Don't Be Depressed by an Alternative Reality, Move to Realville and Live with Me
February 29, 2012
RUSH: Folks, I didn't tell you this when the show started, but the e-mail, subscriber e-mail, people who listen to this program e-mail is really down in the dumps today. I don't think it's coincidental; it has to do with the results out of Michigan. I don't know what the expectations were and I don't know what specifically in Michigan it's tied to. But there's a noted gloom out there. Maybe it's just the media. Wherever you look in the media, we've got 'em in the stack here: "Economy Coming Back." "Obama Stars Aligning Perfectly for Obama to Recapture White House." There's even a story about the Democrats winning the House of Representatives back. And I've done my best to tell people, "Get ready, 'cause this is only the beginning of it."
You've got ten, maybe 11 more months of this, news media stories about how robust the economy is, how great and hunky-dory the recovery is, all the great news ostensibly, going on in the housing market, the unemployment scene, the electoral prospects for Obama and the Democrats and the House. This Olympia Snowe story, why, the Democrats might get the Senate back. And you couple that with stories like McCain here thinking, "Well, Romney's too damaged, this campaign, this primary's gotten too vicious. I don't know that Romney can survive this even if he wins the nomination." And we had the story yesterday in TheHill.com from Ford O'Connell, a Republican strategerist, who says that the Republican establishment is really worried that Romney, in order to win this thing, is having to sound too conservative.
Now, forget the details. The point is that the news is almost entirely negative, even the news about Republicans or conservatives is entirely negative. The news about Obama, the Democrats, winning the House and the Senate, Obama's economic recovery, Obama's parties at the White House, I don't care what they are, the news is robustly positive. But I just sense in the e-mail today a deepening gloom out there. And here's another great example, CNBC: "Markets Start to Anticipate Obama Victory in November -- While President Obama may not be Wall Street's ideal candidate, stock prices are rising on growing expectations he will be re-elected this November." We're supposed to believe this.
There is nobody on earth who can tell you with ontological certitude that the market's growth is related to Obama and his reelection. Not this early. This is pure puffery. "Part of that, market pros say, is simply that investors feel more certain about who will be in the White House for the next four years and which policies they will have to deal with." So, you see, investors don't care what the policies are. They just want to know whose they're gonna be, and those investors, they can tell right now on February 29th, Leap Day, that it's gonna be Obama, and what his policies are, it doesn't matter. Right. So investors can't wait for all of the new taxes that we're gonna have in January 2013. The Bush tax cuts expire. Obamacare taxes begin to kick in. All these investors can't wait for the continued economic transformation that Obama has begun and will continue. No. They don't care. They just want to know which policies.
This story has been written, this story is timed to the calendar. It's not timed to any events. It's pure BS. This is an NBC network in the tank for Obama. What this probably is is talking points, maybe even a fully written story for the Democrat National Committee sent out to the so-called business channels. But when you stop and analyze this, this is hilarious. We're supposed to believe stock prices are rising on growing expectations Obama will be elected this November. What an absolute crock. No, no, it can't have anything to do with the turmoil in the financial markets in Europe. It can't have anything to do with the fact that that's a black hole to invest in. Investors are losing half of their holdings thanks to the various bailout deals. No. Can't have anything to do with that.
We're told that investors feel more certain about who will be in the White House for the next four years than which policies they'll have to do deal with. So these investors can't wait for Taxageddon. They can't wait for all these massive new tax increases to happen. They're just so excited, they're doubling down on Obama even now. But in this story if you read far enough, as I, your host, always do, the DNC kinda blew their cover when they had their stooge here report this. Quote. "... a string of better-than-expected domestic economic data this year, including an all-important drop in the unemployment rate."
Now, never mind that unemployment hasn't even gone down a full percent since December of 2010. It was 9.4%. We haven't even had a full percentage point drop, and yet this story and its origins are given away with that sentence. "... a string of better-than-expected domestic economic data this year, including an all-important drop in the unemployment rate." And then this CNBC DNC article goes on to claim: "The latest reading of U.S. consumer confidence on Tuesday blew away economists’ expectations. That contrasts with the Republican debates, many of which have centered on social issues." This is clearly a political hack piece written by an ostensible business writer at CNBC. Anyway, this is what's out there. This just one example. And people find it difficult to make themselves immune.
Meanwhile, "The US economic recovery is 'frustratingly slow' and it could take four to five years to ratchet the unemployment rate down to about 6 percent, from more than 8 percent now, a top Federal Reserve official said on Tuesday. The recovery is held back by the housing market and Europe's debt crisis among other headwinds, but monetary policy is now appropriately positioned to eventually achieve this 'maximum employment' level, said Cleveland Fed President Sandra Pianalto." So the headwinds again. Yes, the headwinds. So the Federal Reserve, by the way -- Drudge has it -- preparing a new round of printing money. What is it called, more pumping, more stimulus, more priming, more quantitative easing may be needed.
But CNBC tells us the markets are happy, they're satisfied, they know where we're headed, they know who's taking us where we're headed. And that's enough for them to start investing like crazy with no concerns whatsoever. And yet Reuters: it could take five, six years to get unemployment down to 6%. Recovery is frustratingly slow, held back by the housing market. This economy is in horrible shape, and people live it, and I just remind you, in the real world, not the world of perception of reality, Stan Greenberg's memo of last week, warning Obama, if you think that you can score big on all of these news stories based on a great, roaring recovery, you better think again because the American people aren't buying it. You can't sell it because they're living it, and they don't live what you're selling. They don't live, they don't see, they don't feel, they don't touch what you're telling them is going on, Mr. President.
I know the Democrats work closely with the media to get these propaganda stories out, there's no denying this. At some point, though, they want to live in this world of total perception, not reality. And they've pulled it off in the area of social issues. So it is said. I still do not believe that that's the slam-dunk. In fact, I know it isn't. The social issues are not the slam-dunk defeat for the Republican Party that so many cowards on our side believe that they are.
RUSH: Robert in Chicago. Great you called, sir. Thank you for waiting and great to have you on the EIB Network. Hello.
CALLER: Thank you very much, Rush, and thanks for putting the liberal up first. You know what? Actually she was very, very eloquent lady, but I have to disagree with just about everything she said. I'll get right to the chase here. Why are we letting the media dictate what our debates should be? We're falling into this trap. I mean, we have so many other more important items to discuss. Every debate I've watched, I have been sickened by, because we're letting some media hack define the narrative. Case in point: Santorum and Romney, they both bit! You know, instead of talking about the real issues like unemployment, taxes, energy policy, what do they do? They start talking about abortion, contraception, and Cadillacs! Are we supposed to believe what the media's telling us? Why aren't we putting Obama on the defensive? That infuriates me, it really does.
RUSH: Well, I think that all happens. I don't think the economy is not being discussed. I don't think unemployment's not being discussed. I don't think energy policy isn't being discussed. I think in the course of a three-hour debate it all comes up.
CALLER: Yeah, but not to the degree it should be, really.
RUSH: Yeah, but what you don't want is for abortion, the social stuff to come up at all. It took an hour for it to come up in the last debate.
CALLER: Oh, I didn't say that it shouldn't come up at all. But what I'm saying is that we shouldn't make this the focal point of a candidate's worth or maybe his disdain. We shouldn't make this the focal point of it, and the media is successful doing that.
RUSH: I'm not arguing with you, but there's a guy named Jeff Bell. He was in the Reagan administration. He's a political scientist/sociologist. He's got a book out. He's looked at past elections where social issues have been predominant and have been one of the key elements the Republican candidate for president has talked about. And each of the last two elections where the Republican candidate won the popular vote (which does not include 2000, by the way) social issues were paramount. They were paramount with Reagan. They've been paramount with I think H. W. Bush at some point, George H. W. Bush. But I think it's one of these things that just scares the heck out of people, and you believe it's a recipe for instant defeat when it really isn't. But it still makes you uncomfortable. I'm here to tell you: It has not been the focal point of these debates. In fact, it didn't enter this campaign until January 7th.
CALLER: Well, I'm not going to say it's been the focal point, sir, but what I am saying is that it's taken way too much attention as of late, particularly with this last vote. You know, this last election.
RUSH: You mean in Michigan?
CALLER: In Michigan yes.
RUSH: Yeah. Well, okay. You know how it was injected into the scene. It was done by the Democrats; it was done by Obama.
CALLER: Oh, absolutely!
RUSH: So what you think, then, is obviously people on the Republican side should just ignore it, not take the bait. So when Obama comes out with this mandate that the Catholic Church and its schools give away contraceptives and abortifacients that the Republicans can't bring this up because this scare off voters.
CALLER: No, I'm not saying that, sir. What I am saying is that what our candidates should be saying is, "No, we disagree with you, but we have so many other topics you don't seem to want to discuss." Maybe you can ask the media. Throw the questions back at the media! We have a target-rich environment. If we throw these questions right back at the media, "Okay, what about Obamacare? Doesn't anybody want to address the stealth taxes that are in there? I mean, it's horrendous, if you read that bill," and I know you have, and I know your staff has.
RUSH: You're singing my song. I lament all the time that we have got these Democrat hacks moderating debates disguised as journalists and that these things happen on MSNBC and CNN and all these places, but the Republicans make that decision.
CALLER: Well, sadly, they're falling into the trap. What scares me is that we're going to end up with another Democrat Lite.
RUSH: You mean...? Who would that be?
CALLER: (chuckles) That would be Mr. Romney.
RUSH: Democrat Lite. Well --
CALLER: I'm sorry, I regard him as Democrat Lite, and I regard Ron Paul as another Ross Perot.
RUSH: Right. So you're a Santorum guy?
CALLER: Not necessarily. I'm a Newt guy.
CALLER: Newt or Santorum.
RUSH: Oh, okay. All right. Well, Newt's hoping for a big Super Tuesday to come back.
CALLER: Yes, he is.
RUSH: Anyway, look, I understand what you're saying. I don't mean to be argumentative with you. I'm struck between two things. See, I leave in Realville. I'm sorry, I just do. I do not live in fantasy land anywhere, and the way that manifests itself here is I hate having to succumb to this notion of "perception." As somebody lives in Realville, having to live in a world where "what is perceived to be true" that isn't is what everybody lives by? That's like showing Dracula the cross. So telling me (as the mayor, no less, of Realville) that I've gotta just understand that women hate Santorum and Gingrich and we gotta stop talking about social issues, all that does is fire me up to teach people and tell 'em how wrong they are and the damage they are wreaking on the country by voting Democrat because they're being stupid, idiotic, and fooled.
But that's just me.
I don't want to succumb to the lies and try to win in that universe!
RUSH: Let me explain. This is why, folks, I don't think I could survive or triumph in politics. Because there is an axiom that "perception is reality," and whatever the voters' perception is, is what you have to deal with. And that's how you have to campaign. So if, as an illustration: If the perception (if your polling shows you or your focus-grouping shows you) is that a majority say female voters believe that Republicans want to take their abortion pills away from 'em, then you have to accept that. That's the "reality," and you either come up with a strategy designed to persuade them they're wrong, or you just hope the issue doesn't come up.
You don't bring it up yourself, and when it does come up, you try to slap it away and so forth. Now, I couldn't live in that world. Now, some of you might say that I do, but I actually don't. For example, in the attempt to acquire an audience on this program, I never once ask. I don't do any audience research, and I don't go out and say, "Well, what does my audience want to hear me say?" In politics that's all they do! They focus group and they have consultants and they're advised to go say this and say that. Why do you think Romney will say something like, "Yeah, Ann drives a couple Cadillacs"? That's to meet whatever his advisers told him the perception of him is: That he's a rich, removed, distant guy.
So he drives a pickup. It happens to be made by General Motors. His wife drives a couple Cadillacs. "Boy, they're connected to America." I get it, but for most people it comes off phony. Most people are not good actors. You can't fake a connection with people, and I'm not harping on Romney. I could say this about any of these Republican candidates. And I've just explained to you, by the way, the way Democrats win every election they do win. They create a phony, false, virtual reality. They convince people that it's true. Their false, phony reality is based on the sole value that they are the ones that have big hearts, compassion, and care for people -- and therefore anything that descends from that is all done (or planned to be done) in furthering that fact.
They care about people, have compassion, and they're interested in "fairness" and all this other nebulous stuff. Frankly, I think it's what gives a lot of people challenge and frustrates a lot of people in trying to deal with it because, I don't know about you, I'm not an expert in dealing with people who lie. I call 'em on it -- and if they're pathological, then you've got a problem. You become a threat, and they've got to do something about you. But I live in Realville, and when I'm confronted with people who believe something that's total BS, I want to try to persuade them that they're wrong. Or better yet, set up circumstances where they will end up persuading themselves.
Because you never will persuade people by getting in their face and shouting at them or pointing a finger at them or making fun of 'em, impugning, laughing at them, what have you. It has to be done in an entirely different way, but still it's something I think needs to be done. I believe that an informed voting electorate is the absolute best way to affect long-term, positive, deep-rooted change in the country. So if I had to say there's a mission statement to this program, it would be: To create that very large, informed, educated, engaged voting public that also lives in Realville. But if somebody came to me and said, "Look, you got a problem with women. Your numbers are women are down. You've gotta change your attitude on abortion or at least you gotta stop talking about it."
I said, "The hell with you! That isn't gonna happen." In politics, it's, "Oh, okay, what do I have to say?" And in politics they start modifying their statement or their beliefs or they don't bring it up at all, and otherwise accept a phony premise or a lie, and then try to survive whatever they're dealing with by getting those people to eventually vote for them. One of the examples right now is this silly notion that -- take any Republican, Santorum, Romney, Gingrich. There's not a'one of them that poses a threat to women in the real world. Not a'one of them. Not a'one of those guys wants to leave their house and go to the home of any woman and tell 'em how they have to live.
They don't want to pass laws that tell 'em how to live. They don't want a government program to tell 'em how to live. That's being done by Obama and the Democrats! And over half the people voting for Obama and the Democrats don't even realize it's happening, and to the extent that it is happening and they know about it, they think it's being done for their own good like that Danica Patrick: "I leave it up to the government to make good decisions for Americans." Contraception. Danica Patrick, NASCAR driver, swimsuit model for Sports Illustrated, says: I think the government is better positioned to take care of us. (That's a paraphrase of what she said.)
Well, that's like fingernails on a chalkboard to me. In order to get Danica Patrick as a member of this audience, I'm not gonna change what I believe to have her think that I'm on the same page with her. I'm just not gonna do it. And that's why I would fail in politics. That's why I get so frustrated with this stuff. I'm gonna tell you: When I get an e-mail like I read to you earlier in the program: "Well, I live in the world of liberal women and independent women, and I'm just gonna tell you: Not a one of them is gonna vote for Santorum or Gingrich!" Okay, so we're supposed to modify and we're supposed to compromise and we're supposed to change who we are for the lowest common denominator of uninformed, illegitimate idiots.
That's what we're supposed to do?
We're supposed to just cast aside what we know is right?
We're supposed to cast aside what we know are the lies, and let the absolute idiocy or ignorance or misinformed status of a whole bunch of people determine how we live our lives and go about governing our affairs?
Sorry, I can't do it!
Which is why I'm doing this and I'm not (per se) in politics. But it ticks me off to have to sit here basically compromise principles in order to accommodate people who I think are blithering idiots based on the fact that they're just ignorant or uninformed and they happen to be glaringly arrogant about it at the same time. They happen to think they're the most informed. They happen to think they speak for everybody. They happen to think everybody's just like them! They're the ones, when a limit on somebody's freedom comes along, don't care -- and they won't care 'til it happens to them. They'll sit around and let legislation be passed to say homeowners can't smoke OUTSIDE their homes. Until somebody comes along and says, "By the way," whatever matters to them, "you can't do that anymore." Then they'll raise hell, but by then it will be too late.
Where we going next to the phones? Who is it?
Brett in Michigan. Great to have you on the program. Hello.
CALLER: Hey, Rush. Thanks much for taking my call.
RUSH: You bet, sir.
CALLER: I voted for Santorum yesterday. I had intended originally on voting for Newt, actually, until a couple of weeks ago he said he's just gonna cede Michigan, not waste any time campaigning here. To me that just kind of seemed like he just didn't need our votes, so it kind of turned me off.
RUSH: No. I'll tell you what he was doing.
CALLER: What's that?
RUSH: He was doing two things. It's his fault that you didn't get the right idea. He was doing two things. He was positioning himself for later on. He knew he wasn't going to win. He did not want a slam-dunk loss on the record heading into Super Tuesday. That's number one. Number two, he was trying to see to it that his voters went to Santorum so as to beat Romney, which is his objective right now.
CALLER: And that's what I did, I went Santorum. But my question actually was, you always tell us if conservatism is on the ballot, it wins, and it was on the ballot yesterday, and Romney won. So I guess I'd just like to know, you always say don't doubt me, and I'm not doubting, Rush, but I'm starting to get a little bit nervous so I need some reassurance, I guess.
RUSH: I would suggest that you that if you look at -- I'm gonna print it out. I would suggest to you that conservatism did win. If you look at what Romney had to do, Romney had to move right, he had to be nudged to the right. If you look at the percentage, this whole chaos effort didn't work. The whole number of Democrats that turned up was less than 10%. It was like eight or nine percent. The vast majority of the people, according to exit polls, who voted in Michigan were either somewhat conservative or very conservative, something like 70%. I'll get the number here in a minute. Conservatives did determine the outcome in Michigan yesterday. What did you think besides that happened, or what were you afraid happened instead of that?
CALLER: Well, I mean, just the fact that Romney won. He's won several primaries now, and if he becomes the nominee we've gotta get Obama out of there. I mean I'm a pre-med student. And if he were to win, I would probably have to change my major. I mean I can't -- under a health care system --
RUSH: You think Romney is not conservative. That's what I'm hearing.
CALLER: Correct. Correct. I think that if he wins the nomination and he goes against Obama, Obama's gonna beat him, is what I think.
RUSH: Well, okay. Why?
CALLER: It's just another McCain, another 2008.
RUSH: Oh. Give me, in your words, why you think Obama would beat Romney.
CALLER: Well, Romney, you know, after having governed in a state like Massachusetts, the bluest of blue states, and making statements that he has in the past about just about anything --
RUSH: Look, I know it's nerve wracking. I know where you are.
RUSH: I just want to tell you one thing. The voters in Michigan thought they were voting for a conservative. That's all you need to know. They thought they were voting for a conservative. Whether they were or not, you can argue, but they thought they were voting for a conservative. This is not a put-down. I'm telling you what the voters of Michigan -- they were not voting for a moderate, they were not voting for a liberal. The Republican voters were not squishy. They may have been mistaken or whatever depending on your choice, but they thought they were voting conservative. That's not meant to be a provocative statement. It's meant to be a reassuring statement. Now, the second thing I want to say to you is, if Obama wins, he will change your major. You won't have anything to say about it.
RUSH: All right, here's a report from the Michigan primary from one of our guys at our blowtorch 50,000-watt affiliate in Detroit, WJR. Turnout in Michigan yesterday, second highest ever for a Republican primary. Now, about that, I remember, I got home late yesterday afternoon, I fired up the computer and the first thing I see is that turnout is so light that people are falling asleep working at the polls. About five or six p.m. last night the turnout was light. That's what was being reported. But, no, turnout in Michigan yesterday, second highest ever for a GOP primary, just under one million votes, about 62,000 votes less than when Gerald Ford faced off against Ronaldus Magnus in the Michigan primary in 1976. But there were all-day stories about low turnout.
The Dem crossover did not happen. The most I saw, the Democrats' Operation Chaos was 9%, if that high. Now, those who voted yesterday in the Michigan primary, those who opposed the auto bailout split evenly 39-39, Romney versus Santorum. Despite bashing from Obama, Jennifer Granholm, et cetera, Romney was 43-38 over Santorum among those who approve the auto bailouts. Now, this provides me an excellent opportunity to give you another illustration of what I'm talking about, living in Realville. If I were a Republican candidate for president and I had to go campaign in Michigan, I would not tell anybody I was for the bailout, just because there are people that work at the car companies there. But I read in the roundup, lead-up, the run-up, I should say, to this election, that Santorum and Romney were both going in there trying to make the case that they understood the bailout. It's working men and women that benefited from the bailout and as candidates they had to stand with working men and women, whatever the hell that means.
The bailout was a mistake, it was wrong, it shouldn't have happened, and that's what I'd-a gone in there and said. I woulda probably lost in a landslide. But that illustrates one of the problems we've got. The auto bailout was wrong. The government should not own, direct, in any way, shape, manner, or form, run automobile companies beyond whatever regulations necessary. And even that is a stretch for me. And yet we had two Republicans in there vying for the Republican autoworker vote, saying they supported the bailout. Sorry. They both lost me on that. It shouldn't have happened. It's a weakness nationally for Obama. "But, Rush, but, Rush, in Michigan you would have had to moderate." Yeah, fine. So in every other state I've opposed the bailout. When I go to the Michigan, I'm for it? What the hell does that say about me? I couldn't do it. I woulda spent my time telling all those people, "You may have a job, but that bailout was wrong. You ought not be working for the government this way," or better yet, "You shouldn't be working for the union." I would have fired both barrels, but that's just me.
RUSH: I'll make you a bet that as we get closer to November, Obama, on occasion, is gonna sound like my younger brother. Even Obama's gonna sound conservative. He's gonna say enough outrageous liberal stuff to keep his base, but we all know what wins elections. We all know how the Democrats do it. And we'll just see if that's born out. They will react to the reality at some point, if only briefly, in order to win.