RUSH: I wanted to play for you the Eric Cantor sound bite. He’s the Republican whip in the House, I believe, in the Republican leadership, and he was on Fox News Sunday yesterday. Chris Wallace said, “The Senate plan, that would be for millionaires and billionaires. Now, I agree, some of them are small businesses. But, I mean, we are now talking not about $250,000, we’re talking about people making over a million a year.” I don’t know what this question is, but that’s not important. Here’s Cantor’s answer.
CANTOR: We know in this country right now that there is a complaint about folks at the top end of the income scales, that they make too much and too many don’t make enough. Well, we need to go encourage those at the top of the income scale to actually put their money to work to create more jobs so that we can see a closing the gap. You know, we’re about income mobility, and that’s what we should be focused on to take care of the income disparity in this country.
RUSH: Okay, so there you have it. You have a premise put forth by the Democrats, the income disparity, the gap, rich versus the poor, rich have too much, poor don’t have enough, it’s because the rich are stealing everything, so we’ll accept that premise, and then we’ll tanker with it around the margins and change the verbiage. We’ll come up with a new phrase called income mobility, and we’ll say that that’s what we’re for. We’re for income mobility, but we’re gonna jump on the rich, too. We’re gonna join this bandwagon of piling on the rich, ’cause there’s only 1% of them, and 99% of the people who aren’t rich, we want to get their votes, too, so we’re going to join this chorus that says the reason the economy’s bad is because the rich are hoarding their money and they won’t invest it and they won’t hire people and they won’t create more jobs, so we Republicans are gonna try to come up with policies here in Washington that make it so that rich people hire more people.
Folks, you want to tell me what’s funny about this? You want to tell me what’s funny about this, Mr. Snerdley? We’ve also got somewhere in the stack here something Romney has said that’s not the same subject but is in the same vein. I’ll find it here in the stack somewhere. This is called snatching defeat from the jaws of victory. I just don’t understand it. So once again, the agenda is set by the left. They set a premise. We, instead of ignoring it or nuking it, accept it, and then tinker with it. “Yeah, well, we have a better idea, better way of doing this,” solving the whole notion of income inequality.
RUSH: I want to go back and air for you Eric Cantor from the House Republican leadership. This was yesterday on Fox News Sunday.
CANTOR: We know in this country right now that there is a complaint about folks at the top end of the income scales, that they make too much and too many don’t make enough. Well, we need to go encourage those at the top of the income scale to actually put their money to work to create more jobs so that we can see a closing of the gap. You know, we’re about income mobility, and that’s what we should be focused on to take care of the income disparity in this country.
RUSH: Okay, not to be repetitive, but if you’re just joining us, that’s yesterday, Fox News Sunday. The Democrats, as an agenda item, have been harping on the rich get richer, the poor get poorer, this widening gap between the two groups, and Obama has been saying that the rich need to start spending more money, need to start hiring people, invest in jobs, stop hoarding the cash. Republicans, why be different? You know what, we find a problem with it, too, we think the rich ought to be spending their money more. This is fear, and I said when I played the sound bite that Romney has done something similar, and it’s on this. I found the story, it’s from a blogger, Warner Todd Huston.
“Only days ago Mitt Romney was saying that the Occupy Wall Streeters were dangerous. But, true to his penchant to ‘grow’ in his opinion (‘growing’ is what the rest of us call flip floping), Romney is now beginning to accept the OWS theme of ‘the 99%.’ … during the first week of October Romney was pounding the Occupy-Whatevers as ‘dangerous.’ … All it took for Romney to begin his flip floppingÂ… er, I mean ‘growing’Â… this time was one week because now, at a townhall in Hopkinton, New Hampshire, suddenly Romney is all about ‘understanding’ the plight of the ’99 %.'” We have to understand ’em. So for some reason — well, I know the reason — it’s fear. The protests and this assault on the rich orchestrated by the Democrats as the reason for all things wrong in this country, the Republicans have decided that they’ve gotta get in on that action by hook or by crook.
Now, we know everybody’s poll-driven in Washington. Do they have polling data which tells them that the majority of people in the country sympathize with the Occupy Wall Street people? Do they have polling data that tells them that the public agrees with the Occupy Wall Street protests and, therefore, they better not be left behind, the Republicans, they better start saying things that indicate they are simpatico, see it somewhat similarly? Why else do this? Okay, they’re watching TV. So you think they’re being moved by what they see on TV? Okay, moved by the pictures, afraid of the pictures. But it’s all a hoax! But they can’t afford to take the chance that it’s not a hoax. They have to roll the dice, say maybe this is real, we want to get reelected and we don’t want to be in the 1%, or what have you. (interruption) Our guys. Don’t care whether it’s a hoax or not, especially front runners? Don’t care if it’s a hoax or not. If it’s what’s on TV, it’s what has to be reacted to. The public perception, whether it’s right or wrong, and if it’s on TV, then okay, we have to act like we hear ya and we’re with ya.
So while Obama is out trying to organize this bunch — he’s, by the way, responsible for this. This is Obama’s protest to counter the Tea Party. They’re jealous. The Democrats are so jealous of the Tea Party they can’t see straight. This kind of thing is not spontaneous. It didn’t bubble up out of nothing, just didn’t bubble up out of genuine passion like the Tea Party did. They’ve had to create this. They’ve had to pay for it.
RUSH: Demorest, Georgia, this is Don. Great to have you on the program, sir. Hello.
CALLER: Hello, Rush, great to talk to you.
RUSH: Thank you very much. I appreciate that.
CALLER: Yeah, I just wanted to say one thing on the Eric Cantor statement. I didn’t take it that way at all. I took it he was calling for an end to the job killing regulation, any taxation, including Obamacare —
RUSH: Well, why didn’t he say it?
CALLER: — stifling businesses, even hiring.
RUSH: Why didn’t he say that, then? He didn’t talk about it. He said the rich need to start spending their money here, we agree that they need to start — did he talk about ending regulations somewhere else in the appearance?
CALLER: He went on to say we have elected leaders in this town who are, frankly, joining in the network to blame others rather than focusing on policies that have brought the current situation. That’s the part that you left out.
RUSH: But did he say we need to end regulation? Did you hear him or are you interpreting that that’s what he meant?
CALLER: I guess that’s my own interpretation.
RUSH: Okay. Well, so Eric Cantor’s appearance on Fox News is a Rorschach test, too.
CALLER: He’s gotta say something to the media. The media is gonna continue, as you said, the media is gonna go ahead and control this and expand upon it and make it last as long as they can. So —
RUSH: Wait a minute.
CALLER: — your own benefit.
RUSH: He has to say something to the media?
CALLER: The media’s asking him. Is he just gonna stay there and not say anything?
RUSH: Well, okay. So the objective is to answer the question so the media won’t chase you anymore?
CALLER: I’ll agree with you on that aspect. He could have been a little bit more forthcoming. I think the media just picked up on that headline, though. But they didn’t pick up on the part that I —
RUSH: Wait a minute. I did.
CALLER: Yes, you did.
RUSH: Now, I am the media in certain circles. But I didn’t need anybody in the media to pick up on that. That happened all on its own. Must be the consultants. It must be somebody telling these guys, ’cause what is the advice? “Look, you gotta sound like Democrats. You’ve got to sound like Democrats. You can’t let the Democrats own this issue of income inequality. You gotta get in on this. You gotta tell people you care about it, too. You care about the poor. You think the rich need to start spending more money and so forth. He came up with a new term for it, instead of income inequality, income mobility. Anyway, I appreciate the call, Don, I really do.