Back Home Button
The Rush Limbaugh Show
Excellence in Broadcasting
RSS Icon


The Country Finally Can See the Obama We've Always Known


RUSH: It has only taken two years, and, what, seven months. Heck, longer than that. I mean I saw it back during the campaign. I am talking about who Obama really is, this petulant, self-absorbed, egoistic little man-child. Even David Brooks is disappointed. He still likes the substance, but he can't believe how childish Obama's acting. Do you remember, folks, there was a book out there, you women will remember this. There's a book out there, I don't know, some years ago. I think it was written by a guy. It might have been written by a woman, I'm not sure. The book was He's Just Not That Into You. Oh, yeah. Now all the women are nodding their heads. Oh, yeah. It was basically a how-to book for women to understand, "Look, the guy is not playing games. If he doesn't call you back, it's 'cause he's not that into you." (interruption) What do you mean it was a terrible book? Oh, it exposes secrets women should know nothing about? See, Snerdley, you think you're a female expert. What you don't know is that women know all the secrets anyway. They don't need to be told what the secrets are.

The book didn't reveal any secrets; it just depressed 'em because it confirmed that they were right in what they were assuming, and they were hoping that... you know, hope really is an effort to prove to yourself that you're wrong when you know you're right. That's what hope is. I'm not talking about the biblical sense, of course, or definition. And I think it's starting to become obvious now that we're just not that into Obama and he needs to read the book. All of these speeches and it's counterproductive. I think the reaction to the Bamster is, "Hey, dude, we're just not that into you." In fact, this is not even a "think"; I mean we "know" this. You go back and you compare the messianic idolatry people had for the guy during the campaign and the acceptance speech at Grant Park compared to now, and it's absolutely true.

My good friend Pete Wehner, who worked in the White House for Rove and, therefore, for President Bush, posted a piece at Commentary Magazine yesterday: "Our Petulant and Inept President." And listen to this. This is Pete's way of saying what I have said since "I hope he fails." "It's been clear to some of us for a while..." parentheses, to Rush Limbaugh since the beginning, end parentheses. He doesn't say that; I just threw it in. "...that Barack Obama is a man of uncommon self-admiration, quite thin-skinned," and this is the biggie, "increasingly consumed by his grievances." I've told you people, this guy's got a chip on his shoulder, and it goes back probably to the way he was born, and certainly the way that he was raised. He's got a chip on his shoulder about this country and various aspects of this country. I just like the way Pete phrases it here. "Increasingly consumed by his grievances."

"Democrats on Capitol Hill are rapidly losing confidence in the president’s competence as a negotiator." That's true. Yesterday CNN had a story, we talked about how he's losing ground with liberals. That was an attempt to warn the liberals, hey, you guys, you can't abandon him now. It's too crucial out there. Conn Carroll has a piece in the Washington Examiner today: "Americans Blame Democrats for the Bad Economy." It's in a CNN poll, except CNN didn't report that part of their poll. "CNN completely buried the headline in the write-up for their latest poll of 1,000 Americans. 'Pessimism overflowing in new poll' reads the headline and the article goes on to report, 'While some expect economic conditions to improve, a majority -- 59 percent -- believes the economy will still be in poor shape one year from now. It’s the first time in the 14 years that CNN has asked the question that a majority has been pessimistic about the country’s economic future.' But buried five paragraphs down is the fact that when asked 'Do you think Democrats or the Republicans are more responsible for the country’s current economic problems?' Americans chose Democrats over Republicans by a 38-35 percent margin. Among independents the gap was even wider at 37-25 percent."

So all of this fear in Washington that the independents have run away from the Republicans, like that NBC/Wall Street Journal poll last week when we were in Los Angeles, remember that bogus poll? That poll was of adults on me, and it tried to say that, "Well, forget the election results in November, 'cause that's all changed now. The American people love Obama. The American people want Obama's plan." There wasn't any Obama plan to want but nevertheless that's what the poll tried to say. (interruption) Is that Boehner's office? You're acting like you didn't know they were calling. I sent out a giant message to everybody at ten 'til 12, "Boehner is gonna call. When he calls put him on." Is it 12:40? Okay. Snerdley's on the phone in there like, "What, what, what, what?" What's the point of me telling people things are gonna happen when nobody hears it? Okay, so you're in there setting it up now? I talked to the speaker about ten minutes before the program started, and he's telling me about the deal. I said, "Why don't you come on the program and explain this?" He said, "Okay." I said, "My day is wide open in terms of guests since I don't have any, so pick a time when you've got some time and get back to us."

Now, I've not lost my place here. Buried five paragraphs down is the fact that when, "Do you think Democrats or the Republicans are more responsible for the country's current economic problems?" Americans chose Democrats over Republicans by 38-35% margin, "and among independents the gap is even wider: 37-25 independents blame Democrats as being more responsible for the country's economic problems. So NBC/Wall Street Journal poll last week tried to convince everybody that the independents had done a 180; they're back in the Obama camp. The independents had seen the light, they'd fled the scene, they'd fled the coop -- and it's not true. The independents are becoming even more solidly anti-Democrat and anti-Obama.

So there's no good news. There's no trending good news for Obama in all this. All these speeches? We're just not into it. They're not working. In fact, people are getting tired of seeing Obama -- and what happened last night, Boehner decided to do a response. And, lo and behold, the networks decided to cover it! And lo and lo and lo and behold, Boehner was much better than Obama was! I've actually got people that don't know much of anything (friends), sending me notes that, you know, Boehner looks pretty presidential. A friend of mine who doesn't really know much but thinks he knows a lot said that. A lot of people like that. You have friends like that. "Boehner looks pretty presidential."

Boehner's not gonna be running for president. He's where he is; he likes what he's doing. However, there is a caveat here. "When given the option of blaming George W. Bush, a majority of Americans still chose to blame the former president." So a little schizoid on who to blame, but it appears to be turning -- and in the current iteration, when you ask people, "Obama or the Republicans: Who's responsible?" it's Obama. Now, we're making headway on this, and CNN buried this. You'd have to look long and hard to find this in the CNN poll, but that's why we are here. I'll tell you, folks, it's very hard to be a good negotiator when your only two skills are arrogance and petulance.

When those are the only two things you're good at, it's really tough to be a good negotiator -- and the Democrats on Capitol Hill have gone public, some of them, talking about how pathetic a negotiator they think Obama is. Bernie Sanders, the socialist from Vermont -- grab sound bite 25 -- was on some wacko left-wing radio program. They syndicate it, so it's probably on in five cities, but they say "nationally syndicated." The question was: "How can we get a government that calls balls and strikes, and quits running the country like it's a for-profit machine?" Imagine that question. How do we get a government that calls balls and strikes, and quits running the country like a for-profit machine?" How do we do it? He was asking that of Bernie Sanders, the socialist from Vermont.

SANDERS: There are millions of Americans who are deeply disappointed in the president. It would do this country a good deal of service if people started thinking about candidates out there to begin contrasting what is a progressive agenda as opposed to what Obama is doing. It would be a good idea if President Obama faced some primary opposition.

RUSH: Reminds me of 1992. Remember that? I endorsed Pat Buchanan 1992 just to make sure there was some conservatism in the presidential primary on the Republican side, and of course it worked -- and the liberals, you know, they're all upset. Not the liberals. I mean, the communists are all upset because Obama's not communist enough for 'em. Now, this also, we have to allow, is perhaps a ruse to continue this notion that Obama is some sort of a centrist. But I don't think Bernie Sanders is on that reservation. I don't think that they could corral Sanders. Bernie's one of these guys, I don't think if you called him in the room and said, "Bernie, look. We're gonna play a little trick here.

"We're gonna run a little scam, and we need you to go out there and, you know, start caterwauling about the fact Obama's not leftist enough;" I think Bernie Sanders would, you know, mutter some obscenities and walk out of the room. I don't think he's the kind of guy to play ball that way. He goes on this fringe radio show and I think he's generally ticked off that Obama's caving, and (I said this last week) why I hope we do the right thing. I think Obama will sign anything comes his way. The Boehner deal is basically $1.2 trillion to raise the debt limit. There are more cuts than the debt limit goes up. We got the commission. There's a lot of fear that the Democrats on the commission are gonna raise taxes, but in the original bill that Obama will get, there are no tax increases. There is no new "revenue."

There are some Democrats. The Reid bill, Dingy Harry, has got some $2.7 trillion reduction bill, but get it! Get this! Wait for it. He is counting $1 trillion of his $2.7 trillion as the wars ending, Afghanistan and Iraq ending. That's "cutting," as far as Dingy Harry is concerned. So, anyway, that's where we are. We'll have the Speaker on the program in about 25 minutes to 'splain all this. Your host is continuing to be blamed for what the left sees as a national crash or shutdown. We've got a lot of sound bites. We'll do some contrasts, Obama last night and Boehner. Did you watch Obama? (interruption) Yep. You were mad? What, mad at his lies? Mad at him being on TV all the time? Yeah, it's why I'm saying, "We're just not into him."

He gives all these speeches, and he doesn't say anything new, and it's the same attitude. It's always somebody else's fault, crybaby stuff. (interruption) Yep. It's the same corporate jet, shared sacrifice, balance, all this crap. Exactly right. Exactly right. I didn't watch much of it, either, I must confess.



Rush 24/7 Audio/Video

Listen to the Latest Show Watch the Latest Show
Listen to the Latest Show Watch the Latest Show



Most Popular

EIB Features