Gawker Says Bam's Depressed, as Dems Chatter About Replacing Him
September 16, 2011
RUSH: I reported Hillary to Attack Watch. Have you seen the front page of Drudge? He's taken the big picture of Hillary down. There was a huge picture up there. Drudge headline: "Hope Skids to Lowest Since 1980." What is that?
It's a CNBC story, "Consumer Hope For the Future Hits Lowest Level Since 1980." There was a picture up there of Hillary. It's a big picture. Now it's lower, still up there. I saw the picture today, and I said, "Well, I guess that ends any chance of a primary challenge to Obama." He-he-he-he-he. It's actually not that bad. Do you know, folks, John Fund has a story out there, he's speculating on what would have to happen to get Obama off the ticket. Fund had been talking to a lot of Democrats and a lot of Democrats are already of the belief that Obama's toast, 14 months out, toast, that it's fini, that it is over.
Now, I happen to think too much can happen in 14 months to invest in that. I think we have to keep acting like we're behind. I think we have to keep acting like we've gotta lot of hard work to do, to do this, and maintain the growth position that we're in. But despite that, Fund's got that story out there, and the theory is -- just as I said the other day on the program -- there is not one Democrat alive who is going to actively compete against Obama in the primaries, and the primary reason is race. There's not one Democrat, including Hillary (inspired by Bill) that's gonna be responsible -- no Democrat's gonna be responsible -- for ending the presidency of the first black president in the country, particularly a Democrat.
So what they gotta do if they want to get rid of Obama, the Democrat establishment, they gotta go there and they gotta convince him to leave on his own by offering him something -- and they've gotta go to his ego. They gotta say, "Barack, this job's too small for you. That's why you're bored, that's why you're depressed. You're better than this. This job, you don't need to be worried about the bridges. What are you doing, man, running around about bridges and stuff, and shovel-ready? You are so bigger than this job! You need the World Bank, you need the IMF, you need UN secretary general, maybe Supreme Court, but, come on, man. The reason why it isn't going well is it's just not big enough for you."
Honestly this is the approach. Now, this is only mentionable here because it's to me fascinating the way some people think. Now, attached to this story is a story at Gawker.com. Are you familiar with Gawker.com? Gawker is a... How would you describe Gawker, Snerdley? I mean, it's more than a gossip site. Well, they're a hit piece site, they're snarky, they're... (interruption) You what? Oh, I know. Oh, I know they've said some things over the years. I like the Gawker guys. I get a kick out of them. You know, when my New York apartment was up for sale somebody had some picture up there and they had some funny comments about the décor. Anyway, the Gawker guys have a story that is linked to and a Hot Air story which links to Fund's story about Obama's depressed. He clinically depressed.
I mean genuinely depressed. If he weren't president he's so depressed I couldn't get out of bed. That's out there at Gawker. Now, Gawker's a left-wing site and so they go out and talk to some professional who is an expert in depression, and they say, "Well, it might be due to Low T." Brian, do you know what Low T is? (interruption) Wendy, do you know what Low T? Snerdley, you know what Low T is? That's exactly right: low testosterone. So the Gawker guys are suggesting here, or they've talked to somebody who's suggested, that Obama's clinically depressed with Low T, low testosterone. (interruption) Well, it's assuming he had some. If he had some and he lost it, where did it go? And that answer is easy, too. Figure it out on your own.
RUSH: Now, on this Obama being depressed business in Gawker -- and, by the way, folks, despite the fact that I said I like the Gawker guys, be very careful if you go to that site. Be very, very careful if you go to the site. I'm not recommending the site, I'm just telling you to be careful. The Gawker guys don't bother me, I know what they're up to, I know what these guys are trying to do, and they're fine. But the Gawker guys are not claiming that Obama is depressed. It's the New York Times. Gawker is claiming it's the New York Times that's preparing an article on Obama being clinically depressed and that they are speculating it may be due to Obama being tired of politics or Low T, low testosterone.
Hear it from the Gawker article. "We're told by a source inside the Times that the paper is preparing a story arguing that Obama no longer finds joy in the political back-and-forth, has seemed increasingly listless to associates, and is generally exhibiting the litany of signs that late-night cable commercials will tell you add up to depression. Or maybe Low T. Either way, the investigation was described to us as taking seriously the notion that Obama may be suffering from a depressive episode." And now you've got Bob Beckel saying that Obama might not run.
The New York Times speculating that Barry's depressed, maybe due to Low T. They do go on to say that his depression is so real that if he weren't president it's the kind of depression where you wouldn't get out of bed. I've never been that depressed, but I guess that's pretty bad. Folks, it's pretty bad here. It's pretty bad when the metrosexual wusses at the New York Times accuse you of Low T. I mean the New York Times doesn't strike me as a full-fledged testosterone place. The New York Times is one of these chickified places. The epitome of the chickification of the news media is the New York Times. So if you got these metrosexual wusses running around accusing you of having Low T, that's pretty bad.
You ever notice that Hillary Clinton never seems to be depressed? You ever notice they never write stories or speculate that Hillary Clinton's depressed or Bill Clinton's depressed? But now we're getting stories, Obama's depressed, job doesn't interest him, doesn't even like it anymore, speculating on how to get rid of the guy. Barack, the job's too small for you. The job's too inconsequential for you, Barack. You need something big, you need bigger. They desperately want him gone.
Victor Davis Hanson has a column out today National Review kind of makes this point. You people on the left -- and I have actually commented on this on previous occasions -- on one hand, we understand your anger. On another hand, we don't. Look at all Obama has given you, and yet you're angry as hell at him. You've got daily attacks on capitalism. You've got $5 trillion in government spending that we don't have. You've got nationalized health care in a matter of years if it isn't repealed. You've got daily attacks on your enemies coming from the highest office in the land, so why are you unhappy?
Two reasons why the left is unhappy. A, they're staring it straight in the face that their policies do not create utopia. Their policies do not create happiness and wonderment. Their policies are destructive. Their policies cause people angst, to be depressed, filled with rage or what have you. But they've been out there thinking for all these years, "Why can't we just get the right person in there, spending the right amount of money, finally we can show the world how to do it right," and they're staring straight in the face the fact that their ideas failed. The second thing is, and another reason why they're mad at Obama -- and Mr. Hanson points this out, is his poll numbers.
Here was Mr. Hope and Change, here was The One, here was The Messiah, here he's done all this wonderful stuff, he's fighting for the unions, and they're looking at him as a failure, and his numbers, 39%, 42%, they're ticked off. And yet he's given 'em everything they want, which proves no matter what the left gets, they're never satisfied. You can't make 'em happy. They are incapable, structurally, institutionally, humanly, genetically, whatever, they're incapable of being happy. They don't laugh, they don't smile, they're constantly angry, constantly enraged. And if they're not enraged for a moment, they're looking for something that will make them enraged.
RUSH: This morning on PMSNBC's Morocco Joe, the host there Joe Scarborough spoke with New York Magazine editor, national affairs editor, John Heilemann about the 2016 presidential race and Hillary. This guy thinks that Obama is gonna lose in 2012. This is a short sound bite, eight seconds. Listen fast. This is what Heilemann thinks is going to happen.
HEILEMANN: January 23rd, 2017 -- after the failed Obama presidency followed by the failed Romney one-term presidency -- we'll have the inauguration of another Clinton.
RUSH: So I don't care. Don't misunderstand, not that this guy is a wizard of smart. It's there's more and more talk of Obama either losing in 2012 or not running, and I am just begging all of you: Don't get caught up in it. I mean, it's fun and we'll have fun with it, but do not believe this garbage that Obama is tired of the job and doesn't want to win reelection.