RUSH: Folks, I have to tell you something. We got another Republican debate tonight. It's sponsored by the Heritage Foundation. It's gonna be moderated by Wolf Blitzer, CNN. It's gonna be broadcast by CNN. It's a Heritage Foundation debate on foreign policy. And from what I'm told, old Wolf is out there preparing a response to Newt Gingrich if Newt chides him for the way he's conducting things as the moderator. You know, Newt's been going after the media in these debates, and media's been sort of flat-footed at the time of the attack, and they wait 'til later that night or the next day to formulate their response.
Wolf is prepping. Wolf is rehearsing. From what I'm being told, Wolf Blitzer is rehearsing various retorts to Newt Gingrich, and he and his staff are trying to think of various things that Newt might say to insult them. It's sort of like preparing for hecklers. That's what Wolf is doing to get ready for the -- (interruption) No, I don't know why they can't find some conservative to moderate one of these debates. That's one of these rhetorical questions that doesn't have an answer, but if you're gonna have CNN broadcast it why do you expect to have a conservative moderating it? It seems to be a misplaced expectation. Anyway, as I'm watching all this, I keep asking rhetorical questions here, but I still want to ask them. When will the media do an anal exam of Obama?
Every second- and third-tier Republican candidate gets an anal exam, a media anal exam. We know about their marriages. We know about their friends. We know about their enemies. We learn about their barmaids and their floozies. We know everything about their kids. We know about their grades. You name it, we're told everything that we want to know or don't want to know and more about every Republican. And as a Republican matriculates in the top of the heap, the anal probe gets even deeper. But yet we know nothing. We're coming up on three years of the Obama regime and we know nothing about Obama beyond what has had to be pulled from the tightest of closed circles. We don't know what his grades were in college and law school, and we're told not to worry about it, that he's smart, he's intelligent, he's smarter than all the rest of us anyway so it doesn't matter what his grades are.
We don't know who his girlfriends were. We don't have people from his past popping up and telling everybody how inspiring Obama was, what a difference he made in their lives. I mean, he taught law. Well, he taught "Alinsky Law" at the University of Chicago. But we don't have any students that have popped up and talked about how inspiring Obama was or what Obama taught them about life or how Obama prepared them for the rigors of life. We don't have any of this. As far as we know, nobody knew the guy at any stage of his life. And, in fact, what we do know that he was introduced to politics in the living room of Bill Ayers' house is downplayed, that was just a guy in the neighborhood. We know actually very little about his father and mother. We know that he has a brother who to this day still lives in a six-by-nine-foot hut in Kenya, even after three years of Obama's presidency. But we know this because of our own efforts. There has not been any vetting. There is not, and there won't be any vetting.
We know very little about his associates and friends when he was a community organizer beyond Jeremiah Wright and Bill Ayers, Bernardine Dohrn. That's it. Based on what we've been told, based upon all the efforts the media have made to vet this guy, he basically has lived the life of a hermit, a recluse. He didn't know anybody. Nobody knew him. Never had any girlfriends. Never had any boyfriends. Never had any guys he went to the ball game with. We don't know who he had a beer with now and then. We don't even know if he drank beer. We don't know where he got Michelle's wedding ring. We do know that he had a shady land deal involved in getting him his house with Tony Rezko.
I know these are rhetorical questions, but it's still, to me, something that needs to be raised. How come we know that Newt Gingrich spent hundreds of thousands of dollars on his wife's jewelry, paid for it with his own money, by the way, which apparently is a crime at Tiffany. We do not know what Obama spends on Michelle's designer clothes, her designer purses, her lavish jewelry. We are left to assume. We do know that Michelle spends taxpayer dollars like no first lady ever has before. I mean you want to talk about Nancy Reagan and china for the White House, at least it stayed there when she left. Here's Mrs. Obama heading off to Martha's Vineyard four hours before her husband and she decides to grab her friends and family and kids and so forth on her own government-paid-for Boeing 757 and flies off to the vacation hideaway four hours before her husband gets on his 747 with his entourage.
We know that hasn't happened before, but we know that people that can do that without shame, without any conscience, without any remorse basically have no respect for the people who are paying for this. Seriously. You're gonna go four hours before your husband, just call up the Air Force, "I need my 757. I'm not waiting for Barack. And the kids are not waiting for Barack. And my mother is not waiting for Barack. We're getting outta here now, have the 757 ready." "Okay, fine." Four hours later both 747s, because they both fly when the president goes somewhere. One's a backup, one's a decoy, but they're both there. So three airplanes to get whatever number of people. So we know that spending money's not a problem. Spending other people's money isn't a problem. But we have to figure this out on our own. There's no scrutiny of this and there certainly isn't any disapproval of it in the Drive-By Media.
You have to ask yourself if Laura Bush had tried this, if Barbara Bush had tried this, grab the familia and head off to Spain for 15 days, taking your Boeing 757 again. There would be editorials asking about who's going to pay for this, what does it look like on their tax returns, you know, all of those kinds of questions. But we know every dime Newt Gingrich spends on his wife and we're also told to be suspicious of that, that somehow there's something that we should distrust about a guy who spends hundreds of thousands of dollars on jewelry for his wife. Something smells there, Mr. Limbaugh, as the media would have us believe when they report it. What's the crime there? I don't know how they got their records, but they did. They found out about it, the media, they looked. They're doing the anal exam. That's why. They found out about it. Who cares how. They did it. But the point is they're not doing any of this with Obama, none of it. This is my whole point.
Now we've got endless talk about Newt Gingrich, his company being paid by either Fannie or Freddie for contract work, he was a consultant, a historian, gave 'em advice, whatever it was, yet Obama protects Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac from financial oversight by exempting them from Dodd-Frank. Which is more important to understand? So Newt's like everybody else in Washington, gets paid a little bit from Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, or one of the two, I don't know which, and the president of the United States exempts them from any financial regulatory reform, when they are the epicenter of the scandal, and they're exempted by the president of the United States. And we know that the Nightly News or the Meet the Press anchor's wife is a lawyer at Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, we know all of this incestuous stuff goes on with the liberal Democrats in the media and all these inside-the-Beltway establishments and traditions, but nobody does any work on this, nobody does any vetting.
This is all stuff we find out on our own. Why did Obama exempt them? Why did Obama exempt Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac and expose the taxpayers to tens of billions more in subsidies to keep them going? Which is the cause of greater concern here? And now Herman Cain. Herman Cain is said to be too dumb to be president because of his foreign policy statements, or because of a pause in answering a question about Libya. Or he's too dumb because of his lack of experience. All right, fine. Can somebody tell me in one or two sentences what Obama's foreign policy doctrine is? I'm serious. Can anybody call this program at 800-282-2882 and tell me what Obama's foreign policy is? What is the guiding principle of Obama's foreign policy? What are our nation's objectives in Obama's foreign policy? Does anybody have the slightest clue?
Why, then, is there this broad assumption that Obama is Mr. Mensa? Is Mr. Brilliant when it comes to foreign policy? We're losing the Middle East under his watch. The Middle East is being transformed, being led by the Muslim Brotherhood or a military combination of the two. And the target of the reforms in the Middle East is our one ally, Israel. But yet we got a smart guy in the White House, sharp crease in his pants, very smart guy, nobody's got the guts to debate this guy, he's just too smart. How do we know this? Everything about Obama is an assumption. Our economy, our domestic economy is suffering in part because of the unpredictability of the Obama regime, both domestically and in the area of foreign policy. Our foreign policy suffers from the unpredictability of the Obama regime.
There's a pattern here. Nobody knows what the Obama Doctrine is. Nobody knows. Nobody knows what the rules are gonna be, but everybody has a suspicion, which is why they're sitting on all their assets. Everybody has this sensation that they, if they have anything, are targets. But there's no vetting. There's no expose. There's no curiosity. There's no digging. Literally no curiosity whatsoever about what might it be that animates Obama, domestic policy, foreign policy. I'm serious, what is the Obama doctrine in foreign policy? Even our so-called commentators on our side will go out and happily and with ease declare that Herman Cain is stupid and unfit. But denounce Obama and his actual record? Nope, nope, not gonna go there. Obama's a smart guy. Obama's one of us. He's got the same brain, the same pedigree that we have.
Michele Bachmann is said not to be a serious candidate for president. Why? I think she's ripe for a rebirth. Do you have any doubt that if Michele Bachmann were elected president she'd be fighting for this country each and every day? Do you have any doubt that Michele Bachmann would be doing everything in her power to return this country to a path of greatness? Does anybody have any doubt? I don't. I have no doubt whatsoever where Michele Bachmann's heart is. She is consistent as a conservative. She is strong as a conservative. She has shown herself to have courage and leadership qualities. She is one of anybody on that Republican dais. You compare Michele Bachmann's life experiences to Obama and how can it be said that she is not up to the job, after the job he has done wrecking this country?
How can it be said that she or Herman Cain or any one of our candidates is not up to the job when the alternative is a one-man wrecking crew named Barack Obama? How can it be said? She's smart. She's not seeking a fundamental transformation of our country. She wants to uphold the country and the Constitution. She's dismissed, though. She's made by the liberal media to look foolish, not ready for the job, and, of course, our so-called commentators join in with this nonsense, "Ah, she's not ready. Michele Bachmann not ready." Santorum, he's more fit to be president than Obama ever could have dreamed to be. His knowledge of foreign policy is second to none. So they attack him on social issues. He's too extreme, his positions are mainstream Catholic positions. Nancy Pelosi says Catholics have a conscience problem. And she is not the problem? How can that be?