Rush Limbaugh

For a better experience,
download and use our app!

The Rush Limbaugh Show Main Menu

RUSH: Two of our most favorite wizards of smart are in the news, Thomas L. Friedman, the columnist of the New York Times, and David Brooks, wizard of smart conservative columnist at the New York Times as well. They both appeared with PBS wizard of smart, Charlie Rose. One of the smartest shows on TV. It’s where you can hear people actually say, “We don’t know who this guy is,” meaning Obama, yeah, “We don’t know what books he’s read.” That’s the place to go to find the really smart people. And they’re talking about how they’re disappointed here in the Bamster, thought he was gonna be more of a leader, the sharp crease in his slacks, told Brooks that the guy was eminently qualified to be president and he’s tough minded, no nonsense, had all the answers. It hasn’t worked out that well and that way.

So here’s Charlie Rose, and he says first to Thomas L. Friedman, the New York Times, “The idea of Obama leadership, has he not acted boldly where we might have wanted him to act?” So picture this. Charlie Rose, you got two wizards of smart, Friedman and Brooks, and they’re wringing their hands now because Obama was the answer, one of them, intellectual, well spoken, articulate, nuanced, serious, all of these adjectives. But where’s the boldness? Where’s the leadership? And Charlie Rose wants some guidance. He wants some insurance here. He wants to be told that everything’s okay. So he turns to a fellow wizard of smart, Thomas L. Friedman, the New York Times, and says, “Thomas, has the president not acted boldly where we might have wanted him to act?”

FRIEDMAN: I voted for Obama for one reason, because I thought he could change the polls and not read the polls. My biggest disappointment is I really see a guy reading the polls as closely as ever. Those two words, climate change, became a four letter word in American politics under Barack Obama’s watch. It’s against the law in the Republican party. Romney was just so courageous, he actually said he believes in science. Oh my God! And Rush Limbaugh said “You’re out of the party, pal.” Okay. That goes as courage.

RUSH: See, and these are the smart people, and there isn’t any science in the global warming these people believe in. Folks, if there were science, I’d be a believer. I do not have my head buried in the sand. I’m not an ostrich. I live in Realville. I’m the mayor. I’m the town council president. I’m the police chief. There aren’t a whole lot of people that live in Literalville, but I do. And manmade global warming is not science. It’s a consensus. It’s a guess. It’s a good guess. It’s a best guess. It’s a vote. And a majority of people have been paid to say that man is causing the climate to warm up. And that’s why there’s global warming, that enough people have been paid to say so. “You can’t say that, Mr. Limbaugh, you are attacking the integrity of decent –” well, they’ve been paid. Their entire lifestyles, their standard of living depends on their grants that they get to conduct the studies, and they only get the money if they come up with the right result.

So enough people have banded together, come up with a consensus, man is causing the climate to warm, bingo, you got science. Except there isn’t science. You have a political agenda being advanced by people calling themselves scientists and in fact may even work at places where scientific discovery takes place. But, you see, here’s Thomas L. Friedman, smartest man in the world, why, if he thinks there’s global warming, it must be, right?

It’s like in the movie Wag the Dog, if television shows you a war in Albania, but there isn’t one, who’s to say there really isn’t a war? “I saw it on TV. I saw people. I saw a woman running for shelter. They told me that it was in Albania, she’s running for her life.” “Spy satellites don’t show any war.” “Well, okay. How do you know? My TV says there’s a war there. I got pictures that show polar bears barely surviving on little three-square-foot plots of ice. There’s gotta be global warming.”

Thomas L. Friedman is the dupe. I don’t know if he’s been duped or if he’s part of the group that’s duping everybody else. I don’t know if he’s being paid for his opinion on global warming, but most of the scientists who advocate it are. Believe me, folks, my integrity’s intact. If there were scientific proof, undeniable, thus making it science, that man was causing the climate to warm, I’d be the biggest proponent. I would be the one the one ringing the bells. Actually, I wouldn’t because I’d also understand there’s nothing we can do to fix it because we didn’t cause it. This is really just common sense.

Anyway, you see here, Thomas Friedman, his big disappointment is “I thought Obama could change the polls, not read them. My biggest disappointment is I see a guy reading the polls as closely as ever. These two words ‘climate change’ became a four-letter word in American politics under Obama.” Well, Mr. Friedman, work continues unbated on the whole concept of manmade global warming. The EPA is gonna implement cap and trade for all intents and purposes. You’re getting what you want. The American people don’t believe it, the American people aren’t buying into it so they’re having to be defrauded, but what do you care? And then Charlie Rose says, “Now Romney suggested that he thought man contributed to global warming.”

FRIEDMAN: What is so disturbing is that, is that we don’t — we’re not having an adult conversation about, you know, what are the real problems. So my frustration with Obama really flows from that. I mean Rorschach test, we all go around the table, Barack Obama, what comes to mind right now in the middle of this crisis? I have to tell you, it’s a blank sheet of paper for me. I have no real strong sense of how he defines the problems, where he wants to go, what his bottom line is.

RUSH: Now, all credit is due Mr. Friedman here for finally admitting this, but I would say when did you know otherwise? Hasn’t Obama always been this blank piece of paper? Obama was always a Rorschach test. Obama was always an empty canvas. It’s just back in the campaign years of 2007, 2008 you guys got all caught up in your dreams and your fantasies and your utopias. You figured this guy was one of you, a fellow intellectual, so he had to be brilliant and he had to have all the answers and he was gonna fix everything and he was gonna put you in charge of it when he was finished. Wouldn’t it have made much more sense, Mr. Friedman, if you had had the view of him then that you have of him now? ‘Cause he really hasn’t changed.

All that’s changed is your perception. All that’s happened here is that Obama has not turned out to be the person you hoped he was, but you never knew, because on this very show, Charlie Rose, we’ve got the tape, we could go back and play it if you want to, Brokaw and Charlie Rose themselves said, (imitating Brokaw and Rose) “I don’t know anything about Obama. I don’t know what books he’s read. I don’t know who his friends are. I don’t know what he would do,” but they were telling us we should all vote for the guy. So now it’s Mr. Brooks’ turn, the conservative columnist in the New York Times decided that this was his chance to chime in. This is what he said.

BROOKS: Sometimes I’ve been thinking recently that as president he’s shown he can be a really great Senator, which is to say that his natural skills are for the deliberation, for the organizing of coalitions, but the getting out front part and the sort of active determining and shaping history part, we’ve seen it sometimes, but not a lot. I just wish I knew whether it comes from some sort of deep sense of caution that he doesn’t want to put himself out there, or for some other reason, I simply don’t know.

RUSH: So Obama, he’s been a really great Senator. I guess the crease in the pants isn’t cutting it for Brooks anymore. It’s not enough. It was enough to get Brooks’ vote, the crease in Obama’s slacks, that was enough to tell Brooks he was gonna be president and he was gonna be a great president, but it hasn’t worked out. Now he doesn’t know. None of these guys know. None of these people have the slightest idea. The thing is they never have had the slightest idea. (interruption) What is that, Snerdley? Snerdley wants to know what the L. stands for in Thomas L. Friedman. Loopy, that’s the middle name.


RUSH: May as well grab it. Grab audio sound bite number 29. We may as well go back and relive this. By the way, folks, I have erred. There will not be a Dittocam Monday or Tuesday. I will not be here on Monday or Tuesday. We got guest hosts. Yeah. Yeah. Brain you-know-what. So, we’ll have the Dittocam a week from today. That’s — that’s the more accurate thing to say perform we’ve got Mark Davis next Monday and Tuesday next week.

This is like two or three days before the election, October the 30th in 2008. This is Brokaw on Charlie Rose on Charlie Rose’s show.

ROSE: I don’t know what Barack Obama’s worldview is.

BROKAW: No, I don’t, either.

ROSE: I don’t know how he really sees where China is.

BROKAW: We don’t know a lot about Barack Obama and the universe of his thinking about foreign policy.

ROSE: I don’t really know. And do we know anything about the people who are advising him?

BROKAW: Yeah, it’s an interesting question.

ROSE: He is principally known through his autobiography and through very aspirational (sic) speeches.

BROKAW: Two of them! I don’t know what books he’s read.

ROSE: What do we know about the heroes of Barack Obama?

BROKAW: There’s a lot about him we don’t know.

RUSH: Yeah. That’s October 30th. That’s less than a week before the election, after they spent months and months and months telling us, “You gotta vote for the guy! Vote for the guy!” They don’t know who he is, and they still don’t! Brooks and Friedman have no clue who he is. June 21st of 2011.


*Note: Links to content outside RushLimbaugh.com usually become inactive over time.

Pin It on Pinterest

Share This