RUSH: Yesterday there was a story about David Ignatius, a columnist for the Washington Post, who appeared on the Chris Matthews Sunday show, the syndicated Chris Matthews weekend talk show, and on that show David Ignatius was talking about the Misstatement of the Union speech tonight that Obama's gonna give. He predicted what Obama would talk about, about jobs and guns and immigration. And Ignatius then went on to say that he really hopes that Obama doesn't approach it as a zero-sum game and destroy Marco Rubio. Not in the speech tonight, but in the whole debate about immigration.
I took that and I ran with it, and I analyzed it quite extensively. And one of the things I pointed out was that it was clear to me that Ignatius, as a lone voice, is very much aware what the Obama tactic is. It's not just have your ideas triumph, in this case on immigration. The way Obama's gonna win is to destroy the opposition, and that's what the zero-sum game definition is for politics. If somebody wins, somebody has to be destroyed, not just lose. And Ignatius, "Please don't destroy Rubio." I found it profound actually that Ignatius would say this. I went on and on and on about it, we got a phone call from Vinny in Queens who accused me of over-thinking it.
And he said, "Your vast intellect, Rush, is getting in the way of seeing what's obvious. What Ignatius is worried about is that if Obama starts trashing Rubio, that there's gonna be a backlash among the Hispanic population at Obama." And I said, with all due respect to Vinny, I said, "I think you're over-thinking this a bit 'cause Ignatius said what he said. 'I hope he doesn't destroy Rubio,' 'cause he knows what Obama's modus operandi is."
These guys, some of these people in journalism, when they talk about bipartisanship, they really mean it. To them that's salad days.
When Republicans and Democrats are working together, as long as the Republicans lose everything, as long as they're talking, as long as it's civil, as long as the Democrats let the Republicans join the committees and play golf with them, as long as the Republicans lose, fine, but they live to talk about it. But Ignatius was clearly expressing discomfort, the idea that Obama is literally trying to destroy his opposition.
So today, ladies and gentlemen, I'm holding here my formerly nicotine-stained fingers (shuffling paper) a story from the New York Times, which, in my over-thinking, rings almost the same as the David Ignatius comment on Chris Matthews. It's by Jackie Calmes. It's headlined "Watching Obama for Signs of Change," and it's pretty shocking coming from the New York Times. It sounds at times, this story does, like they are worried that Obama could just run amok. He could end up just being out of control toward (they don't use the word; I will) dictatorship. There are parts...
It's not the whole story 'cause halfway through she gathers herself and then the story becomes the typical, total slobbering, Obama is the greatest thing ever. But in the first half of the story, she's very worried here. It's like the way Dr. Frankenstein felt after he created his monster. If you are familiar with the story, Dr. Frankenstein was very, very worried when he saw the monster terrorizing the innocent townspeople, and then the monster turned on Dr. Frankenstein. Well, here Dr. Frankenstein is the media, and they've created this monster, Obama, and Jackie Calmes is, in part of the story, a little worried that the monster could kind of get loose and go nuts.
This is not the first time that I've seen questions raised about Obama's stability in the mainstream media. Indirectly, but it's not the first time. In part, this story reads like a warning to Obama and then, as I say, it descends in the last half of it to the usual slavish Obama gibberish. I'll give you some examples. "On Tuesday night, the president will address the nation and Congress on the State of the Union. But many will watch as well for signs of the state of Barack Obama. Inside the White House and out, advisers and associates have noted subtle but palpable changes in Mr. Obama since his re-election.
"'He even carries himself a little bit differently,' said one confidant who, like others, asked not to be identified discussing the president. He is relaxed, more voluble and even more confident than usual, these people say, freer to drop profanities or dismiss others' ideas -- enough that even some supporters fear the potential for hubris." (laughing) The potential? The potential for hubris? Anyway, the point is they're seeing it now. Hubris is an out-of-control self-absorption. Narcissism, self-love, a guy who can't stop looking at himself in the mirror because he loves it. They're worried.
So the New York Times people are worried that Obama is getting a big head, and he's cussing up a storm and he's just telling other people that their ideas of full of it. He's not listening to anybody. He's really off on his own. "A man who attended a meeting in December between Mr. Obama and business executives was struck by the contrast with a tense and perfunctory session months before the president was re-elected. 'To say he was a different person is too strong, but he was someone who has won a second term and isn't going to run again.... This was a relaxed, engaged president who very genuinely wanted to connect.'
"As the president prepares to outline his second-term agenda, it is clear from these personal accounts as well as his public acts, like his bold Inaugural Address, that he has shown an assertiveness, self-possession, even cockiness that contrasts with the caution, compromise and reserve that he showed for much of his first term." They're worried he's out of control, folks. They're putting it out there: David Ignatius yesterday, and the New York Times today. I'm not over-thinking it. I'm not making too much of this. I'm telling you it's out there.
"Watching Obama for Signs of Change," and "signs of the state of Barack Obama." They're worried he's out of control, thinks he just can't do anything wrong. There are some people that are terribly concerned and like, for example, "[W]ill he overreach, alienate some Americans and cement the partisan divide he once promised to bridge?" Now, of course that's absurd, because, yeah, he promised to bridge it, but he gave up on that the first day he was inaugurated 2009. There hasn't been any pretense at bridging the partisan divide. He is the divider-in-chief.
But now they're worried about it, is the point -- and, as I say, in the last half of the story this all changes, becomes total slavish self-devotion and Obama's the greatest thing since sliced bread and so forth. [A]mong his remaining aides it is not plain who might confront him at any danger signs." Meaning there nobody has the guts to say, "Hey, you know what? You're about to go off the rails here." I'm telling you, don't make too much of it, but it's two days in a row, and I just wanted to point it out here, folks.