All Episodes
Previous Next
Nov. 12, 2012 - Rush Limbaugh Program
31:19
November 12, 2012, Monday, Hour #3
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
And the views expressed by the host on this program documented to be almost always right.
90 uh 99.7% at a time.
Great to have you here as we kick off on Mother Full Week of Broadcast Excellence.
A telephone number if you want to be on the program 800-282-2882, the email address Lrushbaugh at EIBNet.com.
Um Abe Greenwald at Commentary Magazine.
You can find people all over the country who think the country's finished.
I have a couple of pieces here today.
In fact, I was going to quote from them, lay them aside, that believe we've reached a tipping point, and the fact that we could lose an election with these circumstances can only mean that America as founded is over.
But I want to share with you an alternate view from a guy named Abe Greenwald at Commentary Magazine.
And he basically makes the point that we're in the middle of a personality cult here.
That Obama is leader of a cult in a sense.
His point is that the president's re-election is not evidence of a new liberal America, but rather of the illogical and confused experience that is infatuation.
He says it's in the nature of personality cults to fail at most things beyond generating and disseminating propaganda.
They're all good at that, but they fail at everything else.
This inability is the result of two things.
First, the personality's popularity isn't results driven.
Since adoration hasn't been earned by achievement, but rather by charisma.
You'll kill yourself trying to get results.
Second, few people are willing to candidly critique the personality at the center of the cult, so there is little chance of course correction.
None of this bodes well for Obama and for the country's sake.
Let's hope it's wrong, he writes.
In fact, his point is the Democrats better start soul-searching.
So, And that assumes, of course, they have a soul to search for.
Barack Obama ushered in America's first large-scale experiment in personality cult politics.
The experiment continues apace.
Obama got re-elected because he enjoys a degree of personal popularity disconnected from his record.
No modern president has ever returned to office with unemployment figures and right track wrong track numbers as poor as those Obama has achieved.
As we all know, he could not run on his record, which proved to be no problem.
Americans didn't vote on his record.
According to Exit Poll, 77% of voters said the economy is bad.
Only 25% said they're better off than they were four years ago.
But since six in ten voters claim the economy is a number one issue, it's clear this election wasn't about issues.
The president's re-election is not evidence of a new liberal America, but rather of the illogical and confused experience that is infatuation.
And he goes on again to say that it's the nature of personality cults to fail at most things beyond generating and disseminating propaganda.
I don't know.
It's an interesting it's an interesting take.
I just wanted to share it with you as an example of the kind of stuff that is out there since much of the program today has been devoted to the usual Republicans blaming everybody but themselves, blaming their supporters, blaming their advocates, Republicans apparently on the verge of making policy adjustments that will expand the Democrat Party.
Well, that's what they're doing.
Again, does anybody really think the Democrats want to help the Republicans?
Does anybody think the Democrats just gonna sit idly by and let the Republicans become pro-Latino?
The Democrat Party's whole message, their whole reason for existing is that the Republican Party's anti-humanity.
The Republican Party and conservatives hate everybody, hate women, hate Latinos, hate blacks.
The Democrats any Republican think that you can overcome that.
Not even overcome it.
Any of you Republicans think you can get the Democrats to stop talking that way?
By agreeing with them?
You think they're going to let you get away with it?
I am I'm actually I I'm stunned.
And who is it giving all this advice?
People who are the architects of our election losses.
People who've never participated in a winning campaign have all the answers.
And a lot of it's rooted in media jealousy.
A lot of it is uh is is is rooted in being irrelevant within the group and they want to matter.
A lot of it is saying things to be accepted by the Democrat ruling class.
But none of this is oriented toward winning elections, even though they may think it is.
Now the Petraeus business, folks.
Right before the election, we learned of a Democrat senator who went down to the Caribbean and was engaging in orgies, sponsored by a donor, a Democrat by the name of Bob Menendez.
It didn't matter.
It didn't matter to anybody.
Nobody cared.
In 1996, 1997, whatever, 1995, whatever, I forget the years.
Lewinski story broke, and we learned that Bill Clinton, the highest government official in the land, was having a tawdry multiple month affair with an intern who was 19, and nobody uttered one bit of concern over national security threats, blackmail threats.
In fact, everybody came out to defend him.
Hey, it's just sex.
Hey, and I didn't affect the way he did his job.
It's none of your business.
Between him and his wife in a vast right-wing conspiracy.
And who are you to start attacking love?
Doesn't the world need a little more love?
Now David Petraeus is discovered to have been in an affair with his biographer.
And a third woman in a triangle was sending emails to the FBI or was asking the FBI to investigate threatening emails, and the FBI stopped everything and did it.
You try that.
Snerdley, I want you to call the FBI this afternoon after the program and tell them you're getting harassing emails from somebody in the Philippines.
And see if they will conduct an investigation.
Well, okay, Singapore, I don't care where.
You just tell them you're getting threatening emails, and I want to know if they stop everything and look into it.
Now the father of Paula Broadbeam, the uh no, I'm sorry, Broadwell, has defended his daughter today.
This is the UK Daily Mail, as an exceptional person, saying he supports her 100% after details of her sordid affair with the decorated general were made public.
General Petraeus' relationship with Broadwell, his biographer revealed Friday after the EIB network had completed, after three o'clock on Friday, after an FBI investigation, which suspected corruption between the pair.
Broadwell's father, Paul Kranz, a retired high school basketball coach, suggested that the revelations that led to Petraeus resigning as CIA director have been used to cover up a bigger scandal.
Mr. Kranz told a UK Daily Mail online today that the shock of the past few days, just beginning of the process.
He spoke on the snow covered drive of his modest bungalow in Bismarck, North Dakota, where he lives with his wife Nadine.
He said, I've been advised by lawyers not to talk right now.
This is private property.
I hope you understand this is the beginning of a process.
I can't say more than that.
I couldn't if I wanted to.
This is about something entirely.
Or something else entirely, and the truth will come out.
He said all this while saying he wasn't going to talk about it.
So now we say, okay, what is it really about then?
It turns out that Paula Broadwell has been giving speeches and telling people what it's about.
In part.
She said she was making a speech.
See, what was this?
Petraeus mistress suggests Benghazi attack aimed at secret CIA prison.
Now, I don't know when she said this, but it's recently.
Now I'm making a speech, and I don't know if a lot of you have heard this, but the CIA annex in Benghazi had actually taken a couple of Libyan militia members prisoner.
And they think that the attack on the consulate was an effort to try to get these prisoners back.
And that's still being vetted, Broadwell said during the Q ⁇ A session of her presentation when an audience member asked her to comment on the Libya.
So you libs are all thinking Obama has shut down CIA secret prisons.
But Broadwell says that the CIA annex in Benghazi was one.
Or could possibly have been, that some prisoners might have been renditioned there, that there were a couple of Libyan militia members prisoner there, and that the whole attack was to get them out.
Now I don't care whether true or not, it certainly is not anything to do with the video.
It certainly has nothing to do with insulting Muhammad.
And the headline, this is from Breitbart.com, Petraeus Mistress suggests Benghazi attack aimed at secret CIA prison.
That's that's one version, and then it it turns out that she gave a lecture in Denver back on October 26th.
And in that lecture, she claims the CIA Annex in Benghazi did ask for help but didn't get any.
She also claims, as I told you, the attack on the consulate was intended to lead to the rescue of some prisoners being held at the CIA Annex.
In fact, she confirmed reports from Fox News that the men in the CIA Annex had asked for help from the commander in chiefs in extremist force.
She admitted in this lecture that the request for help went all the way to the top.
Petraeus was telling her things.
She said there was a failure in the system.
She said that Petraeus knew all of this, but that he wasn't allowed to talk to the press because of his position.
She's telling people this in a lecture.
Now that's pretty serious, since Petraeus did brief Congressman soon after the attack in a closed door session, and he doesn't seem to have told them any of this.
Because when it got out that Broadwell said, yeah, there are a couple prisoners in there, and yeah, there was a request for help from the commander-in-chiefs in extremist force.
Apparently, Petraeus told her that, but he didn't tell Congress that.
And then this bit about the CIA annex having taken a couple of Libyan militia members prisoner, and that the CIA thought the attack on the consulate was an attempt to get them back.
It's interesting to note the CIA's denial of this claims that Broadwell may have been talking about the Fox News report, but Fox never mentioned anything about CIA taking prisoners.
and So this is another tangled web of deceit.
That has uh been and then all of this is brought down because a third a second woman in the triangle over at McDill Air Force Base, who has nothing to do with anything officially.
She's a she works in the social services office over there.
Her name is Jill Kelly was apparently getting threatening emails from from Broadwell saying, stay away from my guy.
So Jill Kelly, social liaison, the McDill Air Force Base, called the FBI.
She's 37, mother of three, says here she's a looker, raven-haired looker, mystery woman blew the lid off Petraeus' career-ending affair tied to the military, a sexy social liaison for the Air Force Base in Tampa.
Says she and Petraeus were just friends.
She married Mother of Three, alerted the FBI several months ago after receiving emails from Broadwell, warning her to stay away from the general from the from from Petraeus.
The Raven-haired Kelly, who has an unpaid position as a social planner for McDill Air Force Base, said in a statement yesterday that her relationship with Petraeus was platonic, dating to when Petraeus ran the U.S. Central Command from the base.
So she made it out like Broadwell was jealous of her.
And Broadwell was sending her emails warning you stay away from my guy.
So she felt threatened enough to call the FBI.
The FBI looked into it, started examining emails.
They first thought that Broadwell had hacked into Petraeus' email, and they got very, very concerned about national security and secrets, and oh no, what do we got going on here?
Petraeus knows none of this is going on.
They keep looking and looking, and finally, they find out that Petraeus and Broadwell are having sex under the desk or what have you, leads into believers in a fair going on.
And then I don't even know the timeline when Obama was told.
I don't because I don't know who to believe.
All I know is if the powers at B have any control over this story, the outcome will only be one that benefits the Democrat Party.
If they have any control over this at all, there will not be an outcome that harms Obama.
There will not be an outcome that harms the Democrat Party.
And while I don't know how serious it was, there was talk at some point that Petraeus would make an ideal presidential candidate, right?
On the Republican side.
Well, sorry, on our party, in our party, this is not a resume enhancement.
So you factor that into this as well.
Be right back, folks.
Okay, to the phones we go.
Charleston, Virginia, this is Chris.
Great to have you, sir, on the program.
Thank you for waving.
Hi.
Rush, it's a huge honor to speak with you.
I'm in Charleston, South Carolina, just so you know.
Oh, sorry.
Sorry, I can't get anything right today.
No, you're doing great.
I agree with all of the reasons you've given that played a role in Obama's re-election, but one that I haven't heard you mention is something that the president recommended himself, and it was to vote for him out of a sense of revenge.
Uh well, as far as the fact that his voters voted for him, you can't rule that out.
I think he knew that would and did resonate with his with his base, and I do think that one of the things that animates people on the left is getting even in quotes with anyone that doesn't agree with them.
There's no question about that.
There is no qu they take greater satisfaction in defeating us than they do the advancement or success of their own agenda.
Exactly.
Well, okay, I'll I'll grant that, and what it what it all means is is that Obama did not reach out gloriously and magnanimously and inclusively like we're being told we have to be.
The Democrats can win with ruthless, mean-spirited, lying character assassination.
It works.
They win.
Nobody ever tells them.
And they never tell themselves, "You know what?
We're not inclusive enough." They can go out, they can distort, they can lie, they can destroy the character and the career of their opponents, and that's fine.
That's considered brilliant politics.
And the Republicans lose, and "Oh, we weren't inclusive enough.
Oh, we weren't nice enough.
Our people on the radio sound too mean." It's just...
Meanwhile, it is...
The more you look into it, the more you get a feel for it.
the uh the the greater the realize that there's still a reluctance to accept the nature of our enemy and deal with them accordingly to explain why we're losing these elections.
And sorry, that ain't happening here.
We know who the enemy is here.
We know who the opponent is.
It's not the enemy.
See, that's not a good word.
You're just dividing people, Russian.
You're just you just alienating me.
Call him the enemy.
What are they calling you?
Murderers and felons.
They're calling you extremists, hate mongers and so forth.
That doesn't seem to bother you.
Anyway.
Uh good point, uh, Chris.
I appreciate it.
Um Americans enrolled in Medicaid in 2011, one out of every five Americans.
That's a record.
That is twenty-two percent of the population.
Means there's one person on Medicaid for every five Americans in 2011.
Medicaid's intended for the poor.
It's just it's just another item.
It's like the food stamp number.
It's just it's more systemic failure of the American system, authored and controlled by the Democrats, and has put us on a path that cannot possibly be sustained.
I gotta take a time out here, and we'll be back after this.
I want to play a couple more sound bites here.
I was I I'm still not quite sure how to interpret this.
First up is David Gregory playing a soundbite of me to a uh uh Democrat congressional member elect named Joaquin Castro, Democrat Texas.
He plays a soundbite to this guy of me, and then asks this uh this newly elected Democrat to react to it.
So here's the first part.
You have the likes of Rush Limbaugh taking to the radio on the issue of immigration, Congressman.
This is what he said on Wednesday.
Don't tell me the Republican Party doesn't have outreach.
We do.
But what are we supposed to do now?
We supposed to, in order to get the Hispanic or Latino vote, does that mean open the borders and embrace the illegals?
Is that what I'm I want you to think about this?
Is that what it means?
Is that what the Republican establishment said?
We gotta reach out to Hispanics.
Is that what they mean?
If we're not getting the female vote, do we become pro-choice?
Do we start passing out birth control pills?
Is that what we have to do?
Now, what was not played in that monologue for this Congressman was my recounting of the Republican convention.
And I pointed out that we have some of the most highly achieved and highly accomplished minorities in this country in the Republican Party.
And I pointed out we have more elected Hispanics in the Republican Party than the Democrat Party.
And I pointed out that every one of these people that showed up at our convention, be it Marco Rubio or Susanna Martinez, Susanna Martinez, or whoever it was, Condoleezza Rice, uh Mia Love, they all had a common story, and it was all based on up from nothing.
It was all based on hard work, it was all based on families who made sacrifices for their kids, the kids took advantage of it and they became the best they could be.
And I was asking, which of course Gregory didn't play for this guy, so asking, look, if that doesn't work, if that does not show that we are inclusive, then what are we to do?
And that's when he picked up the soundbite.
Are we too all of a sudden say, okay, we're we're for illegal immigration, we are for abortion.
Is that where it I was asking the question rhetorically.
Now here is the answer from Joaquin Castro, who did not hear the whole bite.
He didn't hear the first half of what I just told you.
That's very telling because part of the fundamental problem with a big wing of the Republican Party is that when they think of Hispanics, they think Of folks who are illegal immigrants.
No.
What they need to accept is that Hispanics, Latinos are part of this American family, and they're not going anywhere.
See, that's the point.
That's exactly what I said that he didn't hear.
And this is what happens.
We have outreach.
We have inclusion.
We have some of the most prominent Hispanics in this country in our party.
Some of those prominent and highly achieved blacks are in our party.
It is not me talking about immigration and opening the border.
It's the party doing it.
I'm not.
It's our party doing that.
And I was asking last week, is that what we're going to do?
And apparently the answer is yes.
So this guy, Joaquin Castro, through no fault of his own, is mischaracterizing what I said because he wasn't played the whole thing.
But now he's falling into the trap that, oh, see, they only think of us as illegal immigrants.
No, nope, not at all.
We think of Hispanic just the exact opposite.
But that never is heard.
Nobody's ever informed of that.
What we really believe is lied about and distorted, as this is.
And we get this response from Mr. Castro, who's answering because he's not fully informed on the question that he's been asked.
Here's the rest of his bite.
You have folks that have been here who are second generation, third generation, fourth generation Americans, and they're making them feel like they're not part of the United States.
And that's a fundamental problem that goes beyond tone.
It goes beyond rhetoric.
And it actually goes beyond who you elect to Congress or the Senate.
They've got Ted Cruz, Marco Rubio, and others now.
But it's more than just the personalities, it's the policies they pursue.
Now, what does that tell you?
He just said, Rubio, Cruz, that doesn't matter.
What do they believe?
They don't believe the right things.
See?
Rubio, Mr. Conservative, Ted Cruz, Mr. Tea Party conservative.
Both of them, in fact, that doesn't count.
He admitted it here.
Joaquin Castro admits it.
Yeah, they got Cruz and Rubio and others now, but it's more than just the personalities.
Well, I'm sorry.
They won elections based on their policies.
They won election based on the policies they pursue.
See, this is this is my whole point here.
Rubio and Ted Cruz don't count with this guy.
They don't count because they're conservatives.
So I'm to conclude that Mr. Castro is telling us that conservative Hispanics is not going to help the Republican Party.
Is that not what he's saying?
Isn't he essentially admitting that I am right, that it's about liberalism.
It's about Santa Claus.
It's about what the Democrats offer.
And if we want to be taken seriously, according to this guy Castro, if we want to be taken seriously by the Hispanic population, we better understand that our conservative guys aren't going to cut it.
That's exactly what he's saying here, and he didn't even know it.
And Gregory doesn't even know it.
And sadly, 99% of the people watching this did not conclude the right thing either because they weren't presented with the whole picture.
But Joaquin Castro is basically admitting that we're right.
He says, look, we got Hispanics here that are second, third, fourth generation of them.
It's exactly what I said about the kind of minorities that we had at our convention and the story that they tell.
Rubio told the story of his father and grandfather.
So did Mia Love.
So did Suzanne Martinez.
But it doesn't count because all they are is personalities.
Yeah, you got Rubio and Cruz and others now, but it's more than personalities.
It's the policies they pursue.
What policies do Marco Rubio and Ted Cruz pursue?
They pursue conservatism.
And Mr. Joaquin Castro, newly elected Democrats, they ain't going to cut it with the Hispanic community.
Ergo.
We're right.
Ergo.
If we want to get the Hispanic vote, we're going to have to be liberal.
That's what he's saying.
There's no other way to look at it.
There's no other way of interpreting this.
Sadly, nobody, I guarantee you, not one person in the Republican leadership or our inside the Beltway media or consultancy is going to at all hear the right message.
They're not going to get that.
They're not.
And it's plain as day.
All you have to hear in that soundbite.
Yeah, they got Ted Cruz and Marco Rubio and others, but it's the policies they pursue that are hurting them in the Hispanic community.
And the policies are conservative.
Ergo.
Barack a clause.
Back after this.
By the way, Joaquin Castro, he was prominently displayed at Democrat convention.
His mother's Rosie Castro, you know, lifelong, lifelong Democrat activist.
And Joaquin Castro has spent his whole life in government or protesting it or something.
But he inadvertently proved my point that I made at the very beginning of the program.
Marco Rubio is a sponsor of something called a DREM Act.
And when you strip it all away, it includes provisions for great relaxation on immigration policy.
It's not enough.
For Joaquin Castro.
He still can't embrace Marco Ruby.
Marco Rubio is not the kind of Republican these guys are talking about when they talk about restrictions and alienating Hispanics and so forth.
So Marco Rubio is moving in their direction.
And he still goes on meet the press and impugns him.
There's folks, they are not going, and you you understand this.
They're not going to welcome you in this immigration issue, and they're not going to let you have any of their voters.
They're not going to surrender the issue to you.
I don't know.
It's um.
They talk about Democrat voters like, well, they are Democrat property.
Democrat voters are the property of the Democrat Party, and they need more of them.
As they either abort each other out of existence or they become conservatives.
They need more of them.
And a Republicans is going to move right in and help them bring more in.
And at the end of the day, somebody, it is hoped, is going to like the Republicans a lot more.
Dearborn Michigan, David, great to have you, sir, the EIB network.
Hello.
Thanks for taking my call, Rush.
Uh, I know I gotta talk fast, so I'm just wondering.
I'm sitting here scratching my head after 18 months of electioneering, which focused on jobs and the economy, how these guys got the message that we all want a comprehensive immigration reform.
And if I was sitting outside this country and watching the MSNBC feed on my cable station, I'd be packing my bags, getting my kids ready, my friends, and heading for the border of the United States.
So these guys are.
It's an interesting.
It's an interesting question.
We did have what, 18 and 18 months, year and a half on the economy.
And the election ends, and the Republican Party, you know what?
We lost this because of immigration.
We lost this because we're not reaching out to Hispanics.
Their whole convention was minority after minority after minority, illustrating how we reach out and we are inclusive.
It's an interesting point.
We got the worst economy in the last 50 years for real, and we couldn't capitalize on it.
So it couldn't have been the economy.
It had to be, it had to be.
And of course, all it takes is just one Democrat or media person say, well, you just you ticked off all the women and you ticked off all the immigrants.
And a Republicans say, Yep, yep, you're right, because they instinctively want to get rid of conservatives or social values voters from their um from their mix.
So, yeah, but 20 million, 12 million whatever it is, new Americans.
That's gonna do great things for unemployment.
Remember, folks, to if by tea.com, that's the website, tea at a special price the next two days, big promotion, big sweepstakes.
▲
Export Selection