RUSH: This is Willy in Bloomsburg, Pennsylvania. It's great to have you on the EIB Network. Hello, Willy.
CALLER: Oh, hello, and thank you for what you do. I appreciate it.
RUSH: You bet, sir.
CALLER: The unemployment news that you were talking about, jobs created. All the numbers they throw out seem real confusing. The two numbers that clarify everything that people gotta actually watch are from the White House numbers. It's 300,000 new unemployment applications per week for six years -- I know he's been in for seven years but we'll give him the benefit of the doubt -- and only 100,000 new jobs per month on average. When you add those up, yeah, he's created 7,200,000 jobs. Yeah, they say it's over nine million. But just in jobs lost over the six years it's 93,600,000. So it doesn't matter what kind of numbers they come up with. They're in the tank.
RUSH: Well, now wait. I don't think we've lost 93 million jobs, because we didn't start the regime with a labor force participation rate of 100%. We've lost a lot of jobs. Your point is that we've lost, net, more jobs than we've gained or produced, and you're right.
CALLER: A lot more.
RUSH: There's no question about that.
CALLER: Yes. I thought of the new thing on the Benghazi, too, when you were talking. They made up a lot of these stories. They went out and arrested somebody and put them in prison under false pretenses. They done violated that man's civil rights. How are they going to get around that?
RUSH: How are they going to get around it? The guy's scared to death and not saying anything about it! The guy willfully went to jail. The guy willfully shut up. The guy's scared to death. They Donald Sterling'd the guy. It's very simple. He hasn't been heard from. Whatever they want him to do he's going to say and he's going to agree to. He's scared to death.
The idea that this guy's responsible for riots and the death of an ambassador? It's an absolute joke. Look, it was just last week that old James Carville and Stan Greenberg put out another poll. The poll... (sees TV) There's that Vietor kid. I can't... (mutters) Stay away from it, Rush. Don't go there. Do not. I keep... (sigh) Anyway, they had a poll out and they had some advice for the Democrats.
Do not use the word "recovery" as you're out there campaigning. Don't do it.
Because there isn't one! Nobody believes there's a recovery.
So Greenberg and Carville with their poll are urging Democrats don't go out there talk about recovery like Obama does. Don't even use the word because people know there isn't a recovery, and the reason they know there's not a recovery is because they're living it. They're living losing their health insurance. They're living losing their jobs. They're living stagnating wages.
They are living it.
Greenberg and Carville don't think that the Regime can succeed in making people think, "Well, it's okay for a lot of people, just not for you yet," because it's so bad for everybody. Now, in the midst of Carville and Greenberg urging Democrats, "Dooooon't use the word 'recovery.' Don't use the R-word, because people know there isn't one," can Obama actually pull this off? Can he go out there and talk about great job creation -- a roaring, 60-month, job-creating recovery -- if people aren't living it?
RUSH: Here's the Greenberg quote on the Democrats use of the word "recovery." "Democrats should bury any mention of 'the recovery.' That message was tested in the bipartisan poll we conducted for NPR, and it lost to the Republican message championed by Karl Rove. The Democratic message missed how much trouble people are in, and doesn't convince them that policymakers really understand or are even focusing on the problems they continue to face."
So don't even talk about recovery. In fact, folks, I'll repeat this again. I'll repeat it as often as necessary. There are two things the Democrats can do to give themselves a shot at having success in November. Only two things, and it's turnout: single women and minorities. That's it. If they can't gin up turnout in those two groups, it's going to be lights out and it may be anyway, but there's not a single issue. They can't run on the unemployment rate. Don't doubt me. They can't do it. They're not going to do it. Greenberg won't let them.
Obama is out on an island by himself. They can't run on Obamacare. They can't run on Benghazi. They can't run on Fox. They can't run on me. They can't run on any issue that they've enacted. They can't run on anything. All they can do is pray that somebody does something like Donald Sterling every two weeks. If it doesn't happen, go out and find it.
For example -- right here in my formerly nicotine stained fingers, an AP story. "Democratic candidate for governor Brett Hulsey plans to hand out white Ku Klux Klan-style hoods to Wisconsin Republicans as they gather for their annual convention Friday to highlight what he says are their racist policies. Hulsey, a state representative from Madison who is white, came into the state Capitol press room on Thursday to show off a hood he says he made with his daughter's sewing machine using curtain material he purchased for $1. 'It's a Wisconsin Republican Party hat,' Hulsey said. 'And people can interpret it any way they want.'"
So this guy's actually going to show up and pass out -- and, by the way, in this AP story, the byline is Scott Bauer. There's not the slightest bit of outrage, anger, or curiosity. You read the story and it's as common an event as anything else they report. Oh, yeah, a Democrat is going to show up and give these Republicans their Klan hats. Yeah, that's right. A Democrat knows how to make a Ku Klux Klan hood on his daughter's sewing machine at home. He knows how to make one. He went out and got the fabric and he's going to make a bunch of them in his home, and then he's going to take them to the Republican convention and pass them out as though they're part of the Republican uniform.
Folks, this is exactly why the idea of doing history books for kids was so appealing to me. This is blatant Democrat racism. Here we have, once again, the total distortion of American history. The idea that Abraham Lincoln and the Republicans were the original Klan. The Democrats were the original Klan. Better stated, the Ku Klux Klan was made up of Democrats. Democrats were the segregationists. Bill Connor, Democrat. Jay William Fulbright, Democrat. Lester Maddox, all these people who denied blacks entry into universities, cafes, to the front seats on the bus, Democrats. Senate Majority Leader Robert "Sheets" Byrd was a Grand Kleagle in the Ku Klux Klan. The Democrats were actually members of the Klan.
So this low rent Brett Hulsey is going to show up and try to create a photo-op of Republicans touching or holding Klan hats. I don't know if he'll succeed or not. He's obviously going to have media support. This is all they've got. This kind of thing is all they've got. (interruption) No, he's not making the robes, just the white Klan hoods. That would be expensive to make the whole Klan uniform. He's just making the Klan hat. (interruption) Burn crosses at Republican houses? No, there's nothing in there about burning crosses. He's just going to give out the caps.
The KKK, folks, was formed to be the militant arm of the Democrat Party. The KKK's purpose was to attack Republicans and keep blacks from voting for them. That's was the KKK's original purpose was. It was all Democrats. But, look, enough of that. The point is this is all they've got. This kind of stunt, this kind of thing is the only thing they've got. Liberalism is destroying this country. The Democrat Party is ruining the United States of America. We're coming up at the end of five years of this, six, whatever it is, they're destroying this country. They are the ruination and the evidence is everywhere. Everything they've done has turned to excrement, everything they've done, or worse.
Charles Woods, I just want to remind you of this. I'm changing gears here rapidly but I've got this on the top of my stack and I wanted to get to this. Charles Woods's son Tyrone died in the massacre at Benghazi. He was on Fox Wednesday night. He reminded people, he said this before, he said (paraphrasing), "When I was approached by Hillary Clinton at the coming home ceremony of the bodies at Andrews Air Force Base," they had the caskets, flag draped caskets. "She said to me, 'We're going to go out and we're going to prosecute the person that made that video.'" And Obama told the parents of the four dead Americans (paraphrasing), "We're going to find the guy that did the video and we're going to really take it to this guy."
Charles Woods said on Fox Wednesday night, "I knew Hillary Clinton wasn't telling the truth, and I think the whole world knows that now." You know why this Benghazi cover-up isn't going to work, by the way? Why I don't think it's going to cover up, succeed? What do the Democrats need, I ask educationally, what do they need to pull off all this stuff they get away with? We've talked about it before. What is it that enables them to get away with destroying the healthcare system and not be held accountable. What allows them to destroy minority' families in this country and not be held accountable for it. It's good intentions.
"They were trying to help the uninsured, Rush. They were trying to get people covered with health insurance. At least they were trying. Their intentions were good." They always assign themselves good intentions. We're never supposed to examine the results of their plans or policies. No, just their big hearts. Of course they assign to us evil intentions. But you can't find the good intentions in Benghazi. There's no evidence Obama was trying to do anything good. That's going to make this really tough, ultimately, to cover up. Especially by the time they turn Trey Gowdy loose on this at this House Select Committee.
The Democrats need this idea that there are good intentions behind what they do to inoculate them from any criticism or accountability. But where are the good intentions here in Benghazi? "Well, Obama, you know, he really did like the ambassador." They can't make that case. "Well, Obama really was trying to take it to terrorists. Well, Obama, he really -- he really did --" Well, there aren't any good intentions to be found here. So there's no excuse, is the point.
RUSH: You know, I don't like quoting the New York Times. I don't like telling you what's in the New York Times because, you know, big whoop. But in this case I'm going to make an exception, because the New York Times is saying today that even if the Democrats succeed in ramping up their women and minority turnout, it won't save them.
Now, the New York Times writes pieces that are designed to help the Democrats. They write pieces that are designed to give them tips, offer advice, cover up for them, what have you. So, I don't know. This sounds like it's a warning piece. The headline is: "Bursting the Democrats Midterm Turnout Bubble."
From the article it says, "[N]ot even the most sophisticated and well-funded turnout effort can fix this problem. Strong turnout operations can help Democrats at the margins. The Democratic turnout problem, however, is not marginal." The New York Times is basically saying that the Democrats will only win if they can change the mind of voters on the issues.
They are honestly reporting that, that the only chance they have in November of saving their position -- holding on to the Senate, preventing the Republicans winning the Senate and a bigger advantage in the House -- is to actually change people's minds. Well, good luck with that. That isn't going to happen. The only chance they've got is turnout.
The only chance they've got is to try to create the impression that the whole Republican Party is Donald Sterling, which they do every election. They try it every election. The same thing with single women, the War on Women meme and all of that. But I'm just going to tell you: The Democrat Party never wins when they have to resort to campaigning on the issues.
The Democrat Party never wins in the arena of ideas, folks. In 2012 they won because 4 million Republicans stayed home. We could have beaten Obama if 4 million Republicans who had voted in '08 had shown up in 2012. They don't win when they campaign on the issues. Obama didn't campaign on the issues.
He didn't win on issues. He won on PR, hype, image (sigh), hatred of the Republicans, hatred of Bush. Eight years of the media ripping the Republicans to shreds. That's why Obama won, plus the racial component. You can't deny that. Now they don't have that to rely on anymore. So apparently the New York Times is worried.