RUSH: Did I call it or did I call it? The stock market, as we speak -- it was down over 600 points yesterday -- is now up 210. So I checked the e-mail. "You told us it would be up today. You knew it would be up today. Is it up for the reason that you said?" I'll be honest with you: Only partially. I was partially right, but for the most part, the market is up today because it's a spoiled baby crying to daddy Bernanke for QE3. The market boys are expecting the Fed to move in with a new policy, print some more money. This market is up, as they say in some quarters, "on the come."
The Dow Jones is now down 70. It's back from down 150. It's all over the place. "The Federal Reserve today signaled that it plans to keep its benchmark short term interest rate close to zero for at least another two years." Now, the hook there is through the campaign. Interest rates near zero through the Obama reelection campaign. Obviously the market is not happy about that. Heh-heh-heh-heh-heh-heh. That's the way I, El Rushbo, choose to analyze it. So interest rates will stay close to zero for another two years, and the Fed sharply downgraded its view of the US economy, and they said no QE3. So that's one of the reasons. I tell you, all day long the market's waiting for QE3; they didn't get it and that's why we're in negative territory.
Story #2: ABC News Refutes UK Daily Mail on Jackie O Tapes
RUSH: UK Daily Mail: "Explosive Jackie O Tapes" Jackie Onassis "Reveal How She Believed LBJ Killed Her Husband and How She Had an Affair with William Holden." Jackie O tapes. These are her own tapes made before her husband was assassinated, she admits to having an affair with William Holden, the actor, and saying -- after the fact -- that she thought that LBJ was responsible for her husband's assassination. It prints out to like eight pages in the UK Daily Mail.
But, ABC News, by the way, has the Jackie O tapes, and they ABC says that the tapes do not say anything that the UK Daily Mail says the tapes say. ABC says: Nope, not one thing in there about her having an affair with Holden or LBJ killing JFK. None of that's in there. So ABC News says no truth the to report that Jackie Onassis believed that LBJ was involved in the assassination of her husband.
Story #3: Gallup: Economic Confidence Plunges to Minus 53
RUSH: Gallup poll: "Americans' economic confidence plunged to minus 53 in the week ending August 7th. That is a level not seen since the recession days since March of 2009." These are not recession days, folks. March of 2009, that was a recession. We're not in a recession now. These people... You talk about a total disconnect?
Story #4: Regime's 2012 Plan: Politics of Personal Destruction
RUSH: From The Politico: " Barack Obama’s aides and advisers are preparing to center the president’s re-election campaign on a ferocious personal assault on Mitt Romney’s character and business background, a strategy grounded in the early stage expectation that the former Massachusetts governor is the likely GOP nominee. The dramatic and unabashedly negative turn is the product of political reality. Obama remains personally popular, but pluralities in recent polling disapprove of his handling of his job and Americans fear the country is on the wrong track." So he can't run on his record. Obama can't run and say, "Let me keep doing what I'm doing" and win. So the politics of personal destruction -- and they're making it public.
They're just gonna go out and try to destroy Romney, or whoever the nominee is, personally. Character, business background. In other words, they're gonna do to Romney what they've already done to Palin, what they're now starting to do to Michele Bachmann. Now, a question that needs to be asked. I've talked to many people, potential Republican presidential nominees. Many have asked to come see me personally, and there's a uniformity of message and they've all said, "Rush..." In fact, they've all I think been asking me to behavior in a similar way. They say, "Look, we can't go after Obama personally. We just can't afford to do it. We have to stay focused on Obama's policies. We've gotta take the high road."
So Obama is announcing that his campaign is gonna be one of personal destruction of Romney. Character, business background, political career. What do you think the way to respond to this is? I mean, I can tell you that the prevailing winds in the Republican Party are to not go after Obama that way. They don't want to go after anything but his policies. That's all. They want to do nothing but go after his policies, and even there they want to tread carefully. They want to do their best at being above the fray. That's it. I think the aggressor does set the rules in any conflict, and those are the rules that you play by. So... But do you think in the case Romney, does Romney have the ability to go after Obama the way Obama's gonna go after him? Have you seen Romney do anything like that? I haven't. I don't know that he can.
So actually the Obama regime is telling us that their campaign tactics are not going to change. It'll be personal attacks, ad hominem, destroy, because they can't run on issues. The Democrats can never run being honest about what they intend to do, and they can't run on this record. Now, Romney just spent the last few days taking a "softer tone" on Obama. That's a quote. Now, did you happen to know anything Romney said in recent days? I didn't, either. I don't know one thing Romney said in recent days, and I am in the information business. I am the information business, and I haven't heard one thing Romney's talked about. I don't know, but he by his own admission he's taking a softer tone -- and it's working. Nobody's hearing him.
For example, Romney said that the downgrade wasn't entirely Obama's fault. This is from the Politico yesterday: "Mitt Romney had a slightly softer tone in New Hampshire as he hit his message about the economy in the wake of the S&P downgrade in terms of how much blame President Obama should get than he did last week... 'I don't think it's simply the president's fault," Romney said in reply to a question at a Chamber of Commerce meeting in Concord, N.H., Monday. 'I'm sure there are many people to share responsibility for the excessive spending in Washington over the past couple of decades.'" Mitt, fine. You're not running against them.
What is that? You know what that is? That's a, "Hey, gang, we gotta be honest! We're responsible for it, too." That's what that is. I guarantee you that's what that is. (interruption) Well, I don't know who it's supposed to appeal to. It's supposed to appeal to moderates, moderates and independents who want people who say, "We're all to blame! We're all responsible. We're all in this together and we all must come together to fix this." Remember, now, that's where political consults make their living is with the independents and the moderates and that's what they advised candidates to do." (interruption) Well, 'cause he's a Democrat!
They're mean, mean and cutthroat because that's what Democrats do and that's what they are. In the media, folks, they're allowed to get away with it. They marveled at Obama's technique, marvel at how quick he attacks. Republicans do it and they're typical angry white men. It's the dual-edged sword that we were come to know.
Story #5: A Brief Explanation on Why SEALs Were in Chinook
RUSH: There is an investigation that's gonna take place as to how the intel was obtained that led to this Chinook going down in Afghanistan. There is a question: Why were they put on a Chinook, the slowest moving helicopter that we have? It was a rescue mission. I'm not gonna speculate on that one at all until there's something to learn about it. [break] Okay, quickly: It's been explained to me in the break. The reason for the Chinook helicopter is the attitudes that it must fly in mountainous Afghanistan. It's the only helicopter that can fly as high as we need it to and faster at those attitudes than a Black Hawk, for example. So that's the brief answer that we got to, "Why the Chinook?"
Story #6: NY Times Savages Secretive S&P for Regime
RUSH: There's a story in the New York Times: "Behind S&P's Downgrade a Committee That Acts in Private -- A committee of about a half-dozen largely unknown people made a decision last Friday that has roiled Washington and Wall Street. That committee operates deep inside Standard & Poor’s, the credit rating agency that downgraded United States debt for the first time in history.
"Despite the great interest in the agency’s decision, it has remained tight-lipped on what happened in its deliberations. The individuals most responsible for the decision are not well known, except to finance ministers. S&P has declined to say whether the vote was unanimous, to identify all the members of the committee that voted for the downgrade or even say how many people are on it." That's right. We need to know who these people are and where they live so we can send the SEIU in buses to tear up their front yards, send a bunch of goons to their houses. "S&P's downgrade of the nation's credit rating has raised questions about the company's judgment and even its role in the financial markets." (laughing) You see?
The New York Times is dutifully now reporting: The S&P has lost its mind. Standard & Poor's has gone nuts, and who are these people anyway? We don't really know who these people are! We have no idea how many people. We don't know how they voted. Just who do they think they are? We don't know what they read, we don't know what they think, we don't know what books have informed 'em, we don't know what kind of people inspire 'em, we don't know whether they're Republicans or Democrats, we don't know whether they listen to Rush Limbaugh or not. We don't know anything about these people! Who are these people? A bunch of people acting in private!
Well, let's see. Barack Obama summoned members of Congress to the White House, for what? Secret meetings. Do we know everybody who was at those meetings? The United States Constitution is quite clear on how legislation is made, and it is in the open. This debt deal, for example, we don't know how that went down. That and the Obamacare was totally done in secret. We don't know about the negotiations. We don't know who was really involved. We don't know. All we know is that Boehner was talking to Obama and then Boehner was talking to McConnell, and then McConnell talked to Reid, Boehner talked to Reid, McConnell talked to Boehner, Boehner and McConnell got on the phone and talked to Reid, Reid and McConnell got on the phone and talked to Boehner, Boehner and McConnell and Reid got on the phone and talked to Obama.
Geithner then got on the phone and said, "Why aren't you talking to me?"
But we don't know what was said. You want to talk about secrecy? Our own government has been putting together some of the most important destructive legislation in our history in secret. All of Obamacare was done in secret, and where was the New York Times wondering about the secrecy and who was involved and what they were saying? There's a lot of secrecy going on. We don't know what goes on at the Federal Reserve. We get the minutes after the fact, but we don't know who's really saying what and deciding this or that. We don't have the slightest idea! So all of a sudden now we gotta castigate S&P for being a bunch of people operating in secret. Our own government's operating in secret. Legislation is not made by select members of Congress being draggled up to the White House, having negotiations, and going back down and reporting it. This is not how it's done but how it's was done. Lots of stuff -- way too much stuff -- going on that's in secret, in direct contravention the way this country is supposed to operate.