All Episodes
Previous Next
Nov. 8, 2012 - Rush Limbaugh Program
37:54
November 8, 2012, Thursday, Hour #1
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Welcome to today's edition of the Rush 24-7 podcast.
Folks, I have to ask for your forgiveness in advance here because I can't stop laughing right now, and I know there's nothing to laugh about.
I mean, this is not, but I can't stop it.
Maybe it's the post-stress release where you just get uncontrollably giggly or what, but I'm going through my soundbite roster today.
I'm watching this stuff on television.
I'm hearing what people say.
I'm reading stuff here in the show, but I just, I can't stop laughing at the futility of it all.
Anyway, I'll walk you all through it.
Great to have you here, Rush Limbaugh, the EIB Network, and the Limbaugh Institute for Advanced Conservative Studies.
Do you know, for example, folks, that I slandered Obama voters yesterday?
Yeah, right there on ABC.
I slandered.
I was all over the news last night.
They're asking Haley Barber, Rush Limbaugh says you've got to change your ideology on abortion.
What are you going to do?
And I got some other Republican.
Rush Limbaugh said yesterday that you got to do this.
What are you going to do?
Rush Limbaugh says over here you got, what are you going to do?
Rush Limbaugh.
And Jennifer Grandholm accused me of accusing the Democrats stealing the election, which I didn't do.
I slandered Obama voters by calling them moochers.
I said they voted for Santa Claus, so that's slandering them.
I'm watching Arthur Laffer today.
He's the big tax cut guru.
He's on Fox with Martha McCallaby.
He said, Martha, I've never been more enthused in my life.
I have never been more optimistic.
I've never been more excited.
Her eyes are bugging out of her hair.
What do you mean?
Well, look at what's going to happen.
We've got a really great guy as president, but he's a horrible president.
He's just rotten.
So we're going to get massive tax increases.
We're going to get economic depression.
We're going to get all kinds of slowdown.
Martha, this is going to set us up for 2014 like you can't believe.
And then when 2016 comes around, we are going to clean up.
I never been.
Well, if it's going to enable us to clean up in 2014 and 2016, why do we clean up this week?
And about that, ladies, there's another thing happening, and you knew this.
You instinctively knew this.
I talked about it yesterday.
Let me review just a bit.
In setting up this whole Santa Claus thing, by the way, did that take off or did that, I mean, a little throwaway line here, and it becomes a central discussion point all afternoon yesterday on cable news, and I didn't even be aware of it until I got home.
Anyway, so we're hearing in the election aftermath that, of course, the demography did the Republicans in.
The Republicans just, all they want to do is win votes, win votes with white people.
They just want to win votes with old white guys.
And of course, those days are over.
The old white guys are dwindling in number, and this is a country now where you've got to get the gay vote, you got to get the black vote, get a Latino vote, you got to get the single women vote.
You got the demography.
And the demography, it's killing the Republicans.
So I said, let me ask you a question.
Let's go back to the Republican Convention.
Why not?
We've got more elected Hispanics, Republican Party does, than the Democrats in elective office, federal, state, local, all over the country.
Far more elected Hispanics than the Democrats have.
At the Democratic Convention, we had Condoleezza Race.
One of the most achieved, accomplished people in our country happens to be female African-American, Suzanne Martinez, the Hispanic Latino governor of New Mexico.
Achieved, successful Marco Rubio, Hispanic Republican Senate.
And the list goes on.
There are quite a few minority participants at the Republican convention.
I said, what did they all have in common?
They all had an up-from-nothing story.
Their families or themselves came from nothing.
And their families sacrificed for them.
And they engaged in hard work.
And they overcame all kinds of obstacles to reach the pinnacle of their profession.
And then I said, why doesn't that count?
Well, there's an answer to why that doesn't count.
The hard work story doesn't resonate, but I hate to tell you, but it's not resonating with Obama voters.
We don't have a demography problem, but the Republican Party today is convinced that they do.
And so there are discussions ongoing right now.
I raised the question yesterday.
Are we supposed to now be for amnesty and illegal immigration?
Are we supposed to come out and be pro-life to get those voters?
Are we supposed to support gay marriage, legalize pot?
Is that what we have to do?
That's where it's headed.
What's the answer to that?
Seriously.
Then let me give you a startling bit of news.
And, you know, I mentioned this at the top of yesterday's program, and I apologize to you because it didn't register with me what I was saying at the moment I was saying it.
It's crucially important, and I glossed over it.
It should have stopped me dead in my tracks.
It may have stopped many of you dead in your tracks when you heard me say it.
2.8 million votes is the number of votes Romney lost in the popular vote to Obama.
But get this.
Mitt Romney got 3 million fewer Republican votes than McCain.
Do you realize what that means?
Did anybody, did anybody think that Romney would underperform McCain in Republican turnout?
Nobody did.
Now, let's go back to the polls, the pre-election polls.
And they all were showing Democrat samples of plus six, plus seven, plus eleven.
We poo-pooed it.
Let's go back and remember how these samples happened.
The pollsters do not go out.
Let's say that CNN 4949 tie.
This is the day before the election with a Democrat plus 11 sample.
They don't go out and find a sample.
It says 1,000 people.
They don't purposely find a sample with 11% more Democrats or a sample of plus 11 more Democrats.
It's just the way it happened.
They called their sample of 1,000 people, and of the thousand people, when they finished, that sample had a Democrat plus 11 advantage.
It turned out to be dead right.
Well, not plus 11.
It was Democrat plus 6 or plus 7.
It was dead right.
There was a significant, there were enough Republican votes that sat home.
If the Republicans who didn't vote had voted, Mitt Romney would have won the popular vote by 180,000.
I don't know yet what it might have been in the Electoral College.
And no, I'm not crying over spilt milk.
I mean, this is crucial to understand in terms of what the Republican Party is doing and how they're analyzing why they lost.
They did not lose because of demographics.
3 million of their voters stayed home.
Now, who are they?
We don't know yet.
But let's just, let's play.
Let's say 3 million white voters didn't vote.
Let's say that of the 3 million who didn't vote, half of them are evangelicals.
Let's say some of them are the Ron Paul group.
Let's say some of them just are fed up with Republicans nominating moderates.
Who knows?
We don't know yet.
But it is significant, and it is a mistake.
The Republican Party didn't turn out its base is what happened.
The Republican Party did not turn out their voters.
We did not get beat primarily because of demography.
Now, I'm not, I don't want anybody to misunderstand.
I'm not sweeping the demographic characteristics of the electorate off the table in terms of it being important.
I'm not doing that at all.
That's not the point here.
My point is that there is a whole bunch of erroneous analysis taking place by the Republican Party with the aid and comfort of the Democrats in the media who would love for the Republican Party to give up on its ideologically principled positions.
And the Republican Party, depending on how you hear these sound bites, and in, of course, the panicked aftermath of every election.
I mean, like Boehner.
Boehner, he's a great guy.
He's a good man.
And then Art Laffer was saying, he's a good man.
He's no nicer.
These two guys, I mean, Art Laffer is saying it.
Boehner's a great family, man.
Like Obama's a great family.
They're wonderful guys, but I've never been more optimistic, Martin.
Yeah, right.
Okay.
The night of the election, what was Boehner said?
We are the firewall.
We are the last stand.
There will be no tax increases.
That's out the window now.
Yesterday, Speaker of the House said, Mr. President, we're willing to be led.
We want to be led.
We're willing to put new revenue on the table, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah.
So this happens.
After the 22 midterms, the Democrats learned via the exit polls that they got beat by values voters.
And so for the next two weeks, all the Democrats did was pander to value voters.
It happens.
You can't say that what the Republicans are saying and doing today is going to define what they're going to be doing next year after Obama's imaculated the second time.
But they're making an error, a huge error, if they think that demography did them in.
They didn't get their base out.
Three million Republicans at home.
This is not insignificant.
Obama got 10 million fewer voters than he got in 2008.
There was not, this election was not the way.
The outcome is not the way it's being spun and portrayed for you.
Everywhere in the media, I don't care where you go.
Everywhere it's being spun.
The Republicans lost for the Hispanic vote and the single women vote.
And the Republicans wouldn't have lost if they got their base out.
It's a stunning number.
And it's a number that nobody factored.
Everybody figured it every Republican alive would be voting in this election.
Did we not?
Or am I alone in that?
I'm looking at people across the glass here.
Nobody looks surprised.
I had this number at the top of the hour yesterday, and I mentioned it.
Go back and look at the transcript.
And I just zoomed past it.
It didn't register until last night when I got some corresponding numbers to put it in some sort of perspective.
There's also, ladies and gentlemen, a piece by Heather McDonald.
Now, Heather McDonald is a demographic researcher.
She is a conservative libertarian, I think.
She's the Manhattan Institute.
She is highly reputed, highly respected throughout the conservative academy, the genuine conservative academy.
And she had a piece yesterday that just blew me away.
And in the Wall Street Journal today has an editorial, and it couldn't be further apart, talking about immigrants.
Now, the Wall Street Journal says what most every conservative says.
People immigrate to this country for a better life.
They come here and they want to find the American dream.
They come here and they want to get a job and they want to work and they want to find their way in our culture and climb the ladder and so forth.
Heather McDonald's piece yesterday said that's not true.
Let me read to you what she said.
If Republicans want to change their stance on immigration, they should do so on the merits, not out of a belief that only immigration policy stands between them and a Republican Hispanic majority.
It is not immigration policy that creates a strong bond between Hispanics and the Democrat Party.
Yeah, see, now look at it that way.
Why do the Hispanics gravitate to the Democrats?
The Republicans look at that question and they come up with an answer and then they think they need a competing pitch to get them.
But why?
Why do what is the bond, the strong bond between Hispanics and the Democrat Party?
Well, what's the Democrat Party known for?
Folks, are you ready for some honesty here?
I'm sure Emma may be called what slandering Obama voted.
I'll just read to you, Heather McDonald says here, it is not immigration policy that creates a strong bond.
In other words, Hispanic voters are not voting for Democrats because they're for amnesty.
Hispanic voters are not voting for Democrats because they're open borders.
That's not why Democrats vote for Hispanics.
According to her research, the reason they vote for Democrats is the reason anybody else votes for Democrats.
Santa Claus.
My term, not hers, but I'll just read what she says here.
It is not immigration policy that creates the strong bond between Hispanics and the Democrat Party, but rather the core Democrat principles of a more generous safety net, strong government intervention in the economy, and progressive taxation.
Hispanics will prove to be even more decisive in the victory of Governor Jerry Brown's Prop 30 in California, which raised upper income taxes and the sales tax than in the Obama election.
And lo and behold, we did our morning update on this, Prop 30 in California.
The California citizenry voted to raise taxes on itself.
Now, they're going to get screwed because they were promised there wouldn't be any new spending if they voted for these tax increases.
We've been there, done that.
That ain't going to happen, but they bought it.
But Ms. McDonald's point is that when they break this all down, they're going to find that a decent, large number of Hispanics voted for raising taxes on the rich in California, enough to put Moonbeam over the top on his beloved Prop 30.
So, okay, two competing visions here.
The Wall Street Journal, they come for a better life.
They come to work hard.
They come, you know, the traditional American dream route.
Heather McDonald, they come here because and vote Democrat.
It's not why they come.
Why do they support Democrats?
That's the key.
We want them to support Republicans, theoretically, right?
Okay.
She's simply saying, we've got to be honest here.
They're voting Democrat not because of immigration policy.
They're not voting Democrat because of open border.
The border's already open.
They don't need anybody.
They're voting Democrat because the Democrats are the party of stuff and raising taxes on the rich to pay for it.
Now, you put that together with the fact that 3 million Republicans didn't vote.
And then you add to the mix that the Republicans think they lost because they are not for amnesty.
And I'm telling you, I don't know what you can do but laugh at the futility of it all.
It's not funny.
I don't want you to misunderstand.
But in the panic of defeat, in the aftermath here, and by the way, all the smartest thinking on our side is agreeing.
We got to do something.
We got to moderate our amnesty position.
That's not at all why the Democrats enjoy a majority of the Hispanic vote.
We'll be back, folks.
Don't go away.
Greetings and welcome back.
El Rushball, the Excellence in Broadcasting Network.
No, I first, where did I get these numbers?
I first got the election numbers yesterday from a Wall Street buddy.
And then last night, Jeff Lord at the American Spectator sent me a blurb, and a guy named Sean Trend at Real Clear Politics is analyzing.
These numbers are pretty consistent no matter where you go to find them.
The turnout numbers and so forth.
I don't know that anybody is disputing them.
But folks, that's a separate issue from the point here that the Republicans think they've now got to just somehow moderate their position on amnesty in order to get the Hispanic vote.
Heather McDonald has been at this a long time, and she's not in the business of being wrong either.
She's an academic, and she's just making it very clear: look, it's not immigration policy that makes a Democrat Party attractive to Hispanic immigrants.
It's not.
It's Democrat ideology.
Let me put it to you this way, folks.
If it were true that the primary reason that people, illegal immigrants, were coming here was to work, a Democrat Party would be the ones building the fence on the border.
Why do you think the Democrats welcome them?
Why do you think Democrats want amnesty?
They know that they've got them as voters.
Why do they have them as voters?
Not because they're open borders.
The Republicans fall for this.
You know, La Raza has their meetings and their protests and demand the borders to be open.
And the Republicans believe what is said about them, that they're hated and disliked because they're exclusive.
And so the Republicans, okay, we got to be more inclusive.
You can't look at the Republican convention this past summer and say the Republicans are not inclusive.
The only way you can say the Republicans are not inclusive is because the Republicans are not willing to ignore the law.
But it is a feint.
It is a head fake.
It's a trick.
Just like, don't criticize the president.
That'll really tick off the independents.
Don't do it.
You be critical of the president.
You're going to make the independents mad.
But Romney ran.
He came through double digits in independence, by the way, and it didn't matter, did it?
There's so many things being turned upside down.
Theory turned upside down as we examine the election results.
Anyway, I got to take a brief time out here, my friends, as time zooms by on this program.
Sit tight.
Amberbach Rush Limbaugh, having more fun than a human being should be allowed to have.
I get to do what I was born to do, folks.
I still enjoy it.
I'm having fun here.
Telephone number 800-282-2882.
Look, some of you may be bothered by my little joke about if immigration was about work, the Democrats would be down there building the fence to stop it.
But it used to be, I mean, we're in the middle of some fundamental shifts in this country.
And we are.
If not outnumbered, we're on the way, folks.
I wasn't just trying to use scare tactics yesterday.
It used to be.
In fact, you go back to Reagan.
Reagan voted amnesty in 1986.
Simpson Mazzoli was the name of the bill.
Three million illegals were given amnesty.
Three million.
That was said to be the end of it.
They were going to get really tough on it.
Of course, that didn't happen.
Some Hispanics that were beneficiaries of amnesty back then still hate Republicans.
And even though it was the Republican Party, they gave them the amnesty back in 1986.
Why doesn't that last?
It used to be, it used to be that immigration was about jobs, and the concern was jobs lost.
Even the Democrat Party, because of the unions, was concerned about illegal immigration because of what it meant for jobs.
What happened to that?
Why all of a sudden do the unions no longer care about that?
No, no, folks, got to face these questions.
There are answers to these questions.
Why now does the number one support group of the Democrat Party support amnesty, support illegal immigration?
Why are they not worried about a massive inflow of people across the border?
Could it be that the unions have realized it's not taking jobs?
Could it be they've realized it's not taking that many jobs?
Could it be that Heather McDonald's right that the reason the Hispanic vote lines up with the Democrat vote is because they believe in the expansion of government and what government does.
And they believe in raising taxes on the rich.
See, where the Republicans are making their mistake here is they think that the illegal Hispanics, even legal, they think that the Hispanic vote supports the Democrats because of immigration policy.
And that's not it.
Why does the Democrat Party get votes from anybody?
You got from academia and Hollywood because it's cool and hip.
Everybody else at Santa Claus.
What does inclusive mean?
Republicans aren't inclusive.
I said Doug Schoen yesterday.
I mentioned this to you.
Doug Schoen the pollster, Democrat pollster.
I didn't see any signs of inclusion from the Republican Party in this camp.
What do you mean you didn't see these?
What was the Republican Convention?
Condoleezza Rice, Suzanne Martinez, Marco Rubio, not to mention Clarence Thomas, any number of prominent, achieved, really quality people of great character and morality, and they're all over the Republican Party, and that doesn't count.
And why isn't that called inclusive?
A Republican convention was not a dream.
It really happened, and those people did speak, and they were given prominent roles.
And they were given prominent roles because they were to serve as role models.
They were to show the Hispanic community and the women and the blacks, hey, look, we are a good home for you.
Didn't resonate.
Why not?
Santa Claus, folks.
What does inclusive mean?
When it is said that the Republican Party is exclusive, what does it mean?
Well, I'll give you the answer.
Inclusive means you are willing to give stuff to voting blocs based on gender, skin color, or ethnicity.
If you are exclusive, it means that you aren't.
Nikki Haley, the governor of South Carolina, who was fanned, Mia Love.
She lost on fourth.
Mia Love, great African-American woman in Utah.
I mean, the Republican convention was filled with highly accomplished, highly achieved minorities.
And I know the Republicans pulling their hair.
Why did it work?
Why didn't it work?
Because you're misunderstanding what the Democrat terminology is.
And you're missing the vote if you think that the Democrats are talking about hard work to anybody.
Does really anybody associate the Democrat Party with hard work?
When you think of the Democrat Party, what do you think is the attraction people have for it?
Their compassion.
What does that mean, giving stuff away?
We've got more people unemployed in this country than we've had in a long time.
They're all eating.
They've all got phones.
They've got televisions and they've got food stamps and some of them have cars.
Bobby Jindal, the governor of Louisiana.
I mean, we, we got them everywhere.
We've got great Americans.
John McCain.
John McCain did more for amnesty than any Republican ever has.
Did it help him?
Did he win the election in 2008?
Did John McCain get the Hispanic vote?
Here's the Art Laugher sound.
I cookie went and found this.
I tell you, earlier today, I'm watching Fox News and Art Laughers on, and he says, oh, Martha, I've never been more optimistic in my life.
Coupled with everything else that was on, I just was reduced to almost uncontrollable giddy laughter.
I'm very, very hopeful about what's going to happen, Martha.
I think this was the election not to win.
We have the 2013 tax mageddon that I think is going to lead to a very sharp drop in economic activity.
And, you know, looking at 2014, I'm very excited about how the elections will turn out there.
And 2016, I think, will be the equivalent of 1980.
And we're going to have enormous prosperity in America.
I couldn't be more happy and more optimistic than I am.
That's exactly right.
If there was an election to lose, this was it.
Why didn't we think of that?
You realize how much grief we could have spared ourselves if this is the election to lose.
Because this will really set us up for 2014 and 2016 and real prosperity.
Folks, what's going to happen in the next four years if Obama's true to form?
That's the problem here.
There isn't The mechanism for recovery isn't going to be there.
A guy in Las Vegas did an interview on the radio yesterday.
He's got 100 employees.
Okay, I'm laying off 22 of them.
Why?
Well, because Obama won.
Boeing laying off over 1,000 people.
It's just the beginning here.
Let's go to some of the other soundbites.
This is Terry Moran at ABC.
This is where this is where a nightline I'm slandering Obama supporters.
So, how will Republicans react?
Hey, any of you guys in there when it comes to my chair today?
Anybody?
A shell-shocked Rush Limbaugh offered one option: contempt for Obama's supporters.
They think that the only way they're going to have a chance for anything is if somebody comes along and takes from somebody else and gives it to them.
Santa Claus.
And it's hard to beat Santa Claus.
That old slander that Americans who support Obama are all somehow moochers and takers, it's become bedrock belief for many Republicans.
Okay, contempt for Obama's supporters.
Contempt.
Did you hear any contempt yesterday?
Slander?
But I didn't use the word moochers.
This guy did.
Look, when Santa Claus visited my house, I didn't think of myself as a moocher.
I looked at it as Santa Claus's rule.
That's his duty.
They don't see themselves as moochers.
It's what they're entitled to.
How many people, Santa?
Don't show up.
I don't need it.
Everybody accepts a visit from Santa Claus.
Why, you're entitled to it.
It's a national holiday getting stuff on December 25th.
With the Democrats, it's every day.
We call them moochers.
Anyway, so no, the Obama phone lady is not a moocher.
No, no, no, no.
That's what America is to her.
Let me ask you a question, folks.
Let me put this question to you.
The worse things get economically, the more layoffs that occur, what do you think people are going to say?
You think they're going to call his rush?
We need more free market capitalism.
We need more people willing to go to work.
Or are they going to say, well, thankfully, President Obama will take care of me if those rich, greedy Republicans don't stop him?
What do you think?
As the economy worsens, what are the Obama voters going to say?
I'm not worried.
Obama will take care of me if those rich, greedy Republicans don't stop him.
Or are they going to say, man, you know what?
We need more free market capitalism.
I'm worried about the ratio of GDP to the national debt.
Are they going to say that?
Okay, Jonathan Carl, he was also Good Morning America today.
Used to be a good guy, but the left has totally co-opted him now, I think.
He may still be a good guy.
But when he was at CNN, we all thought that Jonathan Carl might have been a stealth conservative in there.
He's doing a report about Obama's re-election.
Rush Limbaugh almost seemed at a loss of words when describing the Republican defeat.
I went to bed last night thinking we're outnumbered.
I went to bed last night thinking we've lost the country.
Even as returns were still rolling in, Sarah Palin seemed stunned.
Unfortunately, we know what we will get with four more years of Obama.
This really is a catastrophic setback to our economy.
It's a perplexing time for many of us right now.
Was I ever at a loss for words yesterday?
So I didn't hold anybody in contempt.
I didn't call anybody moochers.
And I was not at a loss for words.
I never am at a loss for words.
I know exactly what I'm going to say.
I say it.
I love hearing myself say it.
Oftentimes, so much I repeat it.
But I'm not at a loss for words.
But they can't help themselves.
They just can't.
And here on the Today Show today, Matt O'Wauer, Mal Oauer talking to Haley Barber.
This is just one example of apparently what went on all day yesterday, last night, and some of this morning.
How do you reach out?
I mean, Rush Limbaugh said, how do we reach out and include more of those people without changing our ideology?
What's the answer to that dilemma?
Well, it certainly doesn't have to change ideology.
Ronald Reagan used to say, at the end of the day, good policies, good politics.
And good policy on immigration in the United States is we are in a global battle for capital and labor.
And we need to have what is good economic policy for America on immigration because we do need labor.
We not only need PhDs in science and technology, we need skilled workers and we need unskilled workers.
And we need to have an immigration policy that is good economic policy.
Okay, we shouldn't change our ideology, but we need to, we see, need an immigration bill.
Need an immigration bill.
And that immigration bill needs to send the signal to the Hispanic voters that we're going to be maybe looking the other way at the border.
But it isn't about that.
Again, folks, by the way, what is this business?
We need labor.
We've got 23 million people in this country out of work.
What is this?
We need labor.
We need subminimum wage labor.
I know some of them won't do farm work.
Regardless, the point is the Hispanic vote.
Republicans, if they don't realize this, it's Sionara.
The Hispanic vote is not tied to the Democrat Party because of immigration policy.
It just isn't.
Never has been and isn't now.
And staying with the soundbites for the levity of this whole thing.
Yesterday on this program, I was explaining the outcome as best we had data yesterday.
I said, either we're vastly outnumbered and we've got serious problems or this is the greatest theft of an election.
They're a throwaway line.
To Jennifer Granholm, I accused the Democrats of stealing the election.
Here she is.
This is on, well, what the hell are we even?
Current TV, they got an audience of five.
Oh, well, we'll play it anyway.
Rush Limbaugh, he went even further, saying that there was no way voters could have rejected their poisoned ideology.
So the vote must have been rigged.
We've suffered a setback, folks, but we have not given up on our principles.
And that's important.
Nobody is giving up, but we are facing reality here.
We are either outnumbered and are losing ground or one of the most outrageous thefts of an election in the history of elections taking place.
Now, I threw that last line in there because I had a bunch of people emailing me thinking that's what really happened.
And I was just trying to acknowledge and make them feel better.
I got people that really think that.
You wouldn't believe the crap I get every day to deal with.
Try to acknowledge it.
Just keep people happy.
I don't believe the – anyway, this is just part of the daily rundown.
Howard Dean wanted to get in on this.
He was on NBR Talk of the Nation with the political junkie columnist Ken Rudin, who said, Governor Dean, when you were the Democrat national chairman, you made a point of making this a 50-state strategy, and the reasons the Democrats did so well in 06 was because they did well in all these states.
Do you think in our lifetime this presidential race will go beyond seven or eight states and the rest of the country can participate in it as well?
If you want to knit the country together, you've got to sell your ideas to them.
And so that was the whole feeling behind the 50-state strategy.
You need to be everywhere.
I know we're not going to win in Utah anytime soon, but if you don't go out there and show the respect that the people deserve, whether they're going to vote for you or not, and be the spokesman for your own ideas instead of letting Rush Limbaugh do it, then of course we're going to be a bitterly divided country.
So I do think the Electoral College has something to do with our divisions, and I'm hoping that that will essentially not be the way we elect presidents after a few more years.
It's just funny.
No matter where you went in the media, the left was bouncing off of me.
So since they're bouncing off of me, let me repeat: 3 million Republicans, mainly white voters, didn't vote.
This election result was not the result of a major demographic shift, and it did not happen because the Republicans lost on a major demographic shift.
I'm not denying demographics are changing in America.
The Republicans didn't get their vote out.
Pure and simple.
And the Republicans are in the process of making a huge tactical error if they believe that the way to get the Hispanic vote is to moderate their immigration policy because it is not immigration policy that makes Hispanics vote for Democrats.
It's not about that.
Why does anybody vote for a Democrat?
The Democrat Party is the party of stuff.
The Democrat Party is a party that takes care of you when you don't work.
The Democrat Party is the party that's going to punish the people who do work with higher taxes.
Why does anybody vote Democrat?
It is not Democrat immigration policy.
I'd find anybody to tell you what it is anyway, back after this.
I should make a decision.
The Democrat Party is the party of free stuff.
The Republican Party wants you to have stuff too.
It's just that you ought to earn it.
Earn it, work for it.
But the Democrat Party is party free.
That's the whole Santa Claus business.
I shouldn't have to elaborate, but I'll be happy to.
We'll be back.
▲
Export Selection