RUSH: I'll give you another example of how Obama is never governing -- never governing, always campaigning, always fighting those powerful forces. His policies don't have any relationship whatsoever to the problem is. He's just trying to fix everything. Nothing that he's doing has any relationship to what's happening. That's how the low-information voters see it. I'm telling you, folks, after the State of the Union, Sean Hannity put together a Frank Luntz focus group in Santa Monica, California.
He found a bunch of Romney voters who are essentially saying exactly to you what I'm saying today. They loved that speech. They didn't particularly like Obama's policies but they liked the speech and they liked that he's trying to fix things, but they did not blame his policies. They didn't like them, but his policies had nothing to do with what's happening. What they saw in Obama is a guy trying to fix things, trying to bring people together.
Obama talked about people "working together," and they wanted to hear that. These low-information people, they want this bipartisanship stuff. They want people working together. So another example of how this works. This is another, quote, unquote, "fact" that Obama is tweeting his low-information voters. Here's a president with a Twitter account, a Facebook account, a White House with a website, and it's all for campaign purposes.
One of the tweets that's coming out of the Obama account is this: "Fact: Obama's plan ends tax breaks for companies to ship jobs overseas and rewards companies that hire people here at home." People hear that, or they read that, and they say, "That's wonderful! It's about time somebody is making business play by the same rules everybody else has to play by. No more tax cuts for companies to ship jobs overseas.
"That shouldn'ta happened in the first place and whoever did that ought to be stopped, and Obama's trying to stop it. He's trying to reverse it, and he's gonna make sure that companies that hire people here at home are going to be rewarded!" He doesn't say how, he just says they are, and the low-information voter says, "Boy, I can support that. I hope he succeeds. I really hope that he's able to pull this off." Now, the fact is that there aren't any "tax breaks for companies who ship jobs overseas."
If there were, there wouldn't be too many jobs left in this country. There are no tax breaks for companies to ship jobs overseas. That's just made up. But you know what's brilliant about it, in a devious, dictatorial, statist kind of way? What's brilliant about it is that it is totally believable. No doubt the low-information American who's already been conditioned to suspect big business, has already been conditioned to hate them, already has been conditioned for decades to believe that big business is trying to shaft them, screw them...
In the case of drug companies, they want to kill them -- and now you've got a show on NBC on Monday night that's about that very thing. A rich New York family is living out there on Long Island doing everything they can to kill their customers and hide the fact. They want a product that kills their customers on the market. So, it's not hard to believe that the low-information voter would think just that and that there are tax breaks for shipping jobs overseas.
"What better way to explain my not having a job? I'm not overseas; I'm here! And these horrible companies, they're getting tax breaks for shipping my job overseas." It's made to order. It excuses unemployment, it excuses going on unemployment benefits, it excuses using food stamps. "Why, hell, Mabel, they shipped my job over to Somalia! Don't get mad at me for not working. Did you hear Obama? There aren't any jobs anyway. They're all being sent overseas. That's where companies get tax breaks!"
Mabel tells her friends and they all get worked up against big business, and Obama says, "But I'm gonna fix that by rewarding companies that hire here at home." "Yeah, yeah, Mabel! That's what ought to happen." But there are no tax breaks. Now, you go out and you try to tell an Obama voter, a low-information voter, "Wait a minute. Companies don't get tax breaks." Folks, how does it happen? You talk to a liberal or a leftist or a low-information voter and you tell them the truth about something, and they just refuse to believe you.
A, because it's you telling them, and you happen to be a Republican or conservative. B, because if what they think is not true, they must be idiots to believe it, and nobody's gonna think of themselves as an idiot. How many idiots have you known who are proud to be idiots? How many literal dingbats have you met who know they are and are happy about it? I'll tell you, it's very few.
Being a dingbat or an idiot is not something that you ascribe to, and when you achieve it, you're very proud of it. Quite the opposite. Nobody thinks they are. So if you confront them with something that the only explanation for their believing it would be that they're an idiot, you have no hope of persuading them. So Obama and his campaign and the Democrat Party in general shoot for the lowest common denominator, and they don't care because it's all about acquiring power, wielding power, and holding power.
Here's another Obama tweet: "Obama's plan grows the economy by investing in manufacturing, infrastructure, clean energy, and education without raising the deficit." But the deficit's getting bigger. So how does that work? Well, somebody else is doing it. Because Obama said he won't. Obama said his plan doesn't. So if John Boehner comes along and says, "Oh, yes, it does," then, "Well, Boehner, he's an idiot! Boehner's a Republican," and that's what's gonna be said about anybody. It doesn't matter who. Mitch McConnell. Karl Rove.
"Well, they're lying!" So there are a lot of factors here that make this possible. This is not easy to do. I mean, Obama, as a cult figure means nobody doubts him. Among his supporters, among the low-information voters, the fact that he might be lying never crosses their mind. It can't be. So he tweets that his plan that he announced in the State of the Union "grows the economy by investing in manufacturing, infrastructure, clean energy."
Now, the logical might say, "Wait a minute. That's what he said back in 2009. He's been doing that then for 4-1/2 years and still isn't growing." Well, A, they don't think that way. They don't remember four years ago what he said. What they remember is that what he said he was gonna do hasn't happened, but it isn't his fault. "Somebody's stopping him! Somebody doesn't want him to succeed." Somebody wants him to fail. (Remember that?)
So there are these powerful forces. The fact that he's the most powerful person in the universe, the most powerful person in the world doesn't compute. He's being thwarted at every turn! Another tweet: "Obama's plan would slash our reliance on foreign oil, create jobs, and cut energy costs by doubling clean energy production." The fact that none of that has happened yet doesn't matter. It's what he wants to happen; it's what he's trying to make happen.
"Somebody's stopping him! Somebody's making sure it doesn't happen! It's gotta be Republicans! They don't want us to have these things!" Remember, Republicans are the people who will poison the air and the water. Obama said that, too! If they're not careful, Republicans will poison the climate. That's what corporations do. Algore's movie said the same thing, and Michael Moore's movie said the same thing.
"My professor in college tells me this, and my history teacher in high school tells me the same thing!" All these people are hearing the identical thing everywhere they go except when they turn on talk radio or Fox News. So what are they gonna believe? Clinton came close to being able to pull this off, but not quite. Clinton never did. I mean, Clinton, he had a constant campaign, but he also wanted to be seen as governing. He wanted to be seen as charge and he wanted all the credit for all the stuff that was happening.
Another tweet from Obama: "Cuts to things like education and training, energy, and national security will cost us jobs and slow down our recovery." The thing is, there aren't any. There aren't any cuts. There aren't even any proposed cuts in anything, much less "energy, training, education, and national security." There aren't any cuts! The fact is, the only hope we have is shrinking the budget and shrinking the government. That's the only hope we've got. Yet cuts to things like -- and fill in the blank. It doesn't matter.
"Cuts will cost us jobs and slow down our recovery."
That's what's heard.
RUSH: In discussing the phenomenon that we have learned about that I told you about the past couple days about the total disconnect between Obama's presidency and his policies and how he's never, ever seen as governing, always campaigning, always running against faceless, nameless people, thwarting his attempts to fix what's wrong. You need a slavish, compliant media to pull that off. In fact, some might say you need more than a slavish, compliant media. You need a media that helps you formulate ways, a media that helps you strategerize.
And here's how that happens. Washington Post. Karen Tumulty, who used to be at TIME Magazine. Karen Tumulty and Lori Montgomery in the Washington Post with a story: "Is the Deficit Losing its Urgency?" Well, what convenient timing for this, especially after Santa Obama just came out with an even longer than usual gift list for all of his constituents at the State of the Union show. And after telling everybody how the debt problem's almost been dealt with, we just need another $1.6 trillion, and we will have met the goal. What did he say? We will reach the $4 trillion in debt reduction that experts from both parties unanimously agree will get us back on track.
So Obama says all we need is $1.6 trillion more, and we got the debt problem fixed. And Steny Hoyer says we don't have a spending problem; we have a paying-for-it problem. And Nancy Pelosi says we don't have a spending problem; we've got a budget deficit problem. Along comes the Washington Post with a story saying, "You know what? The deficit isn't a big deal anymore anyway. As a news story, as an economic item, as a factor in life in America, it's not that big a deal anymore."
"President Obama’s State of the Union address laid down the marker for a new, activist phase of his presidency -- one in which he will not allow concerns about the deficit to dictate the major policy decisions that confront him." Of course not, because it isn't a problem. "As he begins his second term, Obama is convinced that he has gained the upper hand on fiscal issues, in part because the latest projections show the deficit is coming down from its record levels."
So the debt, not a problem anymore. The deficit is coming down, and it's not a problem. We don't need to worry about it, plus Obama said that he's not gonna allow concerns about it to dictate major policy decisions.
So this is how it all happens.
Obama comes up with policies to lower the debt, lower the deficit. It takes him five years, but finally he overcomes the Republicans, except when he doesn't every budget crisis. Every time we're on the verge of fixing it, the Republicans screw up and find ways to spend more money, like they did in December, to cause the economy to shrink. But for the most part Obama's fixed it now. The debt, we're within $1 trillion of getting it under control.
The deficit is coming down. Job creation is going through the roof! So the deficit, we don't even have to worry about it anymore. We don't even have to have policies that deal with the deficit, which means we don't have to be concerned with what we're spending anymore. So the Obama administration, coupled here with the Washington Post, just green-lighted themselves, and with every low-information voter. Now, low-information voters might not read the Washington Post.
That doesn't matter. TMZ will get hold of this and Entertainment Tonight. Enough pop culture outlets will get hold of this, because all that really needs to be gleaned from this is Obama's fixed it. "He's on his way. He's overcome some of these mean people, and there's no spending problem anymore. We fixed it, and so if you hear if the Republicans complain about spending, ignore 'em. We fixed it! There's not a problem. The deficit isn't urgent. All we have is a pay-for problem now."
This is how it all works.
In reality, all of this is untrue.
The truth is the exact opposite of this.
The reality is the exact opposite.
Our debt is growing, and it is a more urgent problem than it has ever been. It is squeezing people in the middle class. It is squeezing people in the private sector. We are spending so much money that there is less and less capital (money) available to be earned, to be spent, in the private sector than ever before. But who's gonna believe me up against the president and TMZ, Entertainment Tonight and the Washington Post?
Because they say, "Is the Deficit Losing its Urgency?
Yeah, it must have, 'cause it's just not a problem anymore. "[T]he president believes..." This is from the article: "[T]he president believes that his reelection has given him new momentum to pursue" new policies and new spending. "'The politics have shifted. It was intentional,' said White House senior adviser Dan Pfeiffer." In other words, Obama's reelection means we don't have to worry about the deficit anymore. We have a green light for spending.
This is very handy, by the way. This comes in very handy right now. But the truth is there hasn't been a shift. There hasn't been a reduction in debt. There hasn't been a reduction in the deficit. The truth is that Obama has never worried about the deficit. He has never worried about the debt. He's never worried about any of this. In fact, what is happening is exactly what he has wanted to happen. That really is what takes the cake for me in all of this.
While Obama has convinced the low-information voters that what is happening, he is desperately finding and opposing -- he is working hard to stop all of this misery -- the fact of the matter, he's causing it. You try telling a low-information voter that and see what happens. I'm sure you have. I'm sure you have run up against these people. And, by the way, low-information voter doesn't mean stupid idiot.
You could run into a college professor who believes this crap.
You could run into college graduates who believe this garbage.
You can run into teachers who believe all this.
"Low-information voter" does not necessarily mean blithering, stupid idiot by any stretch, although they are among the group. But it's not required.