RUSH: Ladies and gentlemen, we did not need -- and I'm going to say we, not I, because I know you're up to speed -- we didn't need an audiotape from 1998 to tell us that Barack Obama is a socialist. Did that come as news to you? Does anybody remember Joe the Plumber? "We want to spread the wealth." He's a liberal. What the hell, we don't need a tape. Oh, folks, by the way, you know what? There's media bias. Did you know that? Yeah. There's media bias. I got 10,000 e-mails today alone on the fact that there's media bias out there. Whoa. It's so much I can hardly keep up with it.
So the big deal is we've got Romney and the tape yesterday, and it turns out there's a gap in it. There's a Rose Mary Woods gap in the Romney tape. It's about two minutes. Now, David Corn, who works at Mother Jones, got the tape ostensibly from Jimmy Carter's grandson who's sitting in the basement somewhere prowling around looking for stuff to hurt Romney with. He comes up with this thing. You know it's illegal to tape somebody in Florida without their permission? That isn't gonna matter. Remember the grandparents who just happened to have a radio in their car that received cell phone signals, and overheard a call between Mr. Newt and John Boehner. They're driving around in their Cadillac on the way to do Christmas shopping for the grandkids and lo and behold, well, you've got a cell phone radio in your car, too, you can monitor cell phone calls. The Martins was their name. They sent it off to the New York Times, so historical, and there were legal consequences.
Anyway, that's not gonna matter. But there's a two-minute gap. William Jacobson at Legal Insurrection found it. This guy does fabulous work. He blogs in his spare time, just does fabulous work. Nobody knows what's on the gap. Romney did say: "Gee, I hope they release the whole thing." And now... well, you'll hear in the sound bites coming, gonna get to these sooner than later. But, man, some of these Republicans inside the Beltway are just ripping Romney to shreds over this comment. Even if they think it, how is it useful to say it? And they're wrong anyway, but how is it useful to say it? Anyway, you'll hear all this in the audio sound bites. Of course, I come in for profound criticism for realizing that what Romney said yesterday was actually an opportunity. It's amazing. Alternate universe. It truly is.
So there's a gap in the Romney tape. We're not gonna hear anything about that. The mainstream media is not gonna talk about the gap in the Romney tape. They're not interested in it because the Romney tape has already served its purpose. We've got Obama admitting in 1998 that he believes in the redistribution of wealth. The point about that is, it's not just wealth that these people want to redistribute. It's everything, folks. Socialist liberals. I know it's gotta be kind of frustrating for you because you don't need a 1998 tape from Obama to tell you that he's a socialist. He tells us every time he opens his mouth. The last three-and-a-half years have been big government statism, socialism, whatever you want to call it. That's the whole point. That's what the election's all about. And yet people on our side think they've been handed, "Whoa, wow, look at what we..."
They haven't had the guts to say this about Obama themselves. They haven't had the guts for three-and-a-half years. I'm talking about people on our side have not had the guts -- what are these conservative blogs and business to do? What are these conservative magazines and business to do? What is their purpose? Well, I know it's subscriptions and finance, but beyond that what is the mission? What are they actually trying to do? Do they care who wins elections or not? I don't know. Anyway, all this will become clear as we go through the busy broadcast today.
The very idea that now people have Obama saying, "Yeah, I believe in the redistribution of wealth." Now all of a sudden it's safe to say it? My gosh, we played tapes from 2007, 2001, 2002. We've had Obama explaining the SEIU. We played it I don't know how many times, his plan for single-payer health care; how it's gonna take 10 to 15 years; how he's gonna have to sneak it by people. He's gonna have to kill the private insurance industry in order to make the government the only place people can go for health insurance. And we've had people afraid to say any of this because, what? They're afraid of being called racist or whatever, which they're gonna be called racist anyway.
My point to you is this is not over. It's nowhere near over, and in fact it's much worse for Obama out there than it is for Romney right now. If you put things in context and have the proper perspective, if you look at the money Obama has spend, the things they've done to take Romney out, Romney's a point behind or two points ahead, depending on the poll you look at, all these polls are way over-sampling Democrats. And, folks, I am not coming here artificially positive. That doesn't help anybody. It's not real. I'm sharing my gut with you. I'm just telling you what I happen to think about it.
Now, Obama, even though we all knew it, it still, I guess, is useful for those who didn't know it. Obama has now staked out the position that we always said that he had. His attacks on Romney the last 24 hours underscore that he believes in more dependency, more government, more spending, more debt, more printing of money. Not once, especially since Romney talked about the 47%, not once did Obama take the occasion of this to say that he supports productive, hardworking taxpayers. Not once has Obama said that he supports success and achievement. He doesn't talk that way.
We've got the Middle East on fire. We've got France now facing down their own problem with the Muslims 'cause some cartoons that have been published, and he's on Letterman last night, talking, (imitating Obama) "Yeah, well, one thing I learned, Dave, is, you gotta be president of everybody." Well, he's not president of everybody. Barack Obama's enemies are the people who make this country work. Barack Obama's enemies are those who succeed. Those are the people whose income he wants to redistribute. Those are the people whose income he wants to take, using the power and the force of the federal government to do it.
And then after that he goes over to Jay-Z's sports bar, the 40/40 lounge. They had $800 bottles of champagne stacked up in a pyramid of champagne! In the picture I saw, nobody was there. (interruption) Well, you're not supposed to say it's the cheap stuff. If I said that, they'd tell me I'd lost touch. If I said $800 champagne was cheap. Anyway, here's Obama out pop culture-ing it, hanging around with Jay-Z and Beyonce at the 40/40 sports bar.
After going on Letterman and telling him (impression), "Yeah, well, one thing I know: You gotta be president of everybody." And he's not. Obama's entire attack on Romney has been to say, in effect, that he represents all the people while Romney writes off a chunk of the people. That's what Obama tried to do yesterday. You know the interesting thing about that 47%? One of the fascinating things about that 47% that Romney talked about, the 47% that don't pay taxes...
I pointed out yesterday that not everybody wants to be in that group. The Democrats think that the people in that group like it and are resigned to it and that's their lot in life, and they know that government's their salvation. So they're gonna be offended and frightened if anybody comes along and talks about taking away whatever they got. The real truth about that 47% is (I don't know what the percentage is), there are a lot of people who are in it who do not think they are and who will not admit they are.
They don't consider themselves to be in it. There are a lot of people in the 47% that don't pay taxes who would rather have a job, who would rather be earning income, who'd rather be participating in a growing and thriving economy. As such, they don't think of themselves as being in this takers/losers category that the media's trying to say that Romney was talking about, which he wasn't. But the fact that there was confusion about it is what represented the golden opportunity, as far as I was concerned, 'cause they were all paying attention now.
You had 'em.
So we have the occasion of this tape to make the case for our principles. That's the Obama tape admitting that he's a redistributionist. Obama used the occasion... Or use the Romney tape, take your pick. Obama used the occasion to make it crystal clear that he believes we're under-taxed, that the federal government does not spend enough, that the federal government does not regulate enough. The federal government's not big enough; the federal government's not doing enough.
That's how he chose to react to the Romney tape.
And he intends to expand the size and reach of the federal government as much as he can. He used the occasion of this tape to tell us that he has no new ideas and he hasn't learned anything. Unemployment's gonna continue to increase. The dependency on government will continue to expand. That's what he has in mind. That's where his policies have taken us now, and there isn't anything new about his policies. How can you represent all the people, as he said last night on Letterman, with that?
How can you say that you represent all of us when you promote class warfare, when you want division in the country, when you want people at war with each other? How in the world can you say you represent everybody and then you go out and you race bait and invent the so-called War on Women? That's president of everybody? War on Women, race-baiting? We all know that Obama's about dividing. He's about attacking.
His entire campaign -- and, in fact, his entire presidency -- is about dividing and attacking and creating animosity, peddling lies, pandering to groups. Let me suggest something here. If millions of Americans do not view themselves as victims and entitled, if they don't view themselves that way... It's the point that was made. I just made it, too. If millions of Americans don't view themselves as victims and entitled, we can shut down at least half the federal government.
Because we have department after department and agency after agency that exists to supposedly protect the rights of one American from another, to equalize incomes, equalize outcomes, and to regulate so-called inequality out of our system. So shut 'em down! Obama just announced Americans don't consider themselves victims, or entitled. Actually, the vast majority of Obama supporters believe exactly that. They believe exactly that they're entitled.
He fosters that!
He's made them feel like they are victims and they deserve to be compensated somehow, in some way, for what this country -- or for what the 1%, for what whoever -- has done to them. His supporters, a majority of them, believe exactly that and he believes exactly that. He perpetuates that belief system. Almost every speech he gives is about this country's inherent unjustness, unfairness and how he's here to equalize it. He says he needs to give everybody a fair break, a fair shot. He's everybody's equal chance.
Well, of course the implication is everybody doesn't have that now.
RUSH: Snerdley is fit to be tied today. I have to tell you, every day is a roller coaster. And I'm sure it is for you, too. Every day is. If you're involved in all this -- if you're involved in it professionally, vocationally -- it's a roller coaster. Every day is different. One day you get up feeling okay. The next day you get up feeling rotten. Then in the middle of the day you got up feeling okay, something happens to make you get all ticked off.
It can happen multiple times a day, and everybody tells you about it. You're trying to stay on an even keel. Everybody tells you about it. Everybody dumps on you. Everyone expects you to have the answer. You know what I'm talking about. Snerdley says to me, "In 14 minutes, you just put everything in the last 3-1/2 years (plus four days) into perspective. You did it in 14 minutes. How come Republican consultants can't do it in 24 hours?"
Twenty-four hours? How about: Why can't they do it inside of a campaign? You know what I heard Ed Rollins say yesterday? And, look, these guys don't like me. It's not personal. They just think that I don't know what I'm talking about. Politics is their business. They're the professionals, and I'm this blabbermouth on the radio. But I heard Rollins on Fox and he said something. This is a paraphrase.
He said, "Well, Romney hasn't turned out to be quite as good a candidate as we had hoped" or "as some had hoped," and that took me back to the primaries. I thought, "Well, wait a minute! You were the guys who told us that he was the only guy that can win. You are the guys that told us that, of all the people in the Republican primaries, he was 'electable.' Well, what did you not know then that you're just learning?"
He turned out not to be as good a candidate as you thought? What, are the consultants unable to make him a good one? I mean, Romney is who he is. In fact, I would have to say, looking at things here, that a lot of the conventional wisdom about Romney was wrong. You know, I've been wrong about some of it, I'll admit. I was wrong about Romneycare. I thought Romneycare would be an albatross around his neck that would be one of the primary obstacles he had to overcome in the campaign.
It hasn't been yet. Now, it could very well be that Obama will bring it up in the debates, but it hasn't been yet. It hasn't been a factor. Romneycare has not been a factor. I was dead wrong about that. There are a lot of examples like that, too, where a lot of people have been wrong about things that they predicted. If you go to the Rasmussen poll today here... It's a summary, the Daily Update.
New Hampshire, Romney up three; "55% of independents still see the presidential race as a choice between a lesser of two evils." Daily Presidential Tracking Poll: Romney up one, 47-46. Swing State Daily Tracking Poll: Romney 47, Obama 46. Colorado: Romney 47, Obama 45. "Eighty-one percent think government aid recipients should be required to prove legal residence." This is a sample of what Rasmussen's discovered.
Also, there's another poll out there. I'll get to the whole thing when I find it in the Stack, but 78% or 73% of Democrats think the purpose of government is to provide -- to guarantee -- food and housing. Seventy-three percent of Democrats believe that. Food and housing! That's the role of the government, now: To provide food and housing. By the way, these Rasmussen numbers, these are likely voters. The other polls that are out really -- in some cases egregiously so -- oversampling Democrats.
RUSH: It was a survey by the Pew people, the Pew Research Center for the People & the Press, the Pew's American Values Survey, and here's what it found, highlights. Three out of five independents -- this was earlier this summer, by the way, when they did this poll -- three out of five independents endorsed the idea of government guaranteeing citizens' food and a bed. The same number of independents, three out of five, agree that government should take care of people who can't take care of themselves. And, of course, if you're Barack Obama, you want to grow that number. You want to grow that number right into the middle class, turning them lower class because dependents is what you are all about, because you are into power.
If you are Barack Obama, you want power over people, and the way to have that is to have them totally dependent on you for their needs, not their wants. You throw those in as goodies and then you really own 'em. You provide their needs. And, of course, everybody needs a phone, everybody needs a flat screen, everybody needs a house. It never ends, and thereby the Democrat Party is in power in perpetuity. It's exactly what Obama's all about. This is why so many of us are worried about whether or not we've lost the country. It's why Romney's 47% comment is relevant and it's why it's an opportunity, if some people in the Republican Party would put their heads together and understand this. Three out of five independents? If that's the case, if three out of five independents endorse this idea of government guaranteeing food and a bed, then how the hell is Romney leading by 15 with independents? 'Cause that does not represent Romney's view.
On the Democrat side of this, 78% say basic food and shelter should be government guarantees. Seventy-eight percent of Democrats, food and shelter, government guarantees. Subprime mortgage crisis, hello. No big deal. So what's a little debt? The Washington Post says today: "In June, Pew found that 59 percent of independents believe that the government 'should help those who cannot help themselves.' Moreover, 58 percent believe that the government should guarantee minimal food and shelter." Doesn't sound very independent to me.
They love to be called independents, open-minded, make up their mind. They want to be dependent? This is another poll, if it's true, then we have lost the country, and I don't think we've lost the country, so I'm not gonna believe the poll. I do not want to believe we've lost the country. I don't believe this. If this were true, Obama would be up 20.