RUSH: I didn't watch cable news last night, so I didn't find out until I got here this morning to do show prep how I blew up cable news last night. I got the sound bites now. And you know, I do not like making this program about me. But I've got the first 10 or 12 sound bites and even Steve Schmidt is praising me, who just last week said I don't influence anything. It's schizophrenia out there.
But I started to say something that I want to clarify because of what happened on cable news last night that blew it up. I touched on a point yesterday about Newt, and I said, "Newt is pulling a Perot." And in that analysis I made the point that Perot didn't really want to win the White House, that he had as his primary objective sabotaging George H. W. Bush. And I told you what the reasons were, as they had been explained to me. I said that I think what's going on here is that Newt is so ticked off over the negative ad campaign that Romney's super PAC ran against him in Iowa, that right now he is solely focused on taking Romney out, making sure that Romney doesn't win this thing or has a very hard road. I did not mean to say, and I'm sorry if you inferred from that, that I don't think Newt wants to win. I don't believe that. I think he wants to win. I think he's in it to win, but I think he's now got an equal, coequal motivator, and that is to stick it to Romney as Romney stuck it to him.
When I said that Newt's behavior reminded me of Perot I just meant to suggest that he's now also motivated by a desire to get even with Romney. And, lo and behold, right here in the Wall Street Journal today: "Nearly all negative spending by super PACs in the presidential campaign over the past week has gone toward opposing Newt Gingrich."
Ninety-six percent of negative super PAC spending has targeted Newt, 96% of it. For example, in Iowa, according to the Wall Street Journal, here is how negative spending by super PACs looked over just the past week. Not throughout the whole month leading up to the Hawkeye Cauci, but just last week.
Almost $90,000 negative spending on Newt, $1500 negative spending on Romney, $1200 negative spending on Santorum, and $1100 negative spending on Ron Paul. Ninety thousand spent on negative ads on Newt and Newt thinks it's all lies. Now, like I said yesterday, most of us -- I can, but you can't. You can't relate to having millions of dollars arrayed against you on television when you don't have a dime, people saying things that you don't think are true. A lot of people said, "Rush, Newt shoulda known. Politics, it ain't beanbag." He knows. It still doesn't mean it doesn't tick him off when you think people are lying about you. Look, I'm just offering for you an explanation. Newt hasn't had a super PAC until the day before yesterday. They've just started to spend. And in full disclosure, I was told yesterday -- I'm always asked, not told -- Newt has bought significant advertising time on this program for the remainder of this week and into next week. "Are you okay with that?" I said, "Sure. I don't mind." What, I'm gonna object to that? "Well, you know, the listeners might think..."
No, no, no, no. It's commercial time. Anybody can buy time here that can afford it. Well, if Obama wanted to buy advertising we'd probably take it. He'd have to pay up front, pay in advance. But we'd probably take it. It depends. This audience is smart enough to weed through this stuff. I don't think I have to sit here and shield the audience from liars and cheats and thieves. They know 'em. I have no problem with that. I don't think this audience a bunch of idiots. I have the greatest respect in the world for their intelligence, it's why I do the program the way I do.