RUSH: We've been talking about the sequester. Obama is purposefully inflicting pain on people in order to experience political gain. Now, one of the challenging things about this, as you all know, is we are attempting outreach to the low-information voters out there. I've heard people say, "But, Rush, by definition low-information voters are not listening to you." Oh, yes, they are. You must understand, folks, that most low-information voters don't think of themselves as low-information voters.
You remember when Mitt Romney made his campaign appearance last May to the usual batch of Republican donors, fat cats, rich people who hate the poor, and all that? He said, "Well, 47% of people are never gonna vote for me. We've lost 'em," and everybody jumped on him for that. I said, "He better not apologize for that because most people in the 47% don't think they're in the 47%." By definition, most low-information voters don't think of themselves that way. In this instance, they don't know who they are.
But we do.
As such, outreach to them is useful, it's worthwhile, and it's well worth the time. Look, we've heard reports. The audience growth here is expanding proportionately to the number of times we mention the Kardashians. We have evidence that this is happening. So don't doubt what we're doing here. I have it under control. I know exactly what I'm doing. The best marketing plans, you don't tell people about 'em; you just execute 'em, and that's what we're doing here. Now, we're talking about Obama purposefully inflicting pain.
Now, who wants to believe that? Certainly not an Obama voter. There's no way somebody who voted for Obama is gonna believe that even though it's true, and this is the key to Obama's success. He's president, but he's not. He's not governing. He's not seen as governing. He's campaigning. He's opposing all this bad stuff that's happening. In truth, he's causing it, but it's not seen that way. So the fact is, we have the sequester. It's minuscule budget cuts that are not even going to be noticed unless they're hyped.
We've gotten the circumstance now (and the New York Times just acknowledged it) where the president of the United States benefits from the pain that results from spending cuts, the supposed pain. The pain is not even real. It's gonna have to be hyped. But he, as the nation's "top Democrat" not the president, will benefit from the pain and suffering because it's not gonna be seen as his fault even though it is. So in trying to make the case to people that the president of the United States, for the first time maybe in American history...
We actually have a president who is seeking to benefit from inflicting pain and suffering on elements of the population, and there's no question that the New York Times is very, very concerned about this now, the story we shared with you in the last hour. They know he's on a tightrope, and he's doing two things at once. He's acting as the top Democrat and acting as president. See, he's really not. The key to Obama is, he holds the office but somehow he's magically pulled off this trick where he is not associated at all with what's happening.
He's seen as fighting it.
Now, the idea of inflicting pain. You don't think anybody can be made to believe it?
This is a Washington Times story: "The [Regime] denied an appeal for flexibility in lessening the sequester's effects, with an e-mail this week appearing to show officials in Washington that, because they already had promised the cuts would be devastating, they now have to follow through on that. In the e-mail sent Monday by Charles Brown, an official with the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service office in Raleigh, NC, Mr. Brown asked 'if there was any latitude' in how to spread the sequester cuts across the region to lessen the impacts on fish inspections.
"He said he was discouraged by officials in Washington, who gave him this reply: 'We have gone on record with a notification to Congress and whoever else that 'APHIS would eliminate assistance to producers in 24 states in managing wildlife damage to the aquaculture industry...'" Here's the upshot: "So it is our opinion that however you manage that reduction, you need to make sure you are not contradicting what we said the impact would be." So the regime is sending a letter to this guy at the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service -- Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service!
This guy is asking (paraphrased), "How do I handle these cuts? I want to lessen the impact on the people we serve." They said, "No! Whatever you do, you've got to make sure the impact is severe." That's what their note to him said. "You can't contradict what we're saying in Washington, and we're saying it's bad. So you can't do anything that contradicts that." So there's no doubt that there is purposeful infliction of pain, or at least the perception, and that Obama seeks to benefit from it. Folks, I've never seen this in my lifetime.
Now, members of Congress are different. I remember Dick Gephardt, you know, being very happy when he said, "For every hundred-point drop in the stock market, we pick up a seat in the House!" That's one thing. I mean, those are partisan people. The president is supposed to be the president of everybody. He's not just the top Democrat. But that's what Obama is. He has pulled this trick off where he is not seen as the president. He holds the office, but people do not attach what happens in this country to him or his policies. It's the most amazing thing.
But just for those of you low-information voters -- and you don't know who you are, but trust me, you're out there. If you can't believe it, don't doubt me. I have no reason to lie to you about any of this. There's nothing in it for me to make anything up ever. I have nothing to gain. The whole purpose of this program, as I have said on several occasions, A, is to attract the largest audience I can and hold it for as long as I can so that we can charge our advertisers confiscatory rates. That's the first reason I'm here.
After that, the purpose of the program is simply to create informed people. I've always believed that the way things get done in this country is an informed population voting, because the people get what they want. So the whole premise here has been to create the largest universe possible of informed, participating, caring individuals who actually try to effect change in their country based on being informed. We've done a magnificent job. We've just been outnumbered.
We can't compete with the combination of Hollywood, TV, music, books, and higher education. We're simply outnumbered in the contest for young skulls full of mush and their minds. But I've got no reason to make any of this up. I have no reason to lie to anybody about anything. I don't run any conservative organization. I have nothing to do with the Republican Party. My only interest is having the greatest country in the history of the world and reacquiring it again and then maintaining it. I believe that only happens when you have a population of informed people pursuing excellence, fulfilling their ambition to be the best they can be.
That's not what's happening now.
We have a president who's telling people that it's bad and getting worse, and it's Republicans' fault. We don't have any leadership that's inspiring people. There is no motivation from the top. There's nobody in Washington, of any party, telling the American people that this is the greatest country on earth, talking about American exceptionalism, telling people how important they are and how good they can be. Nobody's raising expectations. We're lowering them. We are accepting mediocrity, and trying to find excuses for it.
We blame the Republicans for it. "You don't amount to anything because the Republicans love the rich and not you." And Obama? He's not trying to inspire anybody. He's not trying to motivate anybody to be the best they can be. That's what this program has always been about. So, look, this is a roundabout way of telling you, particularly those of you who are low-information voters. By the time I'm through, you are gonna know who you are and we're gonna fix it.
You're not gonna be low-information voters anymore. You can't be a low-information voter for very long and listen to this program. But I'm just telling you: When we talk about the president being president but not president, and he is not governing but campaigning, I've got no reason to lie to you about it. When I tell you he is purposely inflicting pain on people so that he can politically benefit from it, I've got no reason to lie to you about it. There's not one thing I gain. My life is not made happier simply by virtue of Obama losing or being defeated. The reason I'm interested in that is the country benefits, not me.
I'm fine. I'm okay. I'm cool.
As a caller said yesterday, and this was interesting, Snerdley, do you remember this caller from yesterday who was asking me if it was hopeless? We're outnumbered. And she said, "I'm not gonna live long enough for this change to take place." It was the last call of the day. She wanted to know if I had given up, if I was ready to tell people it was panic time and move to New Zealand. And I said, "No." She said, "Well, what's gonna change it?" I said, "Well, we're to the point now where it's gonna take events. Words aren't gonna do it, The words are there. The foundation of understanding is there. It's gonna take a series of events, maybe a big cataclysmic event, to open people's minds."
But one thing I've noticed, you know, I've been doing this program, we're in our 25th year, and prior to that, four years in Sacramento. So 29 years. I've been doing this long enough to see all the cycles in politics, all the repetitiveness. The 1995 budget act. Back then Newt Gingrich and the Republicans were going to starve kids. And apparently their parents are gonna sit by and let it happen. Yep, they were gonna cut the school lunch program, except they weren't. But that was the charge. The Democrats had little kids in New Orleans writing letters to Washington, "Mommy, Mommy, please don't let the Republicans starve me. I can't learn when I'm hungry, please!" They sent these letters off to members of Congress, Republicans panicked, "Oh, no." Went on TV, "No, we don't want to starve you!" It was silly. But that was the charge.
Now the same thing, 1995, 2013, leading up to the sequester, guess what, we're -- the Republicans -- taking food out of the mouths of babies. So I've seen all this stuff repeat. The one thing that always impressed me when I was much younger -- and I'm still a very youthful 62, easily 40 more years of life ahead of me. But I've always been, even when I was much younger, I was always amazed at people who I thought in their seventies and eighties clearly had fewer years to live than they had lived, still as interested in the fate of the country as they were when they were 25 or 30. They weren't gonna be around to see any improvement from where they were significantly, but they cared about it just as much.
Those are the people who have defined this country's greatness, people who care about it long after their death. They care about what they bequeath to future generations. That's something that we're all very much concerned with here at the EIB Network as well. So the woman who called yesterday, "I'm not gonna be alive." That doesn't matter, because this has to change. The country cannot continue like this and provide prosperity for your grandkids today. It's just not gonna be possible for them, if this stuff isn't corrected. You know, the older people get, the more they realize how important it all is. Every parent and grandparent cares solely about the future of their kids and grandkids, and that's what inspires them and motivates them to care right up to their death. And it's those kinds of things, it's a long, drawn-out, circuitous way of saying that that's why I don't lose faith in the country: because of the people.
If we had -- in politics, if we had at the electoral level -- somebody who could articulate conservatism passionately from the heart, without a teleprompter, without notes, we wouldn't be in this mess. People respond to it when it's properly explained, but it's been so castigated, besmirched, impugned, that many conservatives are defensive about it. And now there's a popular movement out there, "Well, we have to moderate our stand on immigration. We have to actually maybe be for amnesty, moderate our view on abortion, and kind of forget about the social issues. We're gonna have to forget being concerned about any kind of morality now. That's the only way we're gonna get reelected and so forth."
That's why we're losing, 'cause we keep nominating moderates. You know, Mitt Romney is one of the most decent men ever to run for the presidency in my lifetime, and probably in many people's lifetimes, a totally decent guy. But four million Republicans didn't vote in 2012. Four million fewer than did in 2008. The Republican conservative base stayed home. Had they voted, we wouldn't be talking about Obama's second term. There wouldn't be one.