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


Quick Hits Page

California Students Riot over Cuts
RUSH: From my adopted hometown of Sacramento, California.  "A day of boisterous protests over cuts to higher education that included thousands of students swarming the state Capitol ended with dozens of arrests after demonstrators refused to leave the building.
Authorities on Monday evening arrested 68 people, most of whom will be charged with trespassing, the California Highway Patrol said. Four people were arrested earlier in the day. Students angry over steep tuition increases and fewer courses at California’s public universities and colleges waved signs and chanted, 'They say cut back; we say fight back.'"

We've seen this in Great Britain.  We've seen it when they started charging tuition, raising tuition.  We've seen the spoiled little students raise hell, having protests, throwing bricks through windows and so forth.  "Tuition has nearly doubled in the past five years, to $13,000 for resident undergraduates at University of California schools and to $6,400 at California State University schools. Community college fees are set to rise to $46 per unit by this summer, up from $20 per unit in 2007. Democratic lawmakers addressed the group and lamented the deep cuts to higher education they have made in recent years."  So there's only one group to blame for this.  Here the students are upset, mad that tuition's being raised, they're protesting.  Who runs that state?  That's a double whammy as far as I'm concerned. 

Have you noticed from the Democrat Party, one business in this country is forever immune to any attempt to bring it to heel, and that's education, and particularly higher education.  No matter what the tuition is, you never hear Barack Obama rip into Big Education.  You don't hear Chuck-U Schumer do it; you don't hear Nancy Pelosi.  Why?  Because that's the proving ground.  Higher education, the American Academy, academe, the institutions of higher learning, that's where the indoctrination takes place.  And whatever that costs is worth it.  Plus their buddies work there, the professors, the student assistants, the graduate assistants.  They all ought to make a lot of money.  They all ought to have tenure, not have to work very hard, very often, and make a lot of money. 

So here are these students who have been trained to believe their enemy is the Republican Party, trained to believe their enemy is conservatism, trained to believe their enemy is anything the government doesn't control, upset that the Democrats who run the state of California, the Democrats and the liberals who run California's education system, are raising tuition.  And yet somehow before all this is over, this will be the fault of Republicans, who are, no doubt, in the midst of conducting a war on education.  Only a matter of time.  Only a matter of time before somehow in a state totally controlled, dominated, and run by Democrats, an education system totally dominated, run, controlled by Democrats, Republicans will get blamed for high tuition and for not doing anything about it. 

Now, a question:  Would University of California tuition be so high if illegal aliens had to pay out-of-state tuition prices?  Well, I'm just asking.  The average tuition, University of California system, is $13,200.  Compare that to Georgetown Law, which is $45,000.  And that's just tuition.  The room and board at Georgetown Law is another 20 grand on top of that.  Out-of-state tuition, University of California, $36,000 a year.  That's what the illegals would be paying at the very at least, they're out-of-state.  By definition they're out-of-state.  Illegal equals out-of-state.  But they're given in-state tuition.  Now, if the illegals were forced to pay out-of-state tuition, what do you think that $13,000 in-state tuition would be?  Would it be as high?  But of course that's gonna be the Republicans' fault, too, specifically Mitt Romney or whoever is the nominee, it will be his fault. 

Obama: No Military Foreclosures
RUSH: It is an election year, and in his press conference, President Obama just said essentially that he's going to make it impossible to foreclose on anyone in the military. It's gonna be impossible. By the way, they're also not foreclosing on people who have second homes. I take that back. They are foreclosing, but they are not kicking people out of their houses while the foreclosure proceedings take place. That's a heck of a deal. I think you should go try to see if you can get that yourself.

"You know, I'm in my second home and I want to stay in my second home while you foreclose on both of my homes."

"Oh, sure! Here you go. There's a new Obama policy."

It's one of these things they announce but you can't find anybody benefiting from it. They say it's happening but you don't know anybody getting it, and how can you prove that it's not? But basically Obama just said that he's gonna make it impossible to foreclose on anybody in the military.

White House to Democrats: No Money for You
RUSH: Now, here's the story on Obama not having enough money to share with the Democrats. It's not just that he's not gonna give 'em any money. He's not gonna campaign for 'em. He's not gonna have time to fundraise for them. The story is from Politico by John Bresnahan. "President Barack Obama has a bleak message for House and Senate Democrats this year when it comes to campaign cash: You’re on your own." The fact is they've always been on their own. The fact is Obama has always only cared about himself. "Democratic congressional leaders, including Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid and House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, have privately sought as much as $30 million combined from Obama for America and the Democratic National Committee ...

"But that’s not going to happen, top Obama aides Jim Messina and David Plouffe told Reid and Pelosi in back-to-back meetings on Capitol Hill on Thursday... It was a stark admission from a presidential campaign once expected to rake in as much as $1 billion of just how closely it is watching its own bottom line." You know, you really have to wonder what the Obama campaign is spending money on. They make all their campaign trips on the taxpayer dime and the news media does all their campaign advertising for 'em. So what are they actually spending?

"Messina and Plouffe told the two Hill leaders that there would be no cash transfers to the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee and Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee from OFA or the DNC, at least not before Election Day ... Hill Democrats won’t be seeing much of Obama at their own fundraisers this year, either. Obama has offered to do one money event each for the DCCC and DSCC." He's not gonna give 'em any money, and he's not gonna fundraise for them. They are on their own. And this is the bunch wildly confident they're going to retake the House and the Senate.

F. Chuck Todd Unleashed on How the Media Sees America
RUSH: Now, this is somewhat comical and interesting at the same time.  "NBC White House correspondent Chuck Todd gave an interview to Dylan Byers of Politico where he suggested the media's coverage of politics is often wrong: 'we incorrectly cover American politics 60 percent of the time.'  Todd insists there hasn't been liberal/ideological bias for a long time, but 'we don't understand their day-to-day lives' outside the New York-DC bubble, and look down at their church-going and Walmart-shopping:

"'Nothing [upsets] me more than New York-centric coverage of American politics. Because its through the New York prism that we incorrectly cover American politics 60% of the time. To me,' said F. Chuck Todd, 'the ideological bias in the media really hasn’t been there in a long time. But what is there that people mistake for ideological bias is geographic bias. It’s seeing everything through the lens of New York and Washington. So, for instance, I’ve always thought we collectively as the media covered this recession horribly, because the two markets that actually weathered it better than almost any in the country were New York and Washington. That didn’t mean we didn’t cover it, but we only covered it statistically. We didn’t cover it from the kitchen table. Imagine if we still had news bureaus in Denver, in Miami--these places were it was really front line, front and center.'"

Isn't Chuck admitting that even though he lives in Washington, he knows it was bad?  But because they didn't have a bureau in Miami or Denver, that they didn't report it?  F. Chuck is originally from Florida.  So he sits there in the New York-Washington bubble, and laments the fact that there's a New York-Washington bias, that they see everything through that prism.  (imitating Chuck) "We need bureaus out there. We don't see the recession."  Well, then how do you know it's happening out there?  I guess what he's saying is, the gas price goes up, but in New York we don't buy gas. We get in a cab or we walk.  And in Washington, well, who knows.  But it doesn't affect us.  And, by the way, he's right about one thing.  One of the wealthiest counties in America now -- well, the two wealthiest counties, suburban Washington, DC.  'Cause Washington is where the money is. 

"Someone who thinks the media are ideological would reply that the networks didn’t cover the recession as a red-state kitchen-table issue very deeply because that might hurt Obama on the polling question asking if the president understands and sympathizes with the struggles of 'people like you.'  The next paragraph suggests that Todd really does see at least a cultural bias:  'I think sometimes there are too many people who cover politics that don’t understand the grassroots of the Republican party, and part of it is motivated by this anti-New York and Washington bias, if you will. Part of what animates them is, "If they’re pushing it, I’m against it."' So the ruling elites of Manhattan and Georgetown have a habit of opposing whatever they're favoring in Flyover Country. But that's not ideological?"  How can it not be ideological?  Of course this all is ideological. 

"Or there's an anti-religion bias: 'But also that we don’t understand their day to day lives. That we don’t respect the fact that they go to church twice a week. That when we look our noses down upon Walmart, they see it as the only place to shop.'" Now, these are striking admissions, because F. Chuck is telling us that he doesn't know what he knows.  He's telling us he doesn't know that there is a recession.  He's the political director at NBC News, he knows there's a recession out there, but we don't cover it because we don't see it, New York-Washington bubble, yet he knows it's there.  And this is geographic bias.  Well, if he knows it's there and it's not covered, isn't it then to protect Obama?  There's no question that's the case and that's where the ideology comes in.  And then we get a takeoff on the bitter clinger stuff because F. Chuck says, yeah, we don't respect the fact they go to church twice a week and we look down our noses at Walmart. 

So in Chuck's mind, everybody outside Washington and New York goes to church twice a week and they all shop at Walmart.  Now, Chuck, I have to tell you that Americans know that there are far more places to shop than Walmart.  We have malls.  We have malls here.  And we've got fine restaurants that you have in New York and Washington.  This is interesting here as far as what Chuck is trying to admit.  In fact, Chuck, you might be surprised to know that there are people in small towns that some of them don't favor Walmart coming to town.  I remember in my little town where I grew up, Cape Girardeau, Missouri, Main Street, right down there parallel to the Mississippi River, where my dad's law firm office was, my grandfather and my uncle, and that's where the action was.  There was a Woolworth's there, and it was the street that you see in It's a Wonderful Life. It was all there, including the Christmas decorations, it looked the same. 

You had a department store called Hecht's. You had Woolworth's. You had a grocery store, jewelry store, the bank was there, the savings and loan, called the building and loan then, it was there.  By the way, there were also stores on Broadway which led to you Main Street, so it was Broadway and Main Street in Cape Girardeau.  It's a town of 25,000 people.  And then one day, and I still lived there, I left in 1971, somebody, an evil, mean-spirited developer decided to build a mall out by Interstate 55, which was at that time about as far away as you could get from Main Street and still be within city limits.  And the mall was gonna have all kinds of neat stuff in it.  It was before Walmart's day, but it was gonna have stuff in it.  It was gonna have anchors to a famous bar out of St. Louis, a number of other stores in it.  And I remember all the merchants on Main Street:  "Oh, no, this is gonna kill us." (interruption) No, the movie theaters were on Broadway leading down to Main Street. 

So my point here is that even when a Walmart shows up in a small town, a lot of the people there are not crazy, but it's not that everybody loves Walmart because that's the only place they shop.  I applaud Chuck for trying to deal with the bias issue and trying to categorize it as geographical and not ideological, but it's probably a little bit of both.  Despite his best efforts he still makes it clear that they have a lot of ignorance and confusion about what life is like outside of Washington and New York, and that there is a disdain for it to boot. 


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