RUSH: Now, I want to move on to the latest proofs and illustrations of the Limbaugh Theorem. The Washington Post reported on yesterday's front page, the ABC/Post poll that showed Obama's approval rating remains steady. So now we've got three polls. We've got this one, we got Gallup, and we have CNN. In all three of these polls, Obama's approval numbers are holding steady or (in a couple of cases) inching up in the CNN poll.
In the ABC/Washington Post poll, Obama's approval number is 51%. That's steady. Forty-four percent disapprove. This poll found also that Obama's approval rating is unaffected by all of these scandals -- and, in addition, the president was judged to be more focused than Republicans on issues people care about. I take you back to the exit polling after the election. Remember that question: "Cares about people like me."
Eighty-one percent cited Obama.
Nineteen percent cited Romney.
Now, the numbers are not like that, but it is still a majority. It's a bare majority, but it's still a majority of Americans who say they believe Obama is focused on issues important to them personally. Just 33% think so of the Republicans. There's an 18-point gap. Fifty-one percent think Obama's clearly focused on things that matter to people; only 33% think the Republicans are. The people at NewsBusters then write this question:
"Should we draw from this question that lying to the public and using the imposing powers of the IRS to thwart conservative groups aren't issues that people need to care about? Would the Post have asked this question during the Watergate hearings?" That's not it. The reason that this poll result is what it is is not that people don't think the IRS stuff or any of the other scandals are important.
They don't attach Obama to it! That's the phenomenon here. Obama isn't attached to any of this. Now, look, I know how hard this is. You pay attention every day. You are immersed in it. You and I, we live this stuff. We know it frontwards and backwards. Low-information voters, they hear Obama say, "I didn't know anything about that," and believe him! They hear Obama say, "This makes me mad! I'm gonna get to the bottom of it," and they believe him.
As far as the low-information audience or voter group out there is concerned, they don't have any reason not to trust Obama yet. They don't have any reason not to believe him. They think he's working on jobs. They think he's working on the deficit. They think he's doing everything he says he's doing, and they think that he's doing it for them. There hasn't been anything that's happened to shake that up, no matter what you think. The reason there hasn't been is specific.
He has conducted his presidency in such a way that he is always seen as an outsider. He's not in charge of all the bad stuff. The fact that he's causing all these things to happen totally escapes these people, totally escapes the low-information voter. They don't associate all of this with Obama. Be it Benghazi, be it the IRS targeting conservative groups, they just doesn't attach to him. That's because of him.
It's because he's chosen to make himself appear as constantly fighting everything that's happening in Washington. That's what a constant campaign does for you in terms of optics. When you're seen as constantly campaigning and fighting against things, you're not seen as trying to advance things. It's just the opposite! They think Obamacare is gonna lower premiums. They think Obamacare is gonna make insurance easier to get.
They have yet to see the reality of this.
They believe what Obama says.
I know it's hard, folks. I have two more examples. Are you sitting down? Forbes magazine. Are you ready for the headline? "Economically, Could Obama be America's Best President?" Forbes magazine! Forbes. Not TIME, not the New Republic, not the Huffing and Puffington Post, not The Nation. It's Forbes. Now, it's no longer controlled by the Forbes family, granted. But it's still Forbes. "Economically, Could Obama be America's Best President?"
You're thinking Obama's in trouble (and I'm telling you, he isn't), and you see headline like this? Let's go to the Washington Post. Headline: "President Obama Says Journalists Should Not be Prosecuted for Soliciting Information." How nice. Why, he didn't know about that, either. Jay Carney said, "By the way, the president thinks that..." He's telling this to the media at the White House press briefing. "By the way, the president thinks that you should be able to do your job in a free and open way."
So all of this targeting of the Associated Press reporters and James Rosen (and his parents) and William La Jeunesse at Fox? That has nothing to do with Obama. He doesn't think that ought to be happening. He's got total faith in Eric Holder. The point is: When you ask a question beyond that, you're missing the point. "The president thinks you should be able to do your job in a free and open way."
"Well, who does he support Holder? Holder's the one doing this." You're off the beaten path. Jay Carney said in a briefing, "If you're asking me whether the president believes that journalists should be prosecuted for doing their jobs, the answer is no." Okay, so you're a low-information voter out there. You're watching this, if you pick up on this at all, and you find out that Obama's for reporters.
If you're a low-information voter, I dare say you might even support Fox reporters being spied on. Because if you are a low-information voter, you believe the Democrat spin on things, and you might believe that Fox is a problem. You might believe that they need to be spied on. Go read (if you dare) some of the comments at some of these Democrat websites, some of these lackeys in their pajamas sitting around all day long cashing their welfare checks, doing whatever, and posting comments on these sites.
Carney said, "He cannot and I cannot comment on the specifics of any ongoing criminal matter, but I can tell you that in our conversation yesterday, [the president] reiterated just how important he believes it is that reporters, that all of you and your colleagues are able to do your jobs in a free and open way."
Now, meanwhile, you and I know that it is Obama and his acolytes who are responsible for all of this spying on Fox reporters and the AP, bugging of the phones and so forth. But right here in the Washington Post: The New York Times today excuses the media for not reporting on the IRS scandal a year ago before the election because of me. They say, hey, you know, the media was so absorbed in the Limbaugh story one year ago that they missed this IRS thing. They missed it. They were so worked up, so hopeful that they would finally get rid of me.
By the way, I'm in the media. I'm being suppressed. I've been suppressed for over two decades and nobody's speaking up for me. I'm not complaining, don't misunderstand. I'm just saying there's a lot of people saying it's really outrageous what happened to James Rosen, really outrageous what happened to William La Jeunesse, really outrageous what happened to their parents, really outrageous what happened to Fox. With me, "Don't stop; keep going, Obama."