WaPo Discovers Obama is Most Polarizing Prez
RUSH: You remember the story we had from last week, the Gallup poll, "Obama: The Most Polarizing president. Ever." The Washington Post has just found it. Chris Cillizza and Aaron Blake: "Obama: The Most Polarizing president. Ever." He is more polarizing than even George W. Bush. So now we should know that erasing the gap is impossible because Obama's the only one who could do it. Remember? The One! The Messiah! He was unlike anything we had ever seen in politics before! He alone could unite the peoples of this country, and the peoples of the world, and only he alone could renew the love and respect for the United States of America.
And blah, blah, blah.
And puke, puke, puke.
And now we have the most polarizing president ever! In fact, it's so bad that in San Francisco and Oakland, in a poll, 20% of the liberal Democrats in that area -- well, the Occupy Wall Street bunch in Oakland -- have turned. Obama has lost 20% of his support. His disapproval number's gone up by 20% among the left in the Bay Area. "Obama: The Most Polarizing president. Ever. -- For 2011, Obama's third year in office, an average of 80 percent of Democrats approved of the job he was doing... compared to 12 percent of Republicans who felt the same way. That's a 68-point partisan gap, the highest for any president's third year in office -- ever." I'm surprised they ran the story. As you people know, we had it last week.
"The previous high was George W. Bush in 2007, when he had a 59 percent difference in job approval ratings." Obama is at 68%, 10% higher. And then they write this, Cillizza and Blake: "While it’s easy to look at the numbers cited above and conclude that Obama has failed at his mission of bringing the country together, a deeper dig into the numbers in the Gallup poll suggests that the idea of erasing the partisan gap is simply impossible, as political polarization is rising rapidly," because if Obama couldn't do it, it can't be done. Puke, puke, puke! If Obama couldn't erase the partisan gap, it can't be done. It's impossible. Anybody check the sea levels lately to see how far they've come down?
Oakland Gets Sick of Occupy Protesters
RUSH: The mayor of Oakland -- we had this as our update today -- Jean Quan (I called her "Joan" Quan just to toy with her) says she's gonna call the national leaders of Occupy Wall Street to ask them to call off the dogs, ask them to leave Oakland. Why not call the White House, Mayor Quan? That's who's running 'em. The national leaders of Occupy Wall Street are gonna be found in the West Wing.
Michelle Malkin Endorses Santorum
RUSH: The great columnist Michelle Malkin has endorsed Rick Santorum in a lengthy piece that she posted yesterday.
Here are some excerpts: "He didn't cave when Chicken Littles in Washington invoked a manufactured crisis in 2008." So clearly Michelle Malkin believes the economic news of 2008 was made up or exaggerated. "Manufactured crisis." Go back and look. You know not even all that TARP money has been spent even now? And, of course, it was pitched to us that you gotta do this or the world economy collapses in 24 hours. I'll never forget it. They took McCain off the campaign trail. They set Obama up as the number one problem solver in the White House at a meeting. McCain was leading in the polls at that time. She says, "He didn't cave when Chicken Littles in Washington invoked a manufactured crisis in 2008.
"He didn't follow the pro-bailout GOP crowd -- including Mitt Romney and Newt Gingrich -- and he didn't have to obfuscate or rationalize his position then or now, like Rick Perry and Herman Cain did. He also opposed the auto bailout, Freddie and Fannie bailout, and porkulus bills. Santorum opposed individual health care mandates -- clearly and forcefully -- as far back as his 1994 U.S. Senate run. He has launched the most cogent, forceful fusillade against both Romney and Gingrich for their muddied, pro-individual health care mandate waters. He voted against cap and trade in 2003, voted yes to drilling in ANWR, and unlike Romney and Gingrich, Santorum has never dabbled with eco-radicals like John Holdren, Al Gore and Nancy Pelosi.
"He hasn't written any 'Contracts with the Earth.' ... Santorum is an eloquent spokesperson for the culture of life. He has been savaged and ridiculed by leftist elites for upholding traditional family values -- not just in word, but in deed." She also has praise for his view on illegal immigration, border security, national defense. She also cites the fact that he became a big-government Republican and that's one of the reasons why he lost his reelection bid in 2006. But then he was following George W. Bush. So she cites some of his negatives, but that's just a little smidgen of Michelle Malkin's reasoning behind her endorsement of Rick Santorum.
Santorum is the least dirtied. He hadn't been dirtied by the other two. He's been sitting at ten to 12% in the polls. If he were up threatening Romney, believe you me, they would be going after him with the super PACs and all the other stuff. Now, I got people shouting at me, "Wait a minute, she's a splitter! She's a splitter. She's splitting the conservative vote by voting for Santorum!" You know, Newt's out there saying Santorum ought to get out, and Santorum's saying, "No, you go first." So now the people say, "Okay, if one of the two got out, where do their supporters go?" Now, the conventional wisdom is that Santorum's voters would go to Gingrich. I'm not so sure of that. You've got... I'll tell you one thing that's gonna happen in Florida tonight if the polls are right.
And I say "if the polls are right." If the polls are right, the combined number of votes for Santorum and Gingrich will be larger than the number of votes Romney gets, and that's gonna tick people off. 'Cause what it's gonna say is the conservative vote is stronger. If the conservative vote were unified behind one candidate and stayed that way, then Romney would be beat. But the conventional wisdom that Santorum's voters would go Gingrich? I'm not so sure. There's a reason that they're not for Gingrich. It's a wild guess on my part. I would think if Santorum got out, the bulk of his voters would go to Romney, but I don't know that it's enough that would matter. Did all of Perry's supporters go to Gingrich?
No. They went to Santorum. So why would Santorum's voters go to Gingrich? A lot of people who think they're the smartest people in the room think they have this thing all figured out. I'm just not sure that anybody really knows. But common sense tells me that you've got the option of Gingrich or Santorum if you're voting and not Mitt. And the reason you're choosing Santorum or Gingrich instead of the other matters. In other words, the Santorum voters may really be anti both the other guys, but at the end who knows. Perry's voters didn't go to Gingrich, and he endorsed Gingrich. But you wait. If the polls are right, Gingrich and Santorum's vote totals, when combined, will outnumber Romney's.