RUSH: Obama's big speech tonight, and he's going to sound, according to the Politico, he's going to sound Reaganesque. Bob Gibbs, the most brilliant and competent ever White House spokesman has hinted at a Reaganesque speech. Now, how can that be? Because he's not Reagan. I don't care what anybody says, he's not Reagan. I thought the ear of Reagan was over. I'll tell you, folks, this makes my blood boil. The dumb idiots on our side of the aisle, in our media, got this whole business started, the Reagan era is over, that conservatism is over, that you can go ahead and be a conservative, but you better not say it as a conservative, you better sound moderate while you're being a conservative. The era of Reagan is over.
Meanwhile, every damn Democrat that wants to get something done in this country tries to act like Ronald Reagan. Our side has forced us to give up Ronald Reagan, or they have tried to make us give up Reagan, which we aren't going to do. There is no way Barack Obama, who has never voted for anything conservative in his life, can ever be called Reaganesque, just like he's not Lincolnesque and he's not FDR. He's closer to that than anyone else. Gonna sound like Reagan. If he tries to do Reagan, and be all optimistic and sunny, it's to get his approval numbers up and nothing else. And, by the way, polling data, the Drive-Bys both in the UK, the Washington Post, the New York Times, are carrying the water on how his numbers, approval numbers are way up. It's not true. His approval numbers are down. His disapproval numbers are higher than ever at 24%.
RUSH: From CNN, a new national poll. We got polling data coming out every bodily orifice here and wherever Monica Lewinsky is. "A new national poll indicates that most Americans think President Barack Obama will give a good speech [to]night, but expectations are not as high as they were for his inaugural address." Who gives a rat's rear end what the public's expectations of his stupid propaganda speech are? I have never seen this. This stuff is getting more outrageous every day -- and now this "Reaganesque" speech. "President Barack Obama won't speak until prime-time, but his aides fanned out to the morning shows Tuesday morning to talk up his first speech before a joint session of Congress. And the word they used to preview it: 'Reaganesque.'
"'The president believes very clearly that we have to be honest with the American people about where we are,' White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs said on MSNBC..." Whoa! Reagan was honest? This is the first time I've heard this. I thought Reagan lied! It frosts me. The left co-ops our guy while dummkopf, idiot, brain-dead, pseudo-intellectuals on our side tell us the Era of Reagan is over. Obama is not Reaganesque; he's Big Brotheresque. He's Orwellian. You need to put a sign on your TV tonight watching the speech: "He means the opposite of what he says. He's saying what he thinks you want to hear." "Confidence in the..." This is Rasmussen. "Confidence in the [Porkulus] plan has fallen four points in the week since Obama signed it into law.
"More voters are prepared to punish their representatives for supporting it." Here we have the purpose of the speech tonight, then. As people learn what's in this, they do not like it. "US Consumer Confidence Collapsed to Record Low -- Confidence among U.S. consumers plunged to a record low in February, signaling spending will slump further as unemployment soars. The Conference Board's index declined more than forecast to 25 this month, the lowest level since data began in 1967..." Consumer confidence is at an all-time low. This is, frankly, folks, exactly what the Democrats want. This is exactly what they want: chaos. They want defeatism. They want you in despair at Washington, at Obama's administration.
They want you in despair and giving up. They want you hopeless. They want you thinking there's no way out. They want all opposition to give up. Now, let's get to the approval polls. This is just one example, but the New York Times and the Washington Post are carrying similar water. The communist publication in the UK, The Guardian: "Barack Obama delivers his first presidential address to Congress tonight still basking in a political honeymoon with the voters, according to the latest polls. A month into his term, more than three-quarters of people in a New York Times/CBS News [propaganda poll] said they were optimistic about the next four years with him as president."
I. Don't. Believe. That.
That's not possible. Seventy-five percent? I don't know anybody who's optimistic. Do you? I know people who love Obama, but do you know anybody who's optimistic? What the hell's the purpose this speech tonight? Obama's not even optimistic! Obama's been talking people out of their optimism. Seventy-five percent are optimistic? That's an absolute crock. Of all places, the Los Angeles Times today and Andrew Malcolm (who's a blogger) puts these polls into perspective. "Barack Obama's poll numbers have slid almost 10% already. According to the latest Gallup Poll, the new president's approval rating of 68% in January has slipped now to 63%, about average for recent new presidents one month in." Nothing special here. "What isn't average, however, is Obama's new disapproval rating -- 24%, or 50% higher than the 16% average for a month-old new presidency. And it's twice the 12% disapproval rate that Obama had last month." So the truth is that while he's got a whatever it is, a 63% approval number, it's down from the eighties.
His disapproval, it's 24%, eight points higher than the average, 16%. It's twice what he had last month, which was 12%. "While liberal and independent support has held fairly steady, the rookie chief executive's approval among Republicans has plunged from 41% to 30%, presumably tied at least somewhat to growing awareness of the [Porkulus] program. The drop has been especially steep among conservatives, from 36% at inauguration to 22% now. Additionally, Obama's support has weakened among middle-class Americans..." You will not see this written anywhere else but Andrew Malcolm at the Los Angeles Times;' and this is a blog, it's not in their paper. That's why... Mr. Malcolm, I must confess. I mean, he's taken his humorous shots at me, but I think he's overall, when I've seen his pieces, he's a pretty square shooter. Andrew, I hope I'm not ruining your reputation here with your colleagues.
"...Obama's support has weakened among middle-class Americans, those touted during the campaign as benefiting from his promised tax cuts. Among that working crowd, Obama's approval fell from 69% to 58%," and so tonight he gets to go out there and be Reaganesque. He has to go out there and make his case. He gets to go out there and be upbeat and positive. We're running a little office pool here. How long will the speech be? Will it be an Obama one hour, a Hugo Chavez two hours, or a Fidel Castro three hours? Now, they had Ben Bernanke up there, chairman of the Federal Reserve, and he's testifying before the Wizards of Smart, primarily Chris Dodd. Did you hear the cheap shot that Dodd aimed at Bernanke? He asked Bernanke right off the bat, "What would have happened had we privatized Social Security?" These guys are constantly on the attack.
By the way. By the way, there's enough polling data here now that the Republicans in Washington need to start tying all of these policies that are sending up red flags and despair to people right to Barack Obama, because I'm going to tell you what. Obama's going to go out there tonight, and in the midst of being Reaganesque or trying to be, he's going to blame all this on Bush. He is gonna say, "Well, I mean I'm -- I'm presenting my first budget tonight. Why... why, the Bush budget was just submitted in September," or whenever. It will be adopted September. "We got nine more months to go in the Bush budget. Look at what I've inherited. Look at what I've inherited! Oh, look what I've inherited. Oh, woe is me," when he has added $2 trillion to whatever the budget was and now the Democrats are talking about another $400 billion in a new spending bill.
So he's going to go out there and he's going to bash Bush as much as he can.
RUSH: Here is Lou in Ferguson, Missouri, as we go back to the phones. Lou, thank you for waiting. Welcome to the EIB Network. Hello.
CALLER: How are you, Rush?
RUSH: Just fine, sir. Thank you.
CALLER: Earlier you had mentioned in the first hour that there was a poll that 75% of the people were optimistic on, as you said, Obama's first four years in office, they were optimistic for the future. And I just opened my --
RUSH: Wait, wait, wait, just a second here, because I don't remember that poll. Let's go through the polls. Does that poll exist? I didn't report that poll. Hang on just a second here. I was so mad at this one, I threw it away. It's over there on the floor. I can't get it right now. Brian, why don't you come in here and pick this wadded-up piece of paper off the floor because I want to be truthful here with Lou in Ferguson, and I have to be true to my new accuracy opinion rating, 99%. Okay, hang in here with me, let me uncrumble this. (smoothing out crumpled up paper)
RUSH: All right. CNN: "A new national poll indicates that most Americans think President Obama will give a good speech tonight. But expectations are not as high as they were for his inaugural address." Now, that's silly. Expectations for his speech tonight and they're falling, they're not as high as the inauguration. What? Who? (crumpling and tossing paper) That's number one. Number two: "'Confidence in Stimulus Plan Drops.' Confidence in the economic stimulus plan has fallen four points in the week since Obama signed it into law. More voters are prepared to punish their representatives for supporting it." Is that the one you think you heard?
CALLER: You had mentioned one about 75% of the people thought they were optimistic on the future, and --
RUSH: Oh, that's a New York Times poll, 75% of the American people are optimistic, here it is: "A month into his term more than 75% of people in a New York Times/CBS survey said they were optimistic about the next four years with him as president." So, yes, you're right, I discarded that and I'll tell you why, it's because it's not the real information in the poll. The real information in the poll, his approval numbers are plummeting and his disapproval numbers are rising. His numbers are above average for this time in a presidency for disapproval. They're about average for approval. So the Times is spinning the polling data here to make it look like people are just damned excited over Obama and just can't stop partying.
CALLER: Well, I think the key there might be people are optimistic about the future, regardless of him being president or not. I told Mr. Snerdley, I just opened my own restaurant a few months ago, and I am extremely optimistic in the future, and I am looking forward to the next few years of being successful at opening up more locations.
RUSH: Well, but see, the way this is written: "A month into his term more than 75% of people in the New York Times/CBS survey said they were optimistic about the next four years with him as president. Similar percentages said they thought he was bringing real change to the way things worked in Washington and that they had confidence in his ability to make the right --" this poll is about him. You know, your optimism may not have anything to do with Obama, but the point of this story in the Times is to create the impression that 75% of all Americans are totally linked, totally tied to Obama, and they are optimistic, and they're happy, and they can't believe their good fortune because Obama is showing the way. That's the purpose, and I'm telling you right now, I know this without knowing it. And this is why I'm the one with the documented accuracy rate of almost always right 99% of the time. Seventy-five percent of the people in this country are not optimistic right now, and that's one of the problems. That's why so many people are turning over a lot of their freedom and decision making to Washington, because they are not optimistic.
I'm going to get all flushed and ticked off here again when I mention this, but Robert Gibbs and the White House staff all over the morning shows today saying in answer to the question, "What can we expect from President Obama tonight?" "Well, he's going to be a little Reaganesque." That just frosts me, I can't tell you. He's not Reagan, and furthermore, according to the brilliant wizards on our side of the aisle, the era of Reagan is over. All these stupid eggheads with their heads in orifices where the sun doesn't shine on our side telling us the era of Reagan is over, letting the Democrats co-opt the era of Reagan and then obviously rewrite it. It makes me so mad, the squandered opportunities here. We've got an excellent opportunity for Republicans in Washington to start tying Obama to all of this, drive his numbers even further down. They're scared to do it. But there's too much going wrong here and it can be tied to him.