Will the Low-Info Crowd Ever Get It?

[mystery-ak]

http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/daily/2013/05/10/will_the_low_info_crowd_ever_get_it


Will the Low-Info Crowd Ever Get It?
May 10, 2013


BEGIN TRANSCRIPT

RUSH: Here's Bob in Cleveland. Bob, hi. Great to have you, sir, on the EIB Network. Hello.

CALLER: Hey, Rush. Good afternoon. Hey, while I was on hold I just received the cases of blueberry Two If By Tea I ordered. It doesn't get any better than this. And since it's Friday and I'm the boss today, one more point on Benghazi: I'm not sure what's more depressing, knowing that there's more than 50% low-information ignorant voters out there or knowing that this regime actually denigrate the honor of these people. Because the very ignorance is perpetrated by the deceptive, divisive stories that this regime puts out. And then they use that same ignorance against the very people they serve, or they say they serve. They denigrate their honor by doing this. I wish people understood and knew the abhorrence in this.

RUSH: Yeah, I'm the same way. I wonder in the middle of this story now, "How many people...?" This is my question, and we're talking low-information voters.

CALLER: Yes.

RUSH: How many of them get it, and then how many care? Of those who get it, that's just the first step. There may be a lot of them who get it. "Yeah, the regime covered up. Yeah, the regime lied. Yep, they told a fib about the video." But then how many of 'em care? How many of 'em think that means anything? How many of them think that's a big deal? Because Jodi Arias is getting sentenced on May 15th!

CALLER: But as they watch the decline of this they can't help but to turn around and start to open up and realize.

RUSH: The decline of what?

CALLER: All our values, our nation, our money.

RUSH: What do you mean the decline of values? They see their values triumphing! Authority is being obliterated. "Right and wrong" is being obliterated.

CALLER: Well, it's like the difference between good versus evil. Evil always looks good at the onset, at the beginning, but it always turns negative.

RUSH: Well, we don't even need to call it good versus evil. Right versus wrong.

CALLER: Yeah.

RUSH: Smooth sailing versus trouble. Trouble is always more adventuresome! Trouble is always more exciting. Getting away with it's even better, especially when you can ram it down the throats of those people who are offended by it.

CALLER: Well, that just goes to show you the nature of the very people that are perpetrating it, which is in this regime. I think it's abhorrent.

RUSH: I agree with you.

CALLER: I'm glad your voice is out there letting people know all of this.

RUSH: Well, me too.

CALLER: I think it's amazing.

RUSH: I appreciate it. You said when you started your call, that while you were on hold you received your delivery of blueberry Two If By Tea?

CALLER: Amen! I tell you, this stuff's good. I order one every two weeks or so. If I can keep it away from my wife, I get more than two bottles.

RUSH: Wait a minute.

CALLER: Yeah?

RUSH: A case lasts you two weeks?

CALLER: No, not really. (laughing)

RUSH: I was gonna say.

CALLER: I can't put you on my monthly income.

RUSH: You know what people do? If you really want to hide it, hide this stuff behind the vegetables in the refrigerator.

CALLER: (laughing)

RUSH: Nobody will find it. If you put it behind the mayonnaise or the ketchup or whatever else, they'll see it right away. But hide it behind the vegetables where nobody's gonna look and nobody will steal it.

CALLER: I gotta keep it in the fridge at work, and then I feel guilty not telling her I have it.

RUSH: Well, let me tell you what I'm gonna do. How long did you have to wait? Our shipping is pretty good. You shouldn't have had to wait long. When did you order it?

CALLER: Three days ago.

RUSH: Whew! See?

CALLER: Normally I get it next day, two days. This time it took just a little longer.

RUSH: Right. And what did you pay for that shipping?

CALLER: I think it was free shipping.

RUSH: That's exactly right! It's free shipping the next day or two days. I tell you what I'm gonna do. I am holding here in my formerly nicotine-stained fingers -- right here -- the latest, greatest item in our Two If By Tea store, the El Rushbo tumbler. It's the revered Rush on one side and Rush Revere (the Two If By Tea logo icon) on the other side. It's a16-ounce tumbler, perfect for consuming Two If By Tea or anything, hot or cold. Ice does not melt and the glass does not drip, and it's perfect for the microwave and the dishwasher.

CALLER: Wow.

RUSH: Yeah, and the tea will taste even better in these babies.

CALLER: It sounds slightly better than the tea.

RUSH: Well, it depends. (laughing)

CALLER: (laughing)

RUSH: It's the best of both!

CALLER: Yes, it is.

RUSH: It's the best of both. So, look, I want you to hold on, because I'm gonna get your shipping address. Snerdley has to have it. I want to send you a couple of tumblers and another case.

CALLER: Oh, man, Rush! Thank you very much.

RUSH: You bet. It's my pleasure. So don't go away, Bob. Snerdley will be right with you.

BREAK TRANSCRIPT

RUSH: Here's Chuck in Walton, Kentucky.  Hi, Chuck.  Welcome to Open Line Friday.  I've got about a minute, but I still wanted to get to you.

CALLER:  Mega dittos, Rush, thanks for taking my call.

RUSH:  Yes.

CALLER:  I was telling Bo that it just seems like every type of group or anything that stands for responsibility, you know, accountability, anything that's right and just, and even Christianity for that matter, you know, any founding groups that represent our traditional values is under assault by this administration.  It's all damage control.  It just seems like the left-wing media has made this guy incapable of error.

RUSH:  Let me tell you something.  My dream is that everybody become aware of what's happening the way you are.  And you understand it.  Every institution or person who is in any way conservative or traditional is indeed going to be attacked if they become a threat.  The individuals or the institutions will be.  And the media will jump right in because the objective is twofold:  Protect Obama but also defeat us.  And that is a prime motivation.  I think the more people understand that, then more people will then be able to disregard and disbelieve the lying criticism that results.

END TRANSCRIPT

[Atomic Cow]

Will the Low-Info Crowd Ever Get It?

As long as their only sources of news are Twitter and Facebook, then the answer is NO.

[Oceander]

They won't "get it" until they grow up enough to start having real responsibilities:  a family to take care of and provide a real life for.  Certainly there will be a non-negligble number who will never grow up - they will, unfortunately, migrate into academia where they'll form the core for the next socialist disaster.  Unfortunately, it's going to take a while.

[Rapunzel]

I got this email today -- very appropriate to insert here:




Rabbi Steven Pruzansky is the spiritual leader of Congregation Bnai Yeshurun in Teaneck, New Jersey



~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~


"The most charitable way of explaining the election results of 2012 is that Americans voted for the status quo - for the incumbent President and for a divided Congress. They must enjoy gridlock, partisanship, incompetence, economic stagnation and avoidance of responsibility. And fewer people voted.

But as we awake from the nightmare, it is important to eschew the facile explanations for the Romney defeat that will prevail among the chattering classes. Romney did not lose because of the effects of Hurricane Sandy that devastated this area, nor did he lose because he ran a poor campaign, nor did he lose because the Republicans could have chosen better candidates, nor did he lose because Obama benefited from a slight uptick in the economy due to the business cycle.

Romney lost because he didn't get enough votes to win.

That might seem obvious, but not for the obvious reasons. Romney lost because the conservative virtues - the traditional American virtues – of liberty, hard work, free enterprise, private initiative and aspirations to moral greatness - no longer inspire or animate a majority of the electorate.

The simplest reason why Romney lost was because it is impossible to compete against free stuff.

Every businessman knows this; that is why the "loss leader" or the giveaway is such a powerful marketing tool. Obama's America is one in which free stuff is given away: the adults among the 47,000,000on food stamps clearly recognized for whom they should vote, and so they did, by the tens of millions; those who - courtesy of Obama - receive two full years of unemployment benefits (which, of course, both disincentivizes looking for work and also motivates people to work off the books while collecting their windfall) surely know for whom to vote. The lure of free stuff is irresistible.

The defining moment of the whole campaign was the revelation of the secretly-recorded video in which Romney acknowledged the difficulty of winning an election in which "47% of the people" start off against him because they pay no taxes and just receive money - "free stuff" - from the government.



Almost half of the population has no skin in the game- they don't care about high taxes, promoting business, or creating jobs, nor do they care that the money for their free stuff is being borrowed from their children and from the Chinese.



They just want the free stuff that comes their way at someone else's expense. In the end, that 47% leaves very little margin for error for any Republican, and does not bode well for the future.

It is impossible to imagine a conservative candidate winning against such overwhelming odds. People do vote their pocketbooks. In essence, the people vote for a Congress who will not raise their taxes, and for a President who will give them free stuff, never mind who has to pay for it.

That engenders the second reason why Romney lost: the inescapable conclusion that the electorate is ignorant and uninformed. Indeed, it does not pay to be an informed voter, because most other voters - the clear majority – are unintelligent and easily swayed by emotion and raw populism. That is the indelicate way of saying that too many people vote with their hearts and not their heads. That is why Obama did not have to produce a second term agenda, or even defend his first-term record. He needed only to portray Mitt Romney as a rapacious capitalist who throws elderly women over a cliff, when he is not just snatching away their cancer medication, while starving the poor and cutting taxes for the rich.

During his 1956 presidential campaign, a woman called out to Adlai Stevenson: "Senator, you have the vote of every thinking person!" Stevenson called back: "That's not enough, madam, we need a majority!" Truer words were never spoken.

Obama could get away with saying that "Romney wants the rich to play by a different set of rules" - without ever defining what those different rules were; with saying that the "rich should pay their fair share" - without ever defining what a "fair share" is; with saying that Romney wants the poor, elderly and sick to "fend for themselves" - without even acknowledging that all these government programs are going bankrupt, their current insolvency only papered over by deficit spending.

Similarly, Obama (or his surrogates) could hint to blacks that a Romney victory would lead them back into chains and proclaim to women that their abortions and birth control would be taken away. He could appeal to Hispanics that Romney would have them all arrested and shipped to Mexico and unabashedly state that he will not enforce the current immigration laws. He could espouse the furtherance of the incestuous relationship between governments and unions - in which politicians ply the unions with public money, in exchange for which the unions provide the politicians with votes, in exchange for which the politicians provide more money and the unions provide more votes, etc., even though the money is gone.

Obama also knows that the electorate has changed - that whites will soon be a minority in America (they're already a minority in California) and that the new immigrants to the US are primarily from the Third World and do not share the traditional American values that attracted immigrants in the 19th and 20th centuries. It is a different world, and a different America. Obama is part of that different America, knows it, and knows how to tap into it. That is why he won.

Obama also proved again that negative advertising works, invective sells, and harsh personal attacks succeed. That Romney never engaged in such diatribes points to his essential goodness as a person; his "negative ads" were simple facts, never personal abuse - facts about high unemployment, lower take-home pay, a loss of American power and prestige abroad, a lack of leadership, etc. As a politician, though, Romney failed because he did not embrace the devil's bargain of making unsustainable promises.

It turned out that it was not possible for Romney and Ryan - people of substance, depth and ideas - to compete with the shallow populism and platitudes of their opponents. Obama mastered the politics of envy – of class warfare - never reaching out to Americans as such but to individual groups, and cobbling together a winning majority from these minority groups. If an Obama could not be defeated - with his record and his vision of America, in which free stuff seduces voters - it is hard to envision any change in the future.



The road to Hillary Clinton in 2016 and to a European-socialist economy - those very economies that are collapsing today in Europe- is paved.

For Jews, mostly assimilated anyway and staunch Democrats, the results demonstrate again that liberalism is their Torah. Almost 70% voted for a president widely perceived by Israelis and most committed Jews as hostile to Israel. They voted to secure Obama's future at America 's expense and at Israel's expense - in effect, preferring Obama to Netanyahu by a wide margin.



A dangerous time is ahead. Under present circumstances, it is inconceivable that the US will take any aggressive action against Iran and will more likely thwart any Israeli initiative. The US will preach the importance of negotiations up until the production of the first Iranian nuclear weapon - and then state that the world must learn to live with this new reality.

But this election should be a wake-up call to Jews. There is no permanent empire, nor is there an enduring haven for Jews anywhere in the exile. The American empire began to decline in 2007, and the deterioration has been exacerbated in the last five years. This election only hastens that decline. Society is permeated with sloth, greed, envy and materialistic excess. It has lost its moorings and its moral foundations.. The takers outnumber the givers, and that will only increase in years to come.



The "Occupy" riots across this country in the last two years were mere dress rehearsals for what lies ahead - years of unrest sparked by the increasing discontent of the unsuccessful who want to seize the fruits and the bounty of the successful, and do not appreciate the slow pace of redistribution.

If this election proves one thing, it is that the Old America is gone. And, sad for the world, it is not coming back."

The problems we face today are there because the people who work for a living are outnumbered by those who vote for a living.