All Episodes
Previous Next
Nov. 12, 2012 - Rush Limbaugh Program
37:28
November 12, 2012, Monday, Hour #1
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Welcome to today's edition of the Rush 247 podcast.
I don't know.
I really I don't know what all the hubbub's about.
I really don't.
You see, I remember, I'm old enough, uh, ladies and gentlemen, some of you may not be, but I'm old enough to remember when a reckless affair with a very young woman by a high government official who had access to powerful sensitive intelligence was not a big deal.
I'm old enough to remember when, as long as it didn't get in the way of the work being done, it wasn't anybody's business.
I'm old enough to remember when a high government official had an affair with a very young woman that there was no security risk involved, that there was no possibility of blackmail.
I mean that wasn't really that low well, what, 20 years ago.
No, I keep thinking Clinton twenty fifty-tenye, whatever.
It was it was a fairly long time ago.
It was considered no big deal.
A high government official having an affair with a very young woman was considered no big deal at all to the hip people in New York and Washington.
That was only a problem for the Hicks.
It was only a problem for the Hayseeds.
And now ever well, I'm speaking of Bill Clinton and Monica Lewinsky.
If you go back, nobody had any worries whatsoever about that.
In fact, back then, when something like that happened, what happened?
It trashed the woman.
You go out and claim that that's exactly what you'd get if you drag a dollar bill through a trailer park.
You go out and you bash the woman, the party of women, the party that believes in women, the party that stands up for women, the party that respects women, the party that gives women everything they want, went out and trashed the woman.
And that was considered cool and fine and okay.
But now this Petraeus thing comes along, and there's an entirely different look see into this.
Now everybody's worried about what did she know?
What was Petraeus guilty of?
What was being covered up?
Uh and people, some people appear to want to get to the uh to the bottom of it.
And others don't.
I still find it fascinating.
I'm sorry for I find it fascinating that all this gets released after three o'clock on Friday.
You realize how much stuff gets dumped after 3 p.m. on Friday, not at noon Friday, not at 10 a.m. on Friday, but after 3 p.m. on Friday.
I'll tell you something else about this Petraeus and Paula Broadwell thing that let me snurter, let me use you.
Let's say that one of your girlfriends is really harassing you in email, and you call the FBI and you say, hi, I am Bo Snurgley, and I'm being harassed by a bunch of you think the FBI would drop anything to investigate your problem.
They would t they would tell you to take a hike and ratchet up your spam filter and not to bother them anymore.
But a woman calls the FBI and says she being harassed by somebody.
They don't know it's Petraeus.
I mean, they just they at that point they don't know it's Petraeus.
They stop everything and they start investigating the emails of the woman sending the threatening stuff.
And then at first they think that that Petraeus' email has been hacked.
Then they realize talking about stuff going on under the desk that Petrae is having an affair.
But I don't know how you get the FBI to stop what they're doing and investigate somebody harassing you in the email.
We now know who that was, but uh her name is Jill Kelly, social liaison to McDill Air Force Base over in Tampa.
She is the mystery woman that Paula Broadwell harassed via email leading to FBI probe.
She 37 years old.
She reportedly alerted the FBI several months ago about threatening emails that she had received from Petraeus' mistress, Paula Broadwell.
The mystery woman who blew the lid off Petraeus career ending affair is also tied to the military.
She is, what am I reading from here?
This is the New York Daily News.
She is a sexy social liaison for an Air Force base in Tampa who says that She and Petraeus are quote just friends.
She's 37, married mother of three, alerted the FBI several months ago after receiving emails from Broadwell warning the Tampa socialite to stay away from the spy master.
The Raven haired Kelly, who has an unpaid position as a social planner.
My my point here is she's not a ranking military.
She's she's unpaid social planner.
She's a socialite.
She calls the FBI.
She's being harassed by somebody in the email, I need to investigate.
And they do.
There's so many unanswered questions with this.
Of course, what is it, if anything, have to do with Benghazi?
What, if anything, does it have to do?
Well, have you seen the food stamp news?
You haven't seen the food stamp.
Oh, the numbers of Americans skyrocketed on food stamps skyrocketed.
They'd held the news till after the election.
They held the news till today or over the weekend.
Skyrocketed from the record highs it already was, but they they held the news back.
They held it, and there's there's a sex, a sex scandal all over the place of uh Kevin Clash, the voice of Elmo, and the star puppeteer for PBS.
He's African American, has taken a leave of absence from Sesame Street in the wake of allegations he had a sexual relationship with a 16-year-old boy when he was 45.
Now, Kevin Clash, the voice of El Mo and the star puppeteer for PBS is denying the allegations, but he has acknowledged to TMZ that he had a relationship with the young man, but he insists it only took place after the accuser was an adult.
The accuser met with lawyers for Sesame Workshop.
Clash said, Yeah, I had a relationship with the kid.
It was becoming too it would seem too consenting adults.
I'm deeply saddened he was trying to make it into something it wasn't.
TMZ says that they have learned that Sesame Workshop lawyers recently met with a 23-year-old man who claims that he and Clash began a sexual relationship seven years ago.
At Sesame Street, folks.
Sexual abuse.
A 45-year-old man with a 16-year-old boy at Sesame Street.
Now what's the proper reaction?
No, no, no, Snerdley, that's not the reaction.
Who are we to judge love?
Don't you realize that as Republicans, if we call any attention to this, we're being exclusive and intolerant?
We Republicans must stand and no more comment on things like that because all it does is scare the gay and lesbian crowd away from us.
It shows us to be intolerant and judgmental and rigid.
Not a bad choice of words in this case, but you get the point.
We're not supposed to have an opinion on this.
The left will handle it.
They'll handle it.
The ruling class will handle this.
They'll deal with it a quarter, but it's not for us to say anything about.
Because if we do, I mean, it could also bleed over and offend the Hispanics.
It could offend women.
It could offend uh uh well any number of people.
It's a it's a minor sex scandal.
It's a minor gay sex scandal.
It's on Sesame Street, the voice of El Mo involved here with but it could have been love.
And who are we to deny love and happiness who were this is this is not for us.
We are we're not to go there.
Some questions, uh, ladies and gentlemen.
When Democrats lose elections, and they do lose elections, we all agree.
When Democrats lose elections, do they ever discuss the possibility they may have to become pro-life?
Okay, when Democrats lose elections, do they ever say, you know what?
We may have to give up this gay marriage position of ours and sort of abandon that.
We we we may need to stand up for traditional marriage.
The Democrats ever say that when they lose elections.
No.
Uh after the Democrats lose elections, do they ever say, you know, I think we've got to abandon this effort to to shut down the second amendment?
We're gonna have to understand that we're really out of touch.
We're gonna we're we're alienating our voters who love guns.
We're gonna have to become big advocates of the second amendment.
Did Democrats ever say that when they lose elections?
Um the Democrats, after they lose elections, all run to the media and start agonizing over where they're going wrong.
Do Democrats, when they are losing elections, ever blame their media?
Do they ever say that their media is alienating people?
They ever say their media is too mean spirited.
Do they ever say their media is too dishonest?
Do they ever blame their media when they lose elections?
They don't do that, do they?
When the Democrats lose elections, they tell them, so you know, you better, we better tone down our rhetoric a little bit.
We better dial it back.
We are offending people who go to church, and we're offending people who uh uh uh have a traditional historical view of America.
We better tone it down, we're gonna be in real trouble here.
Do they ever say that?
They lose.
Um the Democrats lose elections, are their comedians blamed as being too harsh and too cruel, filled with hate speech.
No, it doesn't happen.
But we do all of that.
The Republicans are in the process of doing all of that.
Do the Democrats ever, when they lose elections, openly discuss abandoning their core principles.
No, they don't.
What do they do?
They blame the stupidity of voters, and they double down on all of it.
And they say they really didn't lose anyway.
They come up with excuses to explain the loss that does not have anything to do with them.
Just as I predicted, ladies and gentlemen, wait till you hear the sound bites.
This election was lost because of your host, Rush Limbaugh.
I am the primary reason.
There are others, but I'm the primary reason the Republican Party, and I'm, by the way, the primary reason the Republican Party will keep losing until I am denounced by the Republican Party, which I'm gonna predict to you what is today, the uh 12th of November.
I'm I'm gonna lay out a possible scenario where that could happen.
Because we're trending in that direction.
We'll play the sound bites first, and if you want to talk about the Petrayus business, I mean there's a lot more to that stack, obviously.
And we have other news like the food stamp news and uh and and other stuff.
There's it's we're loaded today, folks.
I uh I had to alter my show prep routine today.
There's so much here in varied places that I had to organize.
They take a brief time out, we'll come back, gonna have your phone calls as part of the mix as well.
Telephone number 800-282-2882.
Sit tight, be right back.
Do the Democrats, after losing elections, ever say, you know what, we're gonna have to cut taxes if we are ever going to get back in touch with the American people.
We're gonna have to change our tax increase, and we're gonna have to stop bashing the rich.
We're gonna have to stop calling the rich felons and accusing them of essentially letting women die.
We're gonna have to stop doing that.
They ever say that.
They don't.
They don't, in fact, they don't even ever blame themselves.
They blame events, tricks, or what have you.
They circle the wagons.
They say, well, we just didn't get our message out when they lose.
But they never, they never turn the firing squad on each other.
Even Dan Rather, after that bogus report on George W. Bush and the National Guard, what do they do?
In order to protect the institution of the news media that they run, they gave Dan Rather a series of journalism lifetime achievement awards.
Broco and Jennings arranged it.
Whenever a major Democrat flop or failure or embarrassment occurs, they rally round and they elevate that person so that what they stand for doesn't take a hit.
They will not allow renegade individuals, and they have plenty of them to do any damage to their agenda and what they believe.
We, on the other hand, are the exact opposite.
We lose elections and we start making tracks to abandon our principles and loyalists as fast as we can.
All to pre please them.
Because you remember that piece, Angelo Codvia that uh came out in summer 2010, the American Spectator called the ruling class.
We spent a lot of time here analyzing it and talking about.
That's what we face today.
And our guys, the upper echelon of the Republican Party, want to fashion themselves as members of the ruling class.
We, the country class, we're not in the ruling class.
We're the problem.
Couple of sound bites, then I'll illustrate.
Let's just pick a couple at random.
But grab number one.
Meet the press during the round table.
The guest is Republican strategist Steve Schmidt, who authored the John McCain defeat against Barack Obama in 2008.
Steve Schmidt, the consultant, who came up with the plan that secured defeat in the presidential election, has the answer.
The Republican Party needs to get it together on its outreach to Latinos, and it's good to hear that Lindsay Graham and Chuck Schumer are going to start advancing comprehensive immigration reform again, because we have to get this off the table as a political issue for the party, and we also have to have a zero tolerance with the terrible tone that's coming out of the talk radio universe and some of our leaders in Congress who are serially disrespectful to this fastest growing demographic in the country.
He wasn't finished, he continued.
to too many swing voters in the country when you hear the word conservative now they think of wounds and wackos we gave up five u_s_ senate seats over the last two election cycles by people who were just out there completely extreme manifestly unprepared for the offices that they're running for Our elected leaders are scared to death of the conservative entertainment complex, the shrill and divisive voices that are bombastic and broadcasting out into the homes.
And this country is rejecting the social extremism of the Republican Party on issue after issue.
Actually, uh ladies, that is not what's happening, but the Republican Party is too frightened, and the consultant class is too interested in its own financial well-being to see that.
Do you realize if Mitt Romney had received the votes of every married couple, he would have won in a landslide?
I mean, this the problem the Republican Party gets into is misidentifying the reasons that they lose.
And of course, here you hear that it's me and the entertainment complex, the uh terrible tone coming out of talk radio.
Let me ask.
Let me ask all of you Republicans a question.
Do you really think I have a series of questions here?
Do, and I want you to really think about this now.
Do you really think that the Democrat Party will ever allow you Republicans to be seen as pro-Latino and pro-immigration?
If you do, you are incompetent and unqualified.
It unqualified.
It means you have no idea who you're dealing with.
Do you really believe the Democrat Party and the media will ever allow the Republicans to be seen as pro-Latino and pro-immigrant?
Never happen.
The media and the Democrats will always find a way to say Republicans are anti-immigrant.
As an example, let's give it a give an example.
Let's say that officially, and this is coming.
The Republican Party goes all in for amnesty.
All in.
All it will take is one person.
Either an elected Republican Tea Party member of the House or Senator disagrees.
Or somebody on talk.
All it will take is one person disagreeing with the direction the party is taking, and the Democrats and the media will focus on that person and say, see, the Republicans really are anti-immigrant.
All of this that you're hearing from the Republican Party in Washington is just a fake.
The real Republicans don't want any.
That's what they will do.
They will say that I am the real leader of the Republican Party, and that the Republicans are just faking you out.
They don't really like Latinos.
They don't really like Amnesty.
They're just acting out of fear.
If you Republican officials really think that the Democrats are going to cede any ground to you on this issue, I shudder to think where you are coming from.
But this is, by the way, the track or the path that will be taken to where I will be and others like me will be officially denounced by the party.
But I'm going to tell you, the Democrats will always come up with a position that tests the Republicans' limit.
They'll always find some extreme position that the Republicans just can't agree with in order to be able to claim the Republicans are anti-female, anti-woman, anti-abortion, anti-immigrant.
There's no change in this.
By the way, folks, in the next hour, another creme de la creme sweepstakes offering from 2IF by T. We have some of the best promotion sweepstakes ever to exist in a whole sweepstakes promotion industry.
I got another bang-up opportunity for you to win big coming up.
I'll tell you about it in the next hour.
So, look, all of this was predictable.
Politico has even written a story.
And it starts out Rush Limbaugh could not have been more right.
Goes back and talks about a prediction I made last year.
What would happen if Romney loses Romney?
If Obama wins the election, I predicted what would happen.
Conservatism and the Republicans on talk radio, so we'll be blamed, and the political story is all about how I was right, and that I am to blame to boot.
But you just heard, you just heard Steve Schmidt, who said that you look at all these wacko conservative Tea Party senators.
They have no business running, they had no business, they're not qualified.
We take a look at who lost election.
We had a moderate Scott Brown lost.
Massachusetts, Moderate Christie Whitman, Moderate Tommy Thompson, Moderate Linda McMahon for the second time, moderate Linda Lingle in Hawaiian, and a guy named Berg.
A bunch of other moderate to liberal Republicans lost elections this time.
Same thing in 2010.
But as far as the powers that be are concerned in the ruling class part of the Republican Party, as we've been predicting to you for more than one or two years, folks, that every election loss, it's conservatives who will be blamed because the Republican Party doesn't like conservative.
Now, everybody said, well, why, Rush?
Because conservatives, we're the only group left that doesn't orient ourselves around government.
We're the only group of people left that does not want to earn our living off government.
Everybody else does.
People who vote for the Democrats are unwilling to earn a lifestyle that they desire.
So they vote for people that will give it to them.
Santa Claus.
We have people on our side who want big government and want to be in charge of it, who want to run the committees that parcel out the money.
That's where they derive their power.
So conservatives are a threat to both Republicans and Democrats because we're The one group left that's not oriented toward around government being the center of the universe or the uh the center of everyone's life.
We want to make our way in life without government.
We don't want to feed off of it.
We want to reduce it.
And as such, we constitute a threat.
Marco Rubio won, Ted Cruz in Texas won, Rand Paul won, Mike Lee, a bunch of others, and we got a great bench, and these are all Tea Party conservatives, and they won in spite of the Republican establishment.
The Republican establishment, I'm sorry to say, is nominating people that lose elections.
Bob Dahl, John McCain, Mitt Romney, they all lost.
They were all establishment-backed candidates.
The very people out there blaming talk radio and blaming me today, and really about to make a grievous error in Republican Party principle, or really the architects of this.
But look at it, I'm not trying to play a blame game.
I'm simply reacting to what I'm saying out here, and I want to I just I want to I want to ask this question again, and a series of them.
We're being told, ever since the election, that we have got to build a bridge to Hispanics.
By the way, fine and damned.
I don't want anybody to misunderstand here.
We're talking about principal policy, not whether we like or dislike groups of people.
That's absurd, and it's insulting to constantly hear that we dislike groups of people.
We want the best for everybody.
I don't know how many times, how many speeches I've made, how many blue in the face I have gotten making that statement and holding that desire close to my heart.
I want everybody to do.
I want this to be the greatest country on the face of the earth forever.
Even though that defies history.
You Republicans who think now you're gonna have to moderate your position and stand for amnesty or pathway to citizenship, whatever you want to call it.
Do you really and the Democrats are out there?
You guys have better change your ways.
You guys are gonna have to understand, you better join us on amnesty.
The Democrats want to help us.
This we're back to the ruling class country class business here.
The ruling class made up of Democrats and Republicans, and then they're in Washington.
They want amnesty.
They want the new labor force, they want the new dependence to vote Democrat.
They want all of this for their own reasons.
The Democrat Party really trying to help the Republican Party here?
Or would the Democrat Party prefer the Republican Party be like it was when we had 135 members of the House and Bob Michael was the Republican leader and we didn't even go to meetings?
And that wasn't that long ago.
The Republicans just won control the House of Representatives in 1992 for the first time in 40 years.
We were in the wilderness for a long, long time.
And is that is that anybody really think any of you consultants or Republicans really believe that Democrats are trying to help us change our policy to improve our electoral position.
Do you really think that the Democrat Party will allow you to be seen as pro-Latino or pro-immigrant?
Because if you do, you are failing to understand who you are in competition with in the political arena.
The Democrats, the media will always find a way to say that you are anti-immigrant.
I'll repeat my example again.
Say the official, the Republican Party, everybody in Washington goes all in for amnesty, or a compromise on it, comprehensive immigration reform.
You know that there will be voices out in the country who will oppose that.
Millions of them, millions of them, millions of Republican voters are going to oppose that.
And they're going to speak up.
And all it will take is one of them.
A local congressman, a member of the House, somebody on the radio, somebody on TV, somebody in Fox.
All it's going to take is one person, and the Democrats have their target.
And that person will be portrayed as who really speaks for the real Republican Party at the official Republican establishment saying it's pro-amnesty or pro-Latino, pro-immigrant really isn't.
They're fooling you, they're lying to you.
You know they don't like you.
You know this is coming, folks.
It's just going to take one person.
Somebody like me, for example, disagreeing, and the media and the Democrats will then focus on me and other Republicans, too.
And Limboy, he's still the leader of these people.
Limbaugh don't want any part of this, and that means Republican voters never go along for it, because Limbaugh has more sway over Republican voters than Republicans do.
And that, my friends, is the path to me being denounced.
How that will happen is I will be portrayed, or somebody else, what who whoever they need to get rid of, will be proclaimed as the real leader of the Republican Party.
And the Democrats and media say, are you going to stand up?
If you really believe you're pro-immigrant and pro-amnesty, you better you better denounce, and it'll happen.
You better denounce Limbaugh.
Because until you do that, you're never going to be perceived by the people as pro-Latino pro immigrants, as long as Limbaugh's out there.
So it will happen.
It's only a matter of time.
It will happen.
I can almost predict to you on a list of five people who will do it.
But it will happen.
And I want to take you back again.
Does anybody think the Democrats want to see Republicans help themselves on the issue of immigration or abortion or any other social issue on which the Democrats think they have a decided advantage?
Arriving Hispanic illegals, vast majority of them view government as the source of wealth.
And any of you Republicans who think the Democrats are going to cede these voters to you.
What you Republicans had, you ought to think about this.
I don't necessarily think that you will, but I think you ought to think about what you're really doing.
You are acting complicit in the importation and the registering of millions more Democrat voters.
That will be the end result of this.
Now, at the end of the day, you might feel good about yourselves because you'll say you were for amnesty or a pathway to citizenship or you wanted to moderate the Republican tone or what have you, but I don't see any evidence that Democrats want to give away any of those voters to you.
Am I wrong about this, Mr. Snertley?
Am I am I misunderstanding is Democrats?
I know they're the party of charity and helping people out and welfare.
Are they really trying to help the Republicans here?
Are they?
Why would the Republicans want to do anything that will help Democrats register more voters?
Fear of what?
Okay, so fear of losing the Hispanic vote for generations like they have lost the black vote for generations.
Okay, well, what let's what would be the key to getting a larger percentage of the black vote?
What policy adjustments, what steps could the Republican Party take to make enroads there too?
What let me uh let me let me ask you Republicans might try to end slavery like they did.
Now, let's let's say, folks, in the next few years, the Republican Party officially announces the end of its opposition to abortion.
Believe me it wants to.
Do not doubt me.
The Republican Party wants to kick that issue out of their platform.
So let's let's pretend that they do.
Next question.
How many of you think that the women of this country, single women of this country will all of a sudden stop everything and say, wow, wow, we love the Republicans now?
And by the way, how many of you really believe, again, that the Democrats will permit this and their media will permit this.
They get away with running commercials claiming Mitt Romney's a felon, that he sat idly by why a man's while a wife man's wife died.
See, they can do all that, by the way, and nobody says that that has no place in our politics.
Our consultants never are critical of any of the lies and the mean spiritedness or the extremism of the left.
But on their own side, things that aren't extreme and aren't mean spirited are called those things, and then the Republicans act all embarrassed.
My point is this for any of you Republicans who care, the Democrats will always be able to find a limit, an extreme policy position beyond which you Republicans will not go and agree with them.
I don't care, abortion, immigration, uh taxes, whatever, the Democrats will always be able to find a position so radical and so extreme that you Republicans can't agree with it, and at that point, what are you?
You are the anti-party all over again.
In the media and in the public conscience, the Democrats are going to win every dispute.
That's where we are in our culture right now.
The Democrats do not stop until they win every dispute.
That's the rule.
The Democrats win every dispute.
And any and all Republican opposition to whatever Democrat positions there are will always be labeled as anti person.
Gotta take a break.
A little long in this segment.
Sit tight, my friends, coming back with much more after this.
Don't go anywhere.
We're going to go to the phones here in just a second, but I want to share with you just an excerpt from John Podoretz in a column he wrote recently.
He said the ultimate truth about this election is that if you this may not be Pedoritz, he's quoting somebody here.
The ultimate truth about this election is that if you do things that convince voters you are deliberately insulting them, then they are not going to like you.
Middle ground means holding firm to basic principles while finding a way to talk about them that will not only appeal to more people, but will actually convey the justice, moral power, strength, and elevating quality of these ideas.
Now, what that means is that Democrat voters felt insulted by what they were hearing.
Did Mitt Romney insult anybody?
As I recall, Mitt Romney was a gentleman's gentleman throughout the campaign.
In fact, who who was it that in fact was insulting throughout this campaign?
Whose campaign was built around the insult?
It was Obama's.
The entire Obama campaign was oriented around lying about and destroying the integrity and character of Mitt Romney, just as it is with every one of their opponents.
Clarence Thomas, Robert Bork, you name it.
Why is it that voters are never turned off by the rhetoric that actually comes from Democrat leaders?
Not their media.
Harry Reid, no way before the election, there's no way I'm working with Romney.
There is no way I'm not.
The rhetoric that comes from the Democrat Party is mean spirited, it is extremist, it is filled with lies, it is oriented toward the actual destruction of someone's credibility and character, if not their career.
And somehow never are hands wrong over that.
So we are left to conclude that the new rules of the game are that the Democrats can say anything they want about their opponents.
And they can say it however they wish.
And there will not be one problem with it.
And there will not be any Republican consultant to claim that it is unhelpful to our civility, to our overall political discourse and dialogue.
Let Republicans or media come along and defend these lies and attempt at the same time to tell the truth about the Democrats, and that's not permitted now.
That's that's loony.
That's mean spirited.
That's so the rules are written and they're stacked.
And the same ones don't apply to both sides.
I gotta take another timeout.
I meant to get a phone call in here.
I really did.
▲
Export Selection