RUSH: I’ve got my two TV monitors on here today as I’m doing show prep, and I already knew that Ron Fournier of the National Journal was on the Fox All Stars, the Special Report with Bret Baier last night, really hammering Obama. I mean, really hammering Obama. So I’m watching, Bret Baier comes on to promote the show for tonight, being interviewed I think by Bill Hemmer, and Bret Baier is asked about Fournier. And Bret Baier said, “Now, look this is serious. This is Ron Fournier. This is not talk radio. This is Ron Fournier.” And I said, “What the hell is that, ‘This is not talk radio’? What the heck does that mean?”
Let me tell you something, folks, I will stack up the substance and the seriousness on any issue we discuss. I will gladly stack that up against anywhere else on cable news. Now, what Baier meant was, “Well, talk radio, everybody knows, bunch of partisans, maybe a little loudmouth extremism there. But Ron Fournier, oh, Ron Fournier is totally unbiased. Oh, yeah, Ron Fournier, down the middle. When Ron Fournier forms an opinion it’s really rare.” I’m watching this and I know that’s exactly what he means. And I have to tell you, it kind of ticks me off this idea that just because it’s said on talk radio means it doesn’t count. Well, we are way ahead of everybody on all this stuff.
I would dispute the notion that Ron Fournier isn’t opinionated. Ron Fournier is dead stuck in the left. He may not think he is. If you look at Ron Fournier on environmental issues, he’s stuck right there in the midst of the environmentalist wackos on global warming, the AP bureau chief. I mean, there’s no question in my mind that whatever Ron Fournier — he may be a nice guy, I don’t know him. But the idea that Ron Fournier never has an opinion on anything, and when he does, that means it’s really powerful and that we should all listen to it. This isn’t talk radio, you know.
Well, I don’t know. Maybe I took it a little too personally, but it just bugs me, this kind of stuff, because as you know, as regular listeners, we’re way ahead of the curve on all of these things. Because we’re not afraid, I’m not afraid on this program to tell you who’s who, what’s what, and what I think about it. Anyway, so what did Fournier say? Well, we have two audio sound bites. This is during the pre-Obama press conference coverage. There’s a discussion of possible Obama executive action on amnesty. And Ron Fournier, the National Journal senior political columnist, said this.
FOURNIER: The fundamental reason he became president was he was promising there’s no red state, there’s no blue state, I’m gonna bring the country together. He’s been a polarizing president, and this would be a nuclear bomb that would blow open and make this country even more divided in a way that most Americans just don’t want.
RUSH: Right. Yeah. Your first clue? No question. Don’t misunderstand. I’m happy to welcome Mr. Fournier to the camp of right. And this is right. But remember, my friends, it was I who told you on January 16th, 2009, that all this was gonna happen and I didn’t want it to. I told you it wasn’t gonna be the end of racism. I told you this unity and postracial, none of that was gonna happen. I told you it was gonna get worse and I gave you the reasons why it was gonna get worse. And that’s why I said I hope he doesn’t succeed at it.
“The fundamental reason he became president was he promised no red state, no blue state.” I don’t believe that, by the way, as the primary reason he became president. These guys all live in this world where the American people don’t want any arguing and the American people don’t want any partisanship. And the American people voted for Obama ’cause he was gonna unite us and we were all gonna love each other. And that’s not why Obama was elected. Some people voted for him for that reason, but not the majority.
The majority of people voted for Obama because of his race. They thought they could erase the black mark of slavery. There were a lot of people that thought it would be the end of racist America if we showed we would elect a black man as president. The other factors were he was an empty canvas. You could do whatever you want with him. You could make him whatever you wanted him to be. He wasn’t George W. Bush, was the is third reason. The media dredged up so much hatred for Bush, blaming Bush for everything.
RUSH: Okay. So the inside-the-Beltway conventional wisdom is Obama is in trouble because he didn’t unite the country. He didn’t get rid of red states and blue states and that’s what he was gonna do. He didn’t bring the country together. He’s been a polarizing president. Yeah. He’s been polarizing since his campaign, if anybody was paying any attention. He was never going to unite the country, never. That was what everybody else was hoping would happen, just like they were hoping it would be the end of racism. And just like they were hoping we would get somebody smart ’cause they thought Bush was so stupid. And just like people were hoping the rest of the world would love us because they mistakenly thought they hated us because that’s what the media said.
There was so much BS that was part of that whole campaign, and it was all a derivative of the four to five years of pounding that George W. Bush got. Obama was simply a blank canvas alternative that voters, particularly low-information voters, could make of him whatever they wanted. Gonna be the end of racism, check. Gonna be the end of arguing in America, check. Gonna bring love back from foreign leaders, check. Gonna get rid of blue states and red states, check. Gonna give me a new kitchen, check. Gonna by me a new car, check. Gonna finally make other people shine my shoes for a change, check. Whatever anybody wanted Obama to be.
He was campaigning on messianic platitudes in front of Greek columns. It was all known and we we have all these people now acting shocked that Obama might, after all these waivers on Obamacare which didn’t seem to bother anybody, and after all the executive orders and all the other things, now that he might drop the bomb on immigration, whoa, wow, that might really divide ’em. What do you think it is now? The nuclear bomb has already detonated. The nuclear bomb is Obama, not an executive order on immigration. For crying out loud, simple as pie.
RUSH: Don’t misunderstand, folks. I’m not ticked off at Ron Fournier. He’s who he is. But this business that, “Well, when Ron Fournier says something, we gotta listen. This isn’t talk radio. Oh, no, this is Ron Fournier.” But what is this “this isn’t talk radio business”? Anyway, I mean, I could expect to hear crap like that on PMSNBC or CNN or read it in the newspapers, but… Anyway, there’s another Fournier bite. And it wasn’t just Fournier, it was A. B. Stoddard. They were both laying into Obama like they’re surprised. See, this is another thing. They’re surprised. Are any of you surprised Obama might just grant amnesty to five or six million people and damn the results?
For all it is assumed that they’re right, both A. B. Stoddard and Fournier, they still don’t get why Obama’s doing what he’s doing. They’re just stuck on the usual inside-the-Beltway thinking, “My God, why, that would divide the country.” Yeah, right. What do you think he’s been doing? We’re six years in, for crying out loud. Where has the unity been from day one? There hasn’t been any. Anyway, here’s the second Fournier bite. It just keeps getting better. This is after the press conference. The first bite we played before the press conference, then Obama went out and did what he did, said what he said, and Fournier can’t believe it. He thought this guy was the best speech maker he’s ever heard, except he isn’t anymore. This guy, my God, this guy was so great with words. And now he doesn’t do words good anymore.
They all bought this notion that they were looking at and witnessing somebody we’ve never seen before in politics. Somebody that was messianic. Going back to 2008, campaign 2009, they all drank the Kool-Aid. They all thought, “My God, look at the crease in the slacks. Holy smokes, great president, gee whiz. We’ve never had a guy this smart. You know, he’s has smart as we are. This guy went to the Ivy League. When he talks, we understand him. He speaks our language. This guy is brilliant. This guy is a wizard of smart.”
And then they’re noticing here that lately Obama has been saying, “You gotta stop hatin’.” I mean, even Daniel Henninger today in the Wall Street Journal has a has a piece. You know why Obama’s plummeting? Because his words all of a sudden aren’t magic. He’s dropping his G’s, and presidents don’t drop their G’s. If you’re gonna go out there and talk about people hating, use hating, don’t say hatin’. Hatin’ isn’t presidential. And Fournier has a column today much the same thing: Obama’s really letting us down. He’s really surprising us, holy smokes, why, we thought this guy was smart as we are, maybe even smarter. His words and speech that he gave at the 2004 Democrat convention.
They drank the Kool-Aid so long ago, and they still can’t get past the fact that what we’re really dealing with here was somebody that has no qualifications for this job, has never had anywhere near the real-world life experiences that would qualify him for this. They look at presidential qualifications as something that can really be boiled down to one thing. Can he beat a Republican? If he can, he’s qualified. That’s all we need. And if he can beat the Republicans, beat the Tea Party, can make ’em look like idiots, that’s our guy. That’s why they love Clinton. They love Clinton ’cause he routinely ran rings around the Republicans, and that’s what they really love, is Tea Party Republicans, conservatives getting shellacked. And so since Obama did that twice, “Oh, yeah, man, this is our guy.” It’s a myth. It’s all been a myth. It’s all been a blank canvas that people could make of it whatever they wanted. Here’s the second sound bite.
FOURNIER: This is a guy who is an incredible writer when he’s writing. I’m stunned all the time by the passive voice he uses, which is very ineffective and sounds weak. For example, to say Hamas is extraordinarily irresponsible. Frat boys are extraordinarily irresponsible. Hamas is a terrorist organization that’s killing people. Words matter when you’re trying to lead a country and trying to lead a world. I’m stunned by how poorly he uses them.
RUSH: Really? Welcome to the party. It’s great, it’s fine and dandy. I know it’s frustrating, folks, to be this far ahead of the curve, to be this far ahead of the people who think they are the center of the universe. This guy’s an incredible writer when he’s writing. Really? Really? Yeah. And the passive voice he uses, very ineffective, sounds weak, to say Hamas is extraordinarily irresponsible. It’s not that he says that. You guys need to look into why he says that. Why does he not call Hamas a terrorist organization?
You probably have seen by now the story in the UK Daily Mail: “ObamaÂ’s Monsters Ball: How the White House opened its doors to some of AfricaÂ’s most evil dictators and homophobes and turned blind eye to their human rights record.” Have you seen it? The Daily Mail does a story on this and they basically provide a rap sheet for each of the nine dictators that Obama invited into the White House. They detail their crimes. They have pictures of them with Obama and Moochelle smiling, greeting them as though they’re long lost buddies right at home with ’em all.
Instead of being amazed that he would refer to Hamas as extraordinarily irresponsible, maybe you better dig deep and try to find out why he does not call them a terrorist organization. Maybe you might look into being curious why Obama is three times as tough on Israel as he is on Hamas. In the words he uses. May not want to go there and find the answer to that so we’ll just chalk it up, “You know, maybe he’s just gotten bored by the job. You know, the guy’s so smart. He’s so much ahead of all of us. We can only hope to keep up. We are blinded by the light of his essence. His brilliance emanates in ways that we can’t even comprehend. Most of us only use 10% of our brain. Obama’s using 110% of his. There’s no way we can keep up. He’s just bored. That’s why he doesn’t speak right anymore, and that’s why he doesn’t take time to write anymore,” blah, blah, blah, blah, blah.
That’s why the economy’s in the tank, and that’s why the border’s wide open, and that’s why the VA’s a mess, and that’s why the IRS is targeting the Tea Party, and that’s why what happened in Benghazi happened. The list is endless. It’s why the stimulus didn’t stimulate. It’s why all the job summits didn’t summit jobs. We’re the victims of a very real practical joke here, and we’re the only ones in on it. All the other people were duped by it.
Now, A. B. Stoddard, in addition to Fournier, said (paraphrasing), “I was surprised that he dodged the question about what he would do on immigration by executive action. But he said he still wants to work with both parties in both chambers, some kind of compromise. But he’s really not doing that. That executive amnesty, that would be very toxic politically.”
So A. B. Stoddard and Ron Fournier were both just beside themselves on what Obama might do and the way he speaks. And when they say it, you gotta listen. It’s not like hearing it on talk radio, no way.
The Washington Post has an editorial today: “Frustration Over Stalled Immigration Action DoesnÂ’t Mean Obama can Act Unilaterally.” This may be the most surprising thing I have read — (interruption) Why are you laughing? Don’t tell me that you can’t take any more of this. The only thing you can do is laugh at it? Is that what you’re doing?
Try this. “Stymied by congressional paralysis, President Obama is reportedly considering unilateral action to address — though surely not fix — the nationÂ’s immigration policy mess and the more recent surge of minors streaming across the southwestern border. The presidentÂ’s frustration is understandable. Faced with a genuine humanitarian crisis, CongressÂ’s failure to pass a workable fix is unconscionable.”
They go on to trash the Republicans for a while. But then they quote Obama from last fall. “‘If, in fact, I could solve all these problems without passing laws in Congress, then I would do so. But weÂ’re also a nation of laws.’ To act on his own, the president said, would violate those laws.” Then they go on to talk about the president threatening to just grant amnesty to five or six million these people.
And then they say “The president should think twice. Some of the same Democrats and pro-immigrant advocates urging him to protect millions of undocumented immigrants from deportation would be outraged if a Republican president took a similarly selective approach to enforcing the laws — say, those that guarantee voting rights or prohibit employment discrimination.”
So the Post has to throw in that the Republicans might — what would a Republican, a lawless Republican president do? Well, he might take away the right of black people to vote, or he might not prohibit employment discrimination. Don’t you just love that? So no Republican president’s done this. Obama has done it, executive orders outside the Constitution, over and over again.
He’s now threatening the nuclear bomb executive amnesty. And the Washington Post, writing to condemn it, imagines what a Republican president would do if he were as lawless as Obama. And a Republican president would deny black people the right to vote and would not stand in the way of businesses discriminating against black people, or gays. Never mind there hasn’t ever been a Republican president ever do any of that. But nevertheless, “Frustration Over Stalled Immigration Action DoesnÂ’t Mean Obama can Act Unilaterally.”
They really, really warn him not to do it. They’re letting him know they will not be on his side if he does this.