Rush Limbaugh: Romney Must Get Tougher on Obama

Rush Limbaugh Show ^ | Monday July 9, 2012 | Rush Limbaugh

[Bigtigermike]

RUSH: Okay, the three stools of Ronald Reagan: Defeat the communists. Check. Lower American taxes to revive the economy. Check. Rebuild the military. Check. Three things. Now, what's Romney running on? Romney's running on one thing, and he'd better change it. (interruption) No, he's not doing that. He's not running on, "I'm not Obama." He's running on the economy, and he's gotta get tougher than that. He's got to branch out. The economy speaks for itself.

But there's also the question here: How many people really care about that? We've got three years. Nobody's demanding this guy be thrown out? Well, other than us, but is there a national clamor? Folks, 30 or 40 years ago with the same identical economic circumstances, there would be such anger and outrage in this country that the incumbent wouldn't even dare run again, and that's not that long ago. So let's do the three stools of Obama. Jobs? He doesn't care. That checklist I went through from Victor Davis Hanson? That checklist, that is a long list of things you gotta do to maintain unemployment at 9%.

That is a long list of things, and Obama has done every one of them. It cannot be an accident. Now, there were a bunch of fundraisers for Romney over the weekend. Three of them, actually, were in the Hamptons. One was at David Koch's place; one was at Ron Perlman's place out on Long Island. A lot of former Obama donors showed up. The LA Times has story. Former Obama donors showed up, and the story's about all the advice Romney's getting. And I'm gonna tell you something.

This can be dealt with. Goodwin's piece and the cultural divide and all that, I'm not saying it's over. But Romney is gonna have to start treating Obama the same way he did Newt and Santorum, folks. He's gonna have to do that. We are dealing with something new. Romney has got to realize that running a campaign on traditional American values is not enough, sad to say. That's the hard, cold reality. Simply running around and telling people he's gonna fix the economy isn't enough.

What? What are you gonna do with the economy? Yeah, we all know it stinks. What are you gonna do? What's the plan? (interruption) Okay, his economic plan has 59 points? Can you tell me three of them? (interruption) You can't. Okay, so don't tell me it's 59 points. He may as well have zero if you can't tell me what any of them are. Big whoop. It's not enough to say you're gonna repeal Obamacare, because there's no accompanying talk from Republicans in Congress that have similar-type energy.

This has to be about Obama.

This campaign has to be about Obama, and Romney is gonna have to look at Obama the way he tarred Newt and the way he tarred Santorum. I don't care whether he does it with his super PACs or whether he does it himself. But Obama's not black. He's not Martian. He's not white. He is The Destructor, and he's gotta be stopped in order for the country to be the country Romney thinks it is. This guy, I don't care what his race is. It's all about policy. It's all about a program of economic destruction that cannot be an accident.

Now, my whole point in the last hour -- I want to sum this up for Mitt Romney -- and I hate to say this.  It pains me to say this.  I can't tell you how sad it makes me, but I don't care.  Reality is reality, and the economy and its condition is not an automatic win-win for Romney or the Republicans right now.  It just isn't.

Snerdley is looking at me with a expression of disbelief on his face, and I'm sure many of you are, too, because that's so revolutionary.  It was only back in 1992 where "It's the economy, stupid," was the reason Clinton won.  I'm here to tell you that the economy today is worse by factors of geometric proportion than it was in 1992.  I had calls in 1992 from people saying, "It can't get any worse, Rush." I had guys that I played golf with at various clubs I belong to, educated, successful businessmen, Democrats telling me in 2004, "It can't get any worse, Rush." 

Well, it's worse by factors indescribable, and the same guys are still telling me that we gotta vote Democrat to fix it because it's all Bush's fault.  The sad truth is -- and the Romney people are gonna have to learn this right now -- the sad truth is that employment is not pivotal.  The unemployment rate, the jobs circumstance in this country is not pivotal and it's not something Obama can lose the election on.  Not by itself.  It's not something Romney can win.  (interruption) What do you mean, how can I say that?  I'll tell you how I can say it.  We have 48 million Americans, 47 million on food stamps, and the regime is advertising for more.  We have 47, 48% who pay no income taxes.

We have three million more off the employment roles and on disability, and they all vote.  What does it add up to?  No jobs. No employment. No problem.  And that's no job, no employment, no pain for a whole heck of a lot of people whose expectations for themselves are not very high.  You have food, you have a car, your cell phone, and a TV, and you're set.  Snerdley is shouting at me, "All those people can't want to stay on food stamps."  Will you explain to me, then, why more people are getting on food stamps?  (interruption)  Exactly.  What else do they have?  There are no jobs.  And yet they're still eating.  I'm not criticizing.  I'm telling you it's a new reality out there.  This is something that's been gnawing at me for over a year. 

Every Thursday I come here with these unemployment numbers and my instincts have been telling me -- and I've been fighting my instincts -- my instincts have been telling me that nobody cares, because it's not resulting in that much pain, not nearly as much as it used to. Not nearly the kind of pain that existed in 1992.  When Bill Clinton runs for reelection "It's the economy, stupid," worst economy in 50 years was the campaign slogan.  The economy today is worse by factors that you can't even quantify.  And it's accepted.  It's seemingly accepted, because the so-called victims of the unemployment circumstance in this country are not suffering as unemployed people in the past did.  And not that I want them to.  It's not even about what I want.  I'm just dealing with the reality here. 

Now we've got stories that retail sales are suffering because unemployment checks have ended.  Not retail sales are off because of the jobs circumstance.  Retail sales are off because the government isn't giving people any money anymore.  You couple all this with the way minds are wasted in the American education system today, the way they're polluted, propagandized, whatever you want to say... (interruption)  Yeah, that's true.  Clinton had a Perot out there helping him.  Romney's not gonna be helped by a Perot type.  I'm just saying that there's an architect of this circumstance, and he's gotta be identified.  His name's Barack Obama.  That long checklist of things I went through last hour that you have to do to ensure 9% unemployment is a long list of things.  They can't all be coincidental.  They can't all be accidental.

Obama has an economy that is almost as bad as Herbert Hoover's economy.  And I realize, what percentage of people in this country even know or care about Herbert freaking Hoover?  So here I am drawing an analogy.  "Herbert who, Rush?"  All they know is he's a Republican so he sucked.  There's a lot of stuff that we're up against here, and my only point is relying on what traditionally has always worked is not gonna get it done.  The polling data indicates it.  Then there's the other part of me.  The other part of me says if the election were today, it would be a landslide with Obama sent out of town so fast, a cloud of dust he wouldn't be seen in it.  I still think that's possible, probable.  But during Herbert Hoover's day there wasn't any welfare.  There wasn't any relief.  Most of that came in with FDR.  And FDR still won, ran on how bad it was.  Of course he did because with Hoover there were people jumping out of buildings.  

[FlingWingFlyer]

Getting tough on the sissified manchild is “rasis”. Barry’s state run “media” would beat Mitt to a pulp if he tries it.

[ninonitti]

When he first ran against Fatso Kennedy in '96 Romney held on to his strategist Charlie "Milquetoast" Manning while Kennedy's guys took him apart over his record at Bain.

If he's not willing to make some serious changes history will repeat

[theDentist]

Presently Romney’s campaign is faring pretty even with McCain’s. So yeah, he’d better start running NOW.

[Biggirl]

Rush is correct, there is NO OTHER WAY other than to get tough. It is not racist, the old race card has lost its value a long, long time ago.

[cripplecreek]

Rush warned us back in December.

Rush Goes On the Record with Fox News Channel's Greta Van Susteren

VAN SUSTEREN: Why has Governor Mitt Romney not had a so-called "surge"? We hear "surge" used with basically every Republican nominee, but you don't see that "surge" with Governor Romney.

RUSH: Well, every poll I've seen of Republican primary voters, he can't crack 30 percent. It has been curious. And you look at it from the reverse, 70 percent of Republican voters want somebody else. This is why we have the phenomenon of the "Not-Romney." Bachmann was the "Not-Romney" for a while. Herman Cain was the "Not-Romney." Now Newt is the "Not-Romney." I think it boils down to something that's not complicated at all. Republican primary voters are conservative. They don't believe that Romney is. They believe that he will stick a finger in the air and moisten it and see which way the winds are blowing and try to get in that direction. They remember that Romney said he believes in global warming and he believes that man is causing it. Well, conservatives don't believe that. They believe it's a hoax. Conservatives know that the whole story of man-made global warming is a hoax. And they're not going to get excited by a candidate who is trying to gain favor with non-Republican primary voters by articulating that stuff.

Here's the big problem, Greta, for the Republicans. And I am a lone wolf on this. The rule of thumb in elections, both parties, 40 percent are going to vote Democrat automatically, whatever you do, 40 percent are going to vote Republican, automatic, no matter what you do. And in the middle, who do we have? The precious, God love them, independents and the moderates. And they are the targets. They are the focus of every election. And our brilliant campaign consultants tell our candidates they are the ones that know how to go get a majority of those independents. And we have, as Republicans, put ourselves in prison to this whole silly notion that you only win elections by moving to the center and getting great independents. Fine and dandy, but if you squander your base in the process, you haven't a prayer.

Much more at the link.

[prisoner6]

Not gonna happen. He’ll pick some other no balls GOPer for VP.

The fire some claim he has in his belly is nothing more than a bit of undigested brussel sprout.

[cripplecreek]

I should have included the next thing Rush said.

The Republican Party is trying to do something in this primary that is unprecedented. They're trying to split the conservative vote and win the primary with a moderate, with Romney. It's the other way around. You consolidate your base and then you move to the center in the general. The Republican establishment has decided they don't want any part of conservatism. And this is really not new. People are surprised to hear this, but the Republican Party formative event with conservatism is Goldwater's landslide defeat. That's what they think of when they think conservative. They don't think Reagan. They think Goldwater.

[SatinDoll]

Flyer hit the reason which Rush seemed to avoid - the MSM won’t tell the true facts, or selectively choose facts to support their political prejudices, but most of all it is the ‘race’ issue.

Personally, I suspect using the race card is having less and less an impact. Why? Because it has been overused, especially in instances when race wasn’t the issue.

[Son House]

Democrats have no intention of improving the economy, by the measure of their own economist. It’s just a slower decline.

The Macroeconomic Effects of Tax Changes
By Christina D. Romer and David H. Romer
http://emlab.berkeley.edu/users/dromer/papers/RomerandRomerAERJune2010.pdf

“tax increase of 1% of GDP lowers real GDP by almost 3%”

[itsahoot]

Time for the Romney promoters to understand. It is not the Economy Stupid! Jobs, Jobs, Jobs! Will not sway a single Obama voter, because they aren’t working, and they don’t want to work, because they don’t have to.

[FroggyTheGremlim]

Well, Mittens didn't have any problems bashing Santorum, Newt, or other Republicans.

PS. I bet Sarah Palin could ream Obama a new one, maybe two new ones!

Does Sarah have bigger balls than the Romney Campaign?

[SatinDoll]

A major factor in Goldwater’s defeat was due to liberal Republicans refusing to support him in the general election. Liberal Republicans like George Romney and Nelson Rockefeller.

[Praxeologue]

Rush lays out the thesis that employment and the economy doesn’t matter in the 2012 campaign. But he doesn’t tell us what WILL decide the election. Like so many other Rush monologues, I wait breathlessly for Rush to lead the way, only to be left at the altar. We all have a list of things that our candidate should do, but Rush is not laying them out.

[StAnDeliver]

Even Rush is not above Concern Trolling. In fact, it’s becoming a Monday staple...

[Jim Scott]

Rush has some valid points. Romney should be characterizing Obama as a serial liar (use old clips to prove it, juxtaposed with the unemployment numbers, etc) and ask voters if they really believe that Obamacare won't 'add a penny to their taxes' while the IRS hires tens of thousands of new agents. Obama has to be portrayed as what he is: a lying phony who says one thing and does another and so, cannot be trusted. Romney also needs to get his own economic plan out there, pronto. Being vague won't cut it. Picking a conservative VP would be helpful because if Romney chooses a pantywaist VP it will definitely hurt him. He doesn't need a fire-breather, just someone who isn't 'moderate' - and bland ( e.g. Pawlenty).

[cripplecreek]

A major factor in Goldwater’s defeat was due to liberal Republicans refusing to support him in the general election. Liberal Republicans like George Romney and Nelson Rockefeller.

OldMissileer points out the fact that they scream about how bad we puritans are but openly admit that they won't be voting for any filthy tea partier.

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2903940/replies?c=53

[VanDeKoik]

It’s great to get “tough”, but when few are paying close attention, what is the point?

You blow millions of dollars to generate some talk radio and internet buzz only to have people forget about it by Aug.

Obama already tried buzz-building gimmicks only to see no real benefits weeks out.

When the likely voter is tuning in, then you go ape on him.

[ScottinVA]

July 8-10 2008

Gallup

McCain 42% Obama 48% Und/other/NA 10% 2,661 RV ± 2 pts

Rasmussen

McCain 44% Obama 48% Und/other/NA 8% 1,500 LV (estimated) ± 2 pts

[Graewoulf]

BUMP!