RUSH: Well, what's so funny, that I said he doesn't even know the loop on it? Is that what was funny? All right. Well, maybe I will. I don't know. I'm conflicted over whether or not to do this. My instincts are saying, "Don't do it." But everybody's saying, "No, you gotta do it." So I don't know. I'll think about it. Anyway, I know you're wondering what I'm talking about. We're talking about things here, the staff, back and forth.
I got e-mails from listeners, I got Snerdley, I've got friends telling me that I ought to... if I start talking about it I start talking about it. I haven't made up my mind if I want to start talking about it. I know it's unfair to you, folks. I'm teasing you. I don't intend to. The show happened to start right in the middle of, as usual, people telling me what I ought to do. The microphone went on and that's what you just caught up here in the middle of. The program had started.
It's great to have you here. Here's the telephone number if you want to be on the program. 800-282-2882. The e-mail address, ElRushbo@eibnet.com.
You know, there's an editorial today, the Washington Examiner, and there's an excellent point in this piece. It's about the sequester, and it's also about the Limbaugh Theorem, in a way. That's what these people are all urging me to talk about. I am being inundated with e-mails from you in the audience who are telling me that you can't turn on the television these days or read anything without hearing somebody mention my theory about Obama never governing, always campaigning, always appearing as the outsider, you know, that whole spiel that I started two weeks ago. Basically I got people e-mailing me saying, "Everybody's using that now, but nobody's mentioning your name."
I got Snerdley and you people in the e-mail, "You need to explain how this got started so that you get credit for it." I'm not about getting credit. I don't want to come here and start whining about stuff, but I've got friends saying, "No, it's important, Rush, because you're out there, you're getting maligned, you're getting ripped to shreds and so forth, and you're the guy that's providing them with all the theories they're using to make themselves look smart." (sigh) So I don't know. All I care about is that you people in the audience know the truth about things, and whether anybody else does, that's for events to flow of their own inertia, history to take care of. I don't know. Being right is its own validation. Success is the best revenge, whatever, since Obama's into revenge.
Well, now, that is true. Snerdley is making the point that people are hearing incomplete versions of the Limbaugh Theorem and maybe are not fully understanding. Last night somebody e-mailed. Hot Air, the website that we quote here a lot, Ed Morrissey and his gang and Michelle Malkin started that. They've got a thing every night called Quotes of the Day. And last night somebody sent it to me, and last night's Quotes of the Day was everybody that was quoted explaining the Limbaugh Theorem. But you're right, Snerdley, they all missed an element here or an element there.
I'll tell you, it's important, especially for low-information voters, to eventually understand this. And it's not hard. It's very easy to understand. I don't know. Maybe I'll spend some time on it in due course, in mere moments. I do want to get to this DC Examiner piece, because it kind of goes along with it in a way. Let me lift this little excerpt. "For perhaps the first time in the history of the United States, it is in the political interest of a president to inflict maximum pain on the American people." This is a natural outgrowth of the Limbaugh Theorem, and it is dead on. In order for Obama to win this sequester argument, there has to be pain. The American people have to experience pain in their daily lives. That can manifest itself as long lines at the airport.
It could manifest itself in any number of ways. It could also not be true, but just said to be true, like Big Sis. Janet Napolitano has been caught lying about how bad things are at the airport. She made a statement: long lines, you might see them at the airport. You might. Giving the impression that because of the sequester it's harder than ever to get through a security check and board an airplane when facts on the ground don't indicate that that's true. But the bottom line is that this point is exactly right, and it may be for the first time in the history of the United States. That's a stretch. Because you might have been able to, at various parts of the Clinton administration, make this point, but not nearly as pointedly or focused and severe as now.
It is clear that the Obama administration doesn't just need the American people to feel pain. It wants you to feel pain. It is the number one requirement in order for Obama to succeed at what he's ultimately attempting to achieve here, and that is -- and this another part of the Limbaugh Theorem -- winning the House in 2014. It's never really about the sequester. It's not really about the continuing resolution. All of this is about disqualifying Republicans in the eyes of voters; making Republicans absolutely persona non grata; making them the epitome of modern evil so that when the next midterms come up that they are voted out and thereby Obama has eliminated any effective political opposition and has a clear road.
There have been criticisms of Obama in this regard, and this is also from people picking up the Limbaugh Theorem and adapting it in their own ways. One of these adaptations holds that Obama is not being president. He's just purely political. I mean, he's spending his time campaigning and he's attacking half of the people in this country. Anytime he goes after the Republicans, he's going after the people that vote for them. You know, the old adage is the president's the president of everybody. The president's not particularly ideological. The president's not particularly political. The president, in this case, however, is, and he's spending all of his time campaigning, not governing. He doesn't want his name attached to anything so that whatever goes wrong, it can't be associated with him. And it isn't being.
As I keep pointing out, every poll shows that people disagree with his agenda, think the country's headed in the wrong direction, but they don't associate any of his policies with what's going wrong in the country. They still blame the Republicans for that. They still think the Republicans don't care about that. That Obama and the Democrats are the ones that do. And so Obama is campaigning on that. He's effectively not acting as president, but as an ideologue, using the power of the presidency to eliminate and wipe out opponents.
I got to thinking, what would I do if I were ever elected president, and there's a part of me that would do in reverse what Obama's doing. Except in my case, I would think I'm doing it by being honest. I would take advantage of the bully pulpit to educate the American people who don't know about the truth of liberalism. I certainly would not try to accommodate it. I certainly wouldn't want to make agreements or whatever. It's not possible. We don't have anything in common with the modern iteration of the Democrat Party.
Can we be honest? The last Republican presidents we've had are George H. W. Bush and George W. Bush, and isn't one of the reasons so many Republicans are disappointed precisely that neither of them ever did get political? Even when they were being lied about and roasted and destroyed, they never engaged. It's not that they didn't attack the other guys; they never even defended themselves. As such, they never defended the ideology. They never defended the philosophy that was constantly under assault. The rare moments (and they were just that: Rare; you could count 'em on one hand) when Bush did fight, there were cheers all over this country.
So in a political sense, a purely political sense, I understand exactly what Obama's doing. And, by the way, putting myself inside his head, I think it makes perfect sense for him to be doing what he's doing, given who he is. He's an authoritarian. He doesn't like two-party accommodation. He wants one-party domination, rule, what have you. The objective in business is to eliminate your competitor. Why shouldn't it be in politics? That's what he's trying to do. Our side just doesn't get it. Even as some of these people try to adapt for their own use the Limbaugh Theorem, they still don't quite get what's inspiring it.
They're still looking at it within the prism of standard Washington politics. Well, he's just out on a campaign trail, constantly campaigning. Well, yeah, but why? To what end? And how is he doing it and how is he gaining success doing it? What's motivating it? That's what I think people still haven't grasped yet, although more and more are as I read them each and every day. We're into the fifth year of Obama. You can read pieces from so-called intelligent people on our side who are just now figuring out that Obama lies, on purpose, and just now beginning to consider the possibility that maybe all this is by design.
They don't quite want to make that leap yet.
But when you understand, as this Washington Examiner piece today points out, that perhaps for the first time in the history of the country, it is in the political interests of a president to inflict maximum pain on the American people. That is quite stunning. Now, don't misunderstand. If I were president, I would not want to emulate that. It would be just the exact opposite. I would be for prosperity for everybody. That is not Obama. I would not want to inflict pain. I would want to set the table for contentment, happiness, and joy. Economic, cultural, spiritual, you name it. That's the kind of country I would want to preside over.
I would not want to preside over a country where half the people are ticked off all the time. Well, everybody's ticked off, even Obama's fans are ticked off because they're never happy. But this notion, "Okay, we got the sequester, and so now, in order for the Democrats to win this sequester thing, there has to be pain. There must be suffering by the American people. There must be. That's how Obama benefits. That's how Obama succeeded know succeeds, is by virtue of people suffering," and the real stinko part of it is that the plan is to see to it that the suffering is because of the Republicans.
They're the reasons for it. Opposing Obama is what causes the suffering. Not Obama, you see? Opposing Obama is what causes the pain. Pardon my French here, but in political terms, that's the brilliance of what Obama's doing, and he's into his fifth year of it now. I can understand a president getting away with this for six months, but we're into the fifth year of a guy in the White House who is never -- I shouldn't say "never," but seldom -- attached to anything happening in the country. It's almost as though we haven't had the election yet. The campaign's still ongoing.
Anyway, you get the drift of this point about pain and suffering equaling achievement/success -- and not just for Obama, but for the Democrats as a party. Folks, it is insidious. It certainly is not what this country has ever been about.
RUSH: You know, I just got a good question in the e-mail. Somebody said, "Why are you calling your theory a theorem? You're calling it the Limbaugh Theorem. Are you just trying to use big words on us?" No. I'm glad I got the question. Snerdley, do you know the difference? Just a little test. I'm not trying to embarrass you. You're used to not knowing things. (laughing) Seriously, do you know the difference in a theory and a theorem? Did you just take a wild guess at that? He got it. He got it pretty close. He said a theorem is more based in fact. In fact, a theorem is something that is not self-evident but nevertheless proved by a chain of reasoning.
A theory is just a wild guess based on some empirical data. And that's why I'm not calling this the Limbaugh Theory. It is a theorem. Mine is a proposition. It's not self-evident, but I can prove it by a chain of reasoning, a truth established by means of accepted truths. A theorem has multiple parts, and they all add up to undeniable truth, i.e., a theorem. The great mathematician, Pythagoras and others, had theorems, not theories. So, way to go, Mr. Snerdley. I love it. I love it when people know the answer to stuff. I'm glad I got the question, but it is the Limbaugh Theorem.
Now, here's what's going on with this. About three weeks ago... look, I'm sorry to be redundant, but I need to go back to the beginning to explain this. For four years I have been frustrated as I can be, and especially after the 2012 election, trying to understand how it is that this rotten economy, which has been made worse by Obama policies, never, ever attached itself to him. The giant light of truth that went off for me was a New York Times headline about a month ago. I ought to go out, I've got it saved in pocket, I ought to go get it and have it verbatim, but basically what the headline said was that despite everything happening, the bad news, that Obama was not associated with it anyway.
It had people disapproving of Obama's agenda by majority numbers, policy by policy from health care to the Keystone pipeline, you name it, people oppose Obama's agenda. They don't agree with it. And in polling data the American people are not happy with the direction of the country. But then in the same polling data Obama's approval numbers at the time were over 50%, significantly over 50%. So people didn't like the direction of the country, disagreed with all of his policy ideas, but gave him high marks. And furthermore, I learned that people did not associate Obama's policies with the results on the ground in this country, be they economic or whatever. How in the world does this happen, I began to ask, how can this be?
My entire life the economy of a country has always been tied to the president, fairly or not, fairly or unfairly. Economy goes up, president gets the credit. Economy goes south, president gets the blame, whether he had anything to do with it or not, it's been standard operating procedure. But not now. And added to it we have a president whose policies are not arguably, but definitely making matters worse. And people do not make that connection, say, "How can this be?" And I don't know what it was, but one of these explosions in my mind went off, and it was something in that New York Times article. It was something in that newspaper story that clicked for me.
He's never seen as governing. Obama is always seen opposing everything that's happening, even the things he is causing to happen. He is on a perpetual campaign.
Now, a lot of people have made that point. But they make it in a limited way without completing or closing the loop, without fully understanding what it all means and why. Some people say he's campaigning just because he likes it, that's his strong suit. No. It's not that. It's to make sure that he doesn't get blamed for anything. He is presenting every day a photo-op and an image of opposing all the things happening, and as they get worse, he gets credit for trying to fix them. He says, for example, that he's not gonna do one thing that will add a dime to the deficit. Well, he's only added $6 trillion to the national debt, $6 trillion in deficits. But people that vote for him, "No, he hasn't. He said he wasn't gonna add a dime to the deficit." So it must be the Republicans that are doing it, because Obama hasn't done it. Obamacare's it.
But about Obamacare, that's gonna lower your premiums. That's gonna make health care more affordable. And when that doesn't happen, that's the insurance companies' fault because Obama's out there blaming them for it. So the perception is he's working really hard. He did job councils. He's done all this stuff to create jobs. He's had meeting after meeting. He's had commission after commission. He's listening to the Republicans. He's had Paul Ryan up to talk about the budget. He's trying. He's working real hard, and he understands the rich aren't paying their fair share, and he's getting money from them and he's making life fair and more equitable. He understands gay marriage and gay rights and so forth. This country's got 200 years of history that he hasn't been able to fix in just four. And as such, you get an exit poll in the 2012 election, the question, "Cares about people like me, 81% Obama, 19% Romney."
So the old image survives. Republicans only care about the rich, don't care about people in pain, don't care about the vulnerable, don't care about the poor, don't care about the sick, only Obama does. "Obama cares about people like me. He's trying to make my life better. Republicans, they're not. They only care about the rich. They don't care if my life goes to hell. As long as theirs doesn't." And then 55% in the exit poll blame Bush for the economy. It all came together for me. And that's why Obama for the next two years is not gonna be seen governing. He's gonna be campaigning because it's all about securing one-party rule. It's all about eliminating any and all viable political opposition.
That's why he's out personally attacking Fox News and me. You know, I represent talk radio. Fox News and talk radio, the only two, as far as he's concerned, the only two places in media now where he has any opposition. He's got to eliminate that just like he has to eliminate the Republicans. So that essentially is the Limbaugh Theorem, and it's being picked up and used everywhere now. And you are sending me e-mails saying, "You know, people are stealing it from you, and they're not crediting you. You ought to mention it." So I'm doing that.
RUSH: Here's that New York Times headline, February 12th: "Polls Show Dissatisfaction With Country’s Direction, but Support for Obama’s Agenda." And I said, how in the name of Sam Hill can that be? Ergo, the Limbaugh Theorem.
RUSH: Now, let me wrap this up. I'm very nervous about this. And the only reason that I'm continuing to go through this Limbaugh Theorem, I'm being very honest with you, I'm being deluged with e-mail from people who are telling me they're seeing and reading all kinds of people using it as their own and not giving me credit, and I just want you all to know, I don't really care. The only people I care about are you. Now, you understand, you know that that's totally sufficient for me. But two people have said that it's important for three reasons. A, the people appropriating it from you don't really fully understand it and are not explaining it fully.
Romney was on Fox News Sunday, and he said (paraphrasing), "Yeah, Obama's simply campaigning. That's all he's doing." But he didn't explain why that is being done and what the real impact of it is and how it relates to politics today. And a lot of other people are mentioning that Obama is not governing, he's campaigning, but they're not closing the loop. Another good friend of mine said, "It's bigger problem than that, Rush, because I don't know whether you know it or not, but there's a bunch of young conservatives out there who are trashing you all the time, saying that you need to be ignored, denounced, or whatever, and yet they're stealing a lot of things you say, and it's important for people to understand where this stuff is coming from since you don't toot your own horn."
So that's the only reason I'm going through this one more time. And again, the starting point for it was this New York Times piece on February 12th: "Polls Show Dissatisfaction With Country's Direction, but Support for Obama's Agenda." That caused the light to explode and I've been able to answer a question that had been bugging me for four years, which is how is it that this guy got reelected? How in the world does none of what's going wrong in this country, that everybody acknowledges is going wrong, how does he escape accountability? And now I know.
It is a great Alinskyite sleight of hand. He's not governing. He's fighting. He's not governing. He's opposing. There are other forces making this happen. Powerful, invisible forces like a bunch of Wizards of Oz. And it's those people behind the curtains trying to protect the rich, trying to make sure that you don't get your job back or what have you, that people accept and believe. When you have dissatisfaction with the country's direction but support for Obama's agenda, that is amazing. That's why he's on the campaign trail now, and it's why he's gonna stay on the campaign trail because what he's doing is effectively trying to wipe out all political opposition.
There is no common ground. There's no desire for bipartisanship. He doesn't want to come to bipartisan agreements. In fact, Boehner once gave Obama everything he asked for in a fiscal cliff deal, and Obama changed the terms of the deal. He demanded an additional trillion dollars in tax increases from Boehner, and that's when Boehner walked away. He didn't want a deal. He doesn't want any agreement. He doesn't want his name attached to any policy going forward because the intention here is for there to be more pain.
Where we are now, now that the sequester's kicked in, the objective here is for you to experience pain. The objective is for you to feel pain and to suffer, and this is so that you will never, ever again accept the government getting smaller. You will never, ever again accept budget cuts. You will never, ever let Republicans run the show. Your suffering, your pain is his gain. Let's go to the audio sound bites. Here's Major Garrett this morning on CBS This Morning, and he was talking to Janet Napolitano about the supposed pain and suffering at the airports.
GARRETT: As for what's happening with the spending cuts, no visible disruptions, at least not yet. Even so, the Homeland Security secretary said big flight delays dogged weekend travelers. But where?
NAPOLITANO: I want to say O'Hare, I want to say LAX, I want to say Atlanta, but I'd have to check.
GARRETT: Officials at Chicago's O'Hare and Atlanta's Hartsfield airport reported no significant delays. Air traffic controllers in Chicago did say delays are coming.
RUSH: Air traffic controllers? What's that got to do with it? The delays are because of TSA, longer lines to get through the security checkpoints. And a snowstorm's coming to Chicago so there are gonna be delays, but did you hear Janet Napolitano in this bite say, "Well, I want to say O'Hare, I want to say LAX, um, I want to say Atlanta, but I'd have to check." So Major Garrett went out and checked. There isn't any suffering. There are no suffering delays. There's no pain. Doesn't matter. She said so. She said there is. And that's what the regime is doing all over television, telling people that there are disruptions and delays, inconveniences, pain, suffering, when there isn't any. The worst thing that can happen to the regime is for the sequester to kick in, which it has, and for nobody to notice. That's the worst thing that could happen.
Now, the Washington Examiner today explores this whole concept in an editorial. "For perhaps the first time in the history of the United States, it is in the political interest of a president to inflict maximum pain on the American people." Inflict, cause it, not just benefit from it, but to cause it in order to benefit. And listen to how they begin their piece. "President Obama is just 42 days into his second term in the White House but he is already done governing." Well, where did they get that?
"As The Washington Post reported this weekend, Obama is already 'executing plans to win back the House in 2014, which he and his advisers believe will be crucial to the outcome of his second term and to his legacy as president.'" Yeah, the Washington Post did report that, late to the party, but accurate nevertheless. "'The goal,' The Washington Post reports, 'is to flip the Republican-held House back to Democratic control, allowing Obama to push forward with a progressive agenda on gun control, immigration, climate change and the economy during his final two years in office, according to congressional Democrats.'" Well, that is what's going on. The Washington Post is right, as I say, late to the party.
In other words, folks, Obama is done trying to work with Republicans this year and next. And you know what he's gonna say is the reason for it? "Well, I'm gonna have to get a lot of stuff done this year because starting next year people are gonna start talking about the midterms, and I'm not gonna be a factor. And then after that, they're gonna be looking at the presidential race in 2016. So I've gotta get everything done this year. I've gotta get as much done this year, the next 18 months, as I can 'cause after that nobody's gonna pay attention to me." He's not saying this, but the theory is he will be lame duck because the future is the focus and he's not it, theoretically. But it all adds up to the undeniable fact that Obama has no intention of governing, no intention of coming to any agreements with the Republicans. It's silly, it's folly for the Republicans to seek that. They ought to be doing what he's doing: trying to defeat, politically, Obama and the Democrats, rather than get along. But I know why they don't. Frank Luntz focus group.
This is another amazing thing. Last week, Luntz did a focus group for CBS with 22 people who voted for Obama and 22 people who voted for Romney. You couldn't tell the difference in 'em. They all said that they "want the political parties to work together." Isn't it interesting that people want the parties to work together, but only the Republicans get the blame for not doing it, when they're the only ones that try? The Republicans actually are the only ones. It's silly and it's folly, but they are trying to make compromise agreements with the Democrats.
The Democrats want no part of it. Obama wants no part of it. The Republicans get the blame for it -- and that's because of the perpetual, never-ending campaign. We had the news last hour. Tax revenue collected is at an all-time high, with $2.7 trillion of tax revenue collected. In the middle of a recession, with 8.5 million fewer jobs existing than four years ago and unemployment at 14%, tax revenues are at an all-time high. Yet Obama's running around talking about how people aren't taxed enough yet. Not just the rich. He's not through taxing everybody.
At $2.7 trillion, a record amount of revenue collected, we're still gonna have a deficit of $1 trillion because we're spending $3.7 trillion. It's a clear illustration that we have a spending problem. Have you ever noticed, folks, the way this works? In Cuba, Fidel Castro has been running that country into the ground since 1959-1960. Castro still talks about the revolution! He did the revolution. He took control 60 years ago. As far as the way he governs, he's still trying to take control. He's still fighting those evil Batista forces. The revolution still hasn't been completed yet!
All popular dictators do it this way.
Mao Tse-tung, Castro, they never stop. They may change the terms to "cultural revolution" or what have you, but they never stop with the image of constantly fighting these powerful forces of oppression. It's exactly what's happening here. Anyway, tax revenue is gonna hit a record high this year, and USA Today has a companion story: "Personal Income Plummets 3.6% in January -- Personal income growth plunged 3.6% in January, the biggest one-month drop in 20 years"!
We are still collecting a record amount of tax revenue, but we are still hearing from the Democrats that we are under-taxed. These are Commerce Department numbers. These are regime numbers. "[C]onsumer spending rose just 0.2% with most of it going toward higher heating bills and filling up the gas tank," and if Obama gets his carbon tax, that's gonna cost everybody a whole lot more. But none of it attaches to him. None of it.
RUSH: No, see, if Obama gets one-party rule in 2014 -- if he wins the House -- he's not a lame duck. You know, the old standard conventional wisdom is that second-term administrations really are worthless. One of two things happen. They become lame ducks because they're the past, have nothing to do with the future, or scandal erupts. But if Obama succeeds in winning the House for the Democrats, he's no lame duck. There won't be any opposition. He'll have smooth sailing the last two years to do whatever he wants.
He won't need executive orders to do whatever he wants.
Yes, a lot of people are asking me if I've noted Jeb Bush and his apparent reversal on amnesty for illegals. Of course I have. I'm host! We're gonna talk about it. I can't squeeze it all in here in the first hour of the program. Sit tight; be patient. Two more sound bites before the phone calls. Up first is Brit Hume. This is last night on The O'Reilly Factor. Question: "When did he say he didn't want the authority that Paul Ryan (sic) wants to give him to make sure that things like aircraft carriers aren't denied, things like that?"
What this question is about is the Senate. O'Reilly meant the Senate. The Senate last week, to head off the sequester, offered a bill that would have given Obama total authority over whatever spending cuts in the sequester there were to be. Republicans in the Senate proposed it. Democrats said, "Nope, not gonna do it." Obama said he would veto it. It was a test. "Okay, we're gonna pass a bill.
"We'll give you total authority over all the spending cuts," and he didn't want it. Why? He doesn't want his name on these cuts! He doesn't want his name on whatever happens in the sequester. It's his idea, he proposed it, he got it, but he doesn't want anybody knowing that. As far as these sequester budget cuts are concerned, he's fighting every one of them. It's somebody else causing the pain, not him. So O'Reilly was asking Brit Hume. O'Reilly asked, "When did he say that?" as if O'Reilly's not believing that he said it.
This is when Brit Hume said...
HUME: This has been pretty clear. The administration doesn't want this. The president seems prepared to let the public suffer almost as much as possible as long as he can blame somebody else. This is not what we expect of presidents. Presidents, in the end, are supposed to be the people who put on their big-boy pants and are prepared to shoulder responsibility -- and if they're criticized for using that responsibility or authority, so be it. But that's what you expect of presidents. This president seems more inclined to let the chips fall where they may and hit as hard as they might as long as he thinks he can blame somebody else. It's very unusual for a president.
RUSH: Limbaugh Theorem, folks! Limbaugh Theorem. It's everywhere.
I'm not bragging. Again, I wouldn't even be mentioning this except I'm being inundated with emails. I shouldn't even say this. It's the last time. I'm very uncomfortable about this, as you know. A good friend of mine said, "You better stand up for it because there's this culture out there. These young whippersnapper conservatives are tarnishing you, trashing you, ripping you to shreds while they steal your ideas." I said, "Well, I don't care. As long as the audience knows what's what, that's all that's ever mattered to me," and you do.
So anyway, there you have it.
Brit Hume says, Obama wants to inflict pain. It's not what presidents do. It's not what we associate with our leaders. They fix stuff! They accept the responsibility. They take on the challenges. Obama's getting out of the way and letting it happen -- or, at worst, making it happen -- and garnering political advantage as a result. This morning on CNN, the anchorette/infobabe Ashleigh Banfield spoke with John King. She said, "Instead of actually getting a budget, we're just getting these Band-Aids, John. Is there a sticking point at all anywhere in actually achieving a continuing resolution at this point at the end of the month?"
KING: I would say the sticking point is the trust deficit. Every day that passes gets us closer to 2014. The Democrats think they have an outside chance of getting the House of Representatives back. Uh, so the Capitol politics kicks into every one of these conversations. It's been 16 years since Washington passed a budget according to the rules, so it's not just this president and this Republican House. I would say because of that trust deficit, and because of the constant campaigning for the next election, they've taken the dysfunction to new lows.
RUSH: Who is taking the dysfunction to new lows, John? Who is doing the constant campaigning? And what is this, that we haven't had a budget according to the rules in 16 years? That's an effort to not focus on the fact that the Democrats have studiously avoided, by law, any budget for the past four years because they're trying to hide from the public what their true agenda is. Somehow we see they even have to blame Republicans for the past 16 years for that.
RUSH: Tom Brokaw was on MSNBC yesterday afternoon and you know what he said? He said that Speaker Boehner was right when Speaker Boehner blamed the implementation of the sequester on the president and the Democrats because they're constantly campaigning. Tom Brokaw said that Boehner is right. Obama spent too much time campaigning instead of governing. So even Boehner's out there now articulating the Limbaugh Theorem, and Brokaw, who I'm sure has no idea, is agreeing with the premise.
RUSH: This is from the New York Times. It's from yesterday. The headline is quite interesting: "Obama Faces Political Risks in Emphasizing the Effects of Spending Cuts." Now, I don't want to read too much into this, but listen to the opening paragraphs of this story. Now, this is the New York Times, an Obama house organ, the epitome of State-Controlled Media. "As the nation's top Democrat, President Obama has a clear imperative: to ratchet up pressure on Republicans for across-the-board spending cuts by using the power of his office to dramatize the impact on families, businesses and the military."
Meaning: As the nation's biggest Democrat, Obama's political job is to make sure the Republicans get the blame for any suffering that is the result of the sequester. He has got to dramatize the impact, the pain. He's gotta focus on it. This is his job as the top Democrat. He's gotta go out there and he's gotta make the case that the Republicans are killing people, harming people, injuring people, making the country less safe and less secure. That's his job as top Democrat. Here's the next paragraph: "But as president, Mr. Obama is charged with minimizing the damage from the spending reductions and must steer clear of talking down the economy.
"A sustained campaign against the cuts by the president could become what one former aide called 'a self-fulfilling kind of mess.'" The second paragraph is a New York Times red flag, because what they're saying here is: As the nation's top Democrat, he's supposed to go out there and highlight these cuts, and he's supposed to talk about all the pain and all the suffering and blame the Republicans. In the next paragraph, they say: But that's not presidential. That's not what presidents do. Presidents minimize the damage from such things.
Presidents " must steer clear of talking down the economy."
So the New York Times is worried here because they say, "A sustained campaign against the cuts by the president could become what one former aide called 'a self-fulfilling kind of mess,'" meaning: At some point people are going to start blaming him, and the New York Times is worried. So then the next paragraph is: "As a result, Mr. Obama is carefully navigating between maximizing heat on Republicans to undo the cuts while mobilizing efforts to make sure that the steep spending cuts do not hurt Americans." He is not doing that. That's where the story falls apart.
The story is by Michael Shear. The story falls apart right there. We are not seeing Obama do anything, much less "maximizing" any effort to make sure that the spending cuts don't hurt. All we are seeing is that Obama's doing everything in his power to maximize the pain, because he is not acting as president. That's the key to Obama's success, and it's a tough thing for people to understand. He is the president, but he's not. He's acting as the top Democrat. Obama's actually doing what the Democrat National Committee chairman would otherwise be doing if he were a normal president.
The Democrat National Committee and members of Congress would be out there carrying this water. They would be the ones trashing the Republicans. They would be the ones promising pain. They would be the ones. Like Clinton during his years. I mean, he got close to doing what Obama's doing, but he didn't go nearly this far. His surrogates were all over the place doing it for him. In this case, Obama's the top dog. The surrogates are very rarely heard from, and when they are, they're merely an echo chamber of Obama. This is what stands out.
The New York Times (without fully understanding it, I believe) has nailed exactly what's going on here. We have a guy who is not acting as presidents act. We have a guy acting as somebody campaigning for the office. We have a guy who's carrying himself as though he's an outsider. In fact, do you remember what Obama said in that Univision interview that we all thought was gonna hurt him in the campaign? It was the first time he got tough questions. He hadn't acted on immigration. He got some tough questions on Benghazi. We thought, "You know, that might have an impact on him with Hispanic voters."
It turned out not to at all.
But it was in that interview he said something we all laughed at, and had I known then what I know now I wouldn't have laughed at it. He said that he's learned you can't get anything done from the inside. Do you remember that? He said he's learned you can only get things done from the outside. That's what he's doing. He's an outsider! He is not president. He is not inside. He is not in the game. Everybody else is playing the game, and he's trying to fix the mess. The masterful stroke is, he's creating the mess. Now this story the New York Times is fascinating because they're getting worried that this trick can't last. They're getting worried this trick is gonna be exposed, because it's a high wire that he's on that doesn't take much.
Lose a little balance and you're finished.