. From the outset, I questioned whether we were being conned by everyone in Washington -- Republicans, Democrats, whoever. We still have $200 million of the $700 million for TARP unspent! What crisis was there, really? Bush spent a lot of money but nowhere near what Obama has spent. There was nowhere near that in the Bush era, nowhere near a $1 trillion deficit. But that's beside the point, too.
CALLER: You know that's not true!
RUSH: I'm stunned at you. What do you do for a living?
CALLER: Actually I'm a -- I'm a -- I'm a neocapitalist. I'm a trader for a living, and I've been accused of [by] my fellow traders that I... "How can I support socialism?" I support socialism on -- on -- on -- on a -- a scale that the country needs it because I understand that big populations, uh, uh, uh, uh, um, countries like.... It's not the 1800s anymore. You can't throw around [that] you want to go back to capitalism -- you know, hardcore capitalism -- where some people make it and some people die in a gutter. You got the GOP plan now, they want to get rid of Medicare and Medic... uh, and Social Security. Wow, that's really brilliant.
RUSH: No, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no.
CALLER: Oh, yes.
RUSH: It's the Democrats that cut $500 billion in Medicare in the health care bill, and there is nobody "dying in the gutter" because of capitalism. People are going hungry and are out of work because of Obama's socialism. Point to me where anywhere in the world --
CALLER: (garbled cell)
RUSH: Point to me anywhere in the world where socialism has led to prosperity for anybody?
CALLER: (garbled cell) ...have there?
RUSH: Show me anywhere in the world.
CALLER: (garbled cell) ...things have gone up?
RUSH: Show me anywhere in the world where socialism has led to prosperity for everybody.
CALLER: Pretty much everywhere other than us.
CALLER: Don't you guys get it?
RUSH: Really? So you're telling --
CALLER: -- all those countries that --
RUSH: You're telling me that --
CALLER: -- are telling Greece (garbled cell) that --
RUSH: Wait a minute now.
CALLER: -- might have to work two more years 'til they're sixty-three (garbled cell)
RUSH: I can't understand what you're saying.
CALLER: I understand exactly what I'm saying, and I also understand --
RUSH: Are you going to cite Greece to me? You're going to cite Spain? These people are bankrupt! They had to be bailed out by Germany. Were the people in the Soviet Union living a prosperous life? ARe the people in Cuba living a prosperous life?
CALLER: There's a big difference between social capitalism and communism, and you know that. You know there's a real difference.
RUSH: "Social capitalism"?
CALLER: At least you should!
RUSH: Social capitalism?
CALLER: Yeah. Social-market capitalism or free market socialism. Most of the Western, uh, economies --
RUSH: Well, there's no such thing.
CALLER: -- are defined by one of those two --
RUSH: There's no such thing.
CALLER: -- and there's long --
RUSH: "Free market socialism" doesn't exist. Free market socialism is fascism.
CALLER: That -- that's -- that's really cool because fascists weren't even wanted to be anything around socialist or communists, you know that, too.
RUSH: Uh, fascists are blood brothers. They're all leftists. Fascists, socialist, communist are all blood brothers. Mussolini, Hitler, all of them.
CALLER: You're reading wrong books, Rush.
RUSH: You know, you're going to have to wake up. You're a trader. I don't know what guilt has gotten hold of you. I don't know where it is you've learned your history. I don't know what it is that got into your head that capitalism leaves people "dying in the gutter." Capitalism led to the most prosperous population of human beings in the history of the world. I think people like you are a shame. People like you are going to facilitate the destruction of this country. Anyway, I'm glad you called out there, Dean. My heart's with you. I'm hoping for a revelation for you someday because you sound like a smart guy. You're the kind of guy that really perplexes us because you've obviously got a brain but you're falling for all this guilt stuff and believing that capitalism is why some people are poor and why others aren't, when socialism makes everybody miserable! And that's the "equality" of it.
RUSH: What did that guy from Chicago say, free market socialism? It turns out that there is -- and I was dead right in analyzing -- there is actually, if you go to Wikipedia, there is a definition of it. "Market socialism refers to various economic systems where the means of production are publicly owned --" that means the government "-- but the market is utilized." That's fascism. Socialism is where the government owns and operates everything, not far from communism, but fascism is the government owns things but you run it according to their dictates and they define what market conditions are, as you can clearly see happening now as they gun after Toyota. Make no mistake the feds are gunning after Toyota because of General Motors and Chrysler. It's plain as day.
RUSH: I want to go back to Dean in Chicago and Dabel from Manhattan. Dabel said that he'd left the Democrat Party because of me and joined the Working Families Party. And I said, "Well, okay, you've joined a Communist Party." "It isn't a Communist Party, how do you know that?" Anything with workers in it is communist, which is true. The Working Families Party, and this is from DiscovertheNetworks.org, Working Families Party is a front group for ACORN. It functions as a political party in New York State and Connecticut, running or cross-endorsing candidates for local, state, and federal office. They work closely with Hillary. They're currently composed of some 30,000 members. The Working Families Party is a front group for ACORN. It's an outgrowth of the socialist New Party.
The Workers Family Party, created in 1998, "According to a 2000 article by the Associated Press, its objective was (and still is) to 'help push the Democratic Party toward the left,'" toward socialism and communism. "In pursuit of this goal, WFP runs radical candidates in state and local elections. Generally, WFP candidates conceal their extremism beneath a veneer of populist rhetoric, promoting bread-and-butter issues designed to appeal to union workers and other blue-collar voters, Republican and Democrat alike." In fact, it was members of the Workers Family Party who went out to demonstrate in front of the homes of the executives of AIG over their bonuses. I don't know if Dabel was one of them that was bussed up there but he could very well have been.
Now, as for Dean and this market socialism, if you look further at the definition of market socialism at Wikipedia you'll find that their model is the ChiComs, the model for market socialism is the ChiComs, who what? They still have internment camps, they're communists! My friends, don't ever, ever doubt me. Just remember this, too, because this is key. Most of the tyrannical revolutions that we've had in recent history were not led by peasants. They were led by the children of intellectuals or the children of the wealthy to upper middle class parents. Not all, but most of them were. I mean Mao Tse-tung was not poor, he was not a peasant. Lenin, not poor, not a peasant. Fidel Castro was a lawyer, his parents own significant property. Hugo Chavez was in the army. By the way, the Miami Herald with an editorial coming up soon about it's an utter disaster in Venezuela. I'll get to that in just a second. So the investment guy from Chicago, Dean, fits this bill of revolutionaries coming from wealthy middle class parents, upper middle class.
You remember Eric Hoffer, he was the great blue-collar philosopher out in San Francisco, was a dockworker and saw the light, what was going on out there. He used to say that many of these rich, affluent revolutionaries had never gone through the equivalent of puberty; they've never really matured like the rest of us have. They're still children. And they're still kids with this idealized utopia as a possibility. They came from cushy lives; they've never had to struggle. It's only the people they lead who end up struggling.
|Read the Background Material...||
| Heritage: The Canadian Patients' Remedy for Health Care: Go to America!
DiscovertheNetworks.org: Working Families Party
CALLER: Hello, Rush. First-time caller. Mega dittos to you.
RUSH: Thank you, sir, very much.
CALLER: If it's okay I'd like to speak with a Negro dialect at this time.
RUSH: If it comes naturally to you, sir, you feel free.
CALLER: Okay, Rush, I'd like to say that you really be doing good. You got the Democrats on the run. And keep up the good work, homey, because you're really phat, meaning good.
RUSH: Yeah, that's p-h-a-t, right?
CALLER: Exactly, exactly.
RUSH: See, I know my dialects.
CALLER: (laughing) Well, I'd like to say, Rush, that the Democrats here in Illinois, it's such a joke here in Illinois that the lieutenant governor had to resign, I shouldn't say resign, but the one that just won in our special election to be the lieutenant governor, that is Scott Lee Cohen, he had to step aside for the good of the party due to his promiscuous ways and --
RUSH: That was Cohen, right?
CALLER: Yeah, Cohen, yes. He pulled a knife on one individual and beat up another one and had some steroids here and --
CALLER: -- prostitutes there.
RUSH: Yeah, and it was Dick Durbin that led the charge here because he thought this guy seemed like one of our interrogators at Guantanamo Bay.
CALLER: Exactly. I was sitting there and I was laughing about that because I'm like, wait a minute, this is definitely Chicago politics because he won, and look at his background. (laughing) His background just mimics that of the Barack Obama and the --
RUSH: Well, you know, what he's saying here, in a Negro dialect, what Ray is saying here is the Democrats are in trouble even in Illinois. The Republicans may well win Obama's seat, and there's no question about that. The Democrats are in trouble everywhere. They don't understand how bad it is. They might, actually, with the loss of that Senate seat in Massachusetts.
|Read the Background Material...||
| New York Times: Illinois Senate Race Worries Democrats Anew
LOVE IT! :-)
Thanks, again, GailA! :-)
I tried to make a link of it, and it just doesn’t cooperate have the same problems with You Tube links. Even went to the HTML sandbox and copied the Drudge link and subbed in the url for Drudges and it still wouldn’t work. My html skills are very limited.
Press the enter key at the end of the link (a new line) and then backspace it out.
That way, it knows where the link ends (and it knows it’s a link).
I’ll try that. Thanks. I rely on the HTML sandbox for what little I’ve learned. But never saw that on there.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.