All Episodes
Previous Next
June 19, 2013 - Rush Limbaugh Program
37:33
June 19, 2013, Wednesday, Hour #2
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Meeting and surpassing all audience expectations every day.
This is Rush Limbaugh, the real anchorman of this country, America's truth detector, the doctor of democracy.
On this, the most listened-to radio talk show in the country.
It's a delight to be here.
It's a thrill to have you here.
And we roll on.
Our telephone number, we're going to get the calls in this hour, 800-282-2882.
And now we'd like to welcome to the program for the first time freshman senator from Texas, Ted Cruz, who wants to weigh in on a number of things, including the Gang of Eight immigration bills.
Senator, welcome.
It's great to have you here, sir.
Rush, it's great to be with you.
Thank you for your clarion voice for liberty every single day.
Thank you, sir.
We had a great interview with Senator Cruz in the Limbaugh Letter not long ago, so I have spoken to him on a previous occasion.
And, sir, you're the real deal.
You're fearless.
You're a freshman.
You're acting like you've been there three terms.
Well, as you know, a lot of Americans are fed up.
They're fed up with Democrats, and they're fed up with Republicans.
They're fed up with politicians in Washington who don't stand for anything.
And it's how we've gotten in this mess.
It's how we've gotten $17 trillion in debt.
And if we keep doing business as usual, it's how we're going to pass yet another amnesty bill that doesn't fix the problem.
And I think Americans are really fed up with that, and we need to stand up and stop it.
Would you explain to people why this is amnesty?
Because Congressman Ryan says he'll debate anybody that says it's amnesty.
Tell them it's not.
The gang says it's not amnesty.
They say it's a pathway out of the shadows into citizenship.
But you call it amnesty.
Why is it amnesty?
This Gang of Eight bill is a disaster.
It is the exact same thing we saw in 1986.
The last big immigration reform was 1986.
And the federal government told the American people, we're going to grant amnesty for the 3 million people who are here illegally.
And in exchange for that, we're actually going to secure the borders.
We're going to solve illegal immigration.
The problem is going to go away.
Now, we saw what happened.
The amnesty happened.
The borders never got secured.
And now three decades later, instead of 3 million people, it's 11 million people.
Is it 11 or is it ⁇ do we really know how many it is?
We don't know.
I mean, the estimates vary, 11 million, 12 million.
We don't have an exact number.
But it is three to four times bigger than what it was in 1986.
And we're hearing the exact same empty promises.
What the Gang of Eight bill does is it grants legalization now.
It takes everyone who's here illegally and says you're legal.
And then just like 1986, it promises sometime in the future, trust us, wink-wink, we'll secure the border.
Now, I don't think the American people are that foolish.
Fool me once, shame on you.
Fool me twice, shame on me.
And this is if this bill is enacted, it will make the problem worse.
If this bill is enacted in another decade or two, we're going to be back here not with 11 million, but with 20 million or 30 million people here illegally.
And this is a broken system.
I think what Americans want is fix the problem, stop playing political games, actually secure the border, and make a legal immigration system that works.
Senator, you've been obviously observing and commenting on political life in America for a long time.
You've been in the Senate now for six months.
Could you explain to me and people in this audience why do the Democrats want this and why do the Republicans who support this want it?
Well, the Democrats want this for pure politics.
Chuck Schumer was very candid in the Senate Judiciary Committee when he said, if there is no citizenship, there can be no reform.
This is all about their endeavor.
They want to grant amnesty and they hope to get a lot more Democratic voters.
Or they want this to be voted down and use it as a political issue in 2014 and 2016.
On the Republican side, sadly, a lot of the support of it is political as well.
You know, after 2012, all of the Washington political consultants and all the mainstream media came to Republicans and said, you've got to do better with Hispanics, and the way to do better with Hispanics is to embrace amnesty.
And look, a lot of Republicans in Washington were scared.
I've got to tell you, I think that political argument is complete nonsense.
If you look at the last time we enacted amnesty in 1986, the next election was 1988.
The Republican share of the Hispanic vote went down.
It is not the case.
Hispanics are not these single-issue monolithic voters.
As you know, my dad was an immigrant from Cuba with nothing.
And many Hispanics believe in rule of law.
And you've got a bunch of Republican, long-time office holders in Washington who are scared and listening to the consultants.
Let me tell you an interesting poll number.
In Texas Rush, we polled Hispanic voters in Texas and asked them, number one, do you support more border security?
68% of Hispanic voters in Texas support more border security.
But the second question is even more revealing.
Hispanic voters, we asked, do you support a pathway to citizenship or work permits that do not allow citizenship?
And a plurality, 46% of Hispanic voters in Texas supported a work permit without citizenship, and only 35% supported a pathway to citizenship.
This is a crock that is being sold to Republican politicians that they can just buy off Hispanics.
And frankly, it's offensive, but it's being sold as pure politics.
Whereas talking to Senator Ted Cruz from Texas about the Gang of Eights immigration bill, Senator Graham was on TV Sunday, basically said that we need to do this, just as you said, get back in the good graces of the Hispanic community.
And I think you're right.
The consultants are telling Republicans.
You can tell somebody anything.
The fact they believe this is what's frightening to me.
Because where does this stop, Senator?
If, for example, we've got to get back in the good graces of Hispanics, therefore we have to support amnesty and throw out what we believe, then what's next for abortion?
What's next for gay marriage?
What's next for anything that we disagree with the Democrats on?
Well, the gays don't like you, Republicans, and you'd better sign on a gay marriage or you're never going to get their support.
Well, I mean, it is the same line of thinking, and it has no end to it unless you play it all the way out with the Republican Party ceases to exist.
Rush, you're exactly right.
These same consultants advise on every one of those issues that Republicans give up our principles and become Democrats.
You know, I'm always amused when the New York Times writes editorials trying to be helpful to Republicans and saying, this is the way Republicans can save themselves.
Look, the New York Times disagrees with us.
They're entitled to disagree with us, but it's not like we should take their advice.
Well, they don't want to save us.
That's exactly right.
They want to destroy us.
And this advice, you know, it's interesting.
You've got a number of politicians who are listening to it who have not heretofore gotten significant support in the Hispanic community.
In my race in Texas, Texas is a majority minority state.
Over 40% of the Hispanics in Texas voted for me in the Senate race.
And I was very clear in the race from day one in opposing amnesty and supporting border security and in improving legal immigration.
I mean, look, there is no more enthusiastic advocate of legal immigration in the U.S. Senate than I am.
And that is a message that resonates powerfully in the Hispanic community.
Now, it doesn't resonate with the Democratic political operatives, many of whom were on the advocacy groups.
It doesn't resonate with the Democrat-elected officials who just want to win elections, but with the Hispanic voters supporting border security, supporting legal immigration, supporting rule of law is a principled position.
And I've got to tell you, we're in a perilous situation right now, Rush.
There are probably 20 Republican senators in the U.S. Senate who are on the fence, who are wobbling on this issue and not sure of how to vote.
The proponents of the Gang of Eight are publicly talking about that they think they can get 70 votes in the Senate and then use that to bludgeon the House into adopting this legalization first and never secure the border approach.
And so there is something every one of your listeners can do, and the time is now.
It is right now.
This fight will be decided.
I would urge every one of your listeners to do two things.
Number one, come to a website we formed that is secure our borders, securebordersnow.com, securebordersnow.com, and sign a national petition.
Okay, that website is now officially shut down for a while.
Excellent.
But number two, every one of your listeners, I would encourage them, pick up the phone and call your senator and call your House member.
Does that really work on something like this?
It works tremendously.
It is amazing what hearing from the grassroots can do.
The reason President Obama's gun control proposals were killed, his proposals to undermine the Second Amendment, is because hundreds of thousands of Americans began slamming the phone lines and all of the senators that were leaning towards support it suddenly said, holy cow, the folks back home don't like this.
I mean, Washington, D.C. is a bubble, and there is nothing more powerful than the conservative grassroots when we are engaged and letting our voice be heard.
Senator, I've got to take a break, and I know when we talked that we allotted time for you for the first segment, but if you want to continue, we've got time here.
I just have to take a brief break.
If you do, I'm not trying to pressure you.
I don't know what your schedule is, but I would love to get your take on the CBO report on this, if you have time.
I am happy to visit further.
Okay, we'll be right back after this with Senator Ted Cruz from Texas.
We're back with Senator Ted Cruz from Texas.
The CBO report, depending on how you look at this, it's either wonderful or disastrous.
One contention is that the immigration bill is going to really, really reduce the deficit, Senator, and it's going to really, really cause economic growth with all of these new employees.
Then if you look at the numbers they're talking about, by 2033, 46 million illegals that will be granted citizenship.
But they're all going to be, are they not?
Most of them are going to be low-skilled and lower-educated type people.
Well, you know, if there's one thing Washington knows how to do, it's come up with bogus cost estimates.
I mean, we all remember when Obamacare was passed and we were told it would save money, and we've now discovered that it's going to cost trillions and it's only getting worse.
You know, the CBO figures just focus on the immediate short-term impact and not the long-term impact.
And they just focus on the federal level.
So, for example, the proponents of the Gang of Eight say that no one who is here illegally will be eligible for welfare.
In the Judiciary Committee, I submitted an amendment, a very simple amendment, just a couple sentences, that said, no one who's here illegally shall be eligible for any means-tested welfare, federal, state, or local.
Every Democrat on the committee and the Republican members of the Gang of Eight all voted against it.
Yes, exactly.
And it was, you know, it was very clarifying.
When they go and say there's no welfare, why did they vote against a provision that would make it clear?
And there are a couple of reasons.
Number one, in any given year, we spend roughly $700 billion in federal welfare payments, roughly $300 billion in State welfare payments.
If the Gang of Eight bill is passed, the effect would be to immediately take a very large percentage of those 11 million people here illegally and make them eligible for state and local welfare.
I mean, tens of billions, if not hundreds of billions of dollars on the states immediately.
And then the Gang of Eight bill provides that those here illegal in a few years are eligible for green cards and citizenship, in which case they're eligible for the full panoply of federal welfare benefits.
Now, I think we should welcome immigrants from across the globe, but you cannot welcome immigrants with a full welfare state where the incentive is to be dependent on government.
We want people coming here who want to achieve the American dream.
And this system, this bill, I think would have an enormous cost on the state treasury and also the federal treasury.
That's one of the many things missing, is the assimilation to a distinct and unique American culture.
We're balkanizing in this country now.
People are coming from wherever, and they're staying in those cultures in pockets, population centers across the country.
The romantic days of immigration, the early 1900s, those people came here and they remained their identity, kept their identity, but they wanted to be Americans.
They wanted to participate in whatever they thought the American dream was.
And that's a distinction that can be drawn today.
We are all the children of those who risked everything for freedom.
I think that's what unites us as Americans.
I'll tell you another impact of this Gang of Eight bill that very few people have focused on, which is if this bill passes, it effectively sets up affirmative action, a strong preference in hiring for those who are here illegally.
We've talked about that because they are going to be exempt for a while from benefits, Obamacare, and welfare benefits, right?
They're cheaper, they're more attractive.
Especially Obamacare.
They're exempted from Obamacare.
So if you're a small business owner, if you hire an American or if you hire a legal immigrant, you're subject to a $2,000 fine per employee if you're not providing health care under Obamacare, whereas suddenly the $11 million who are granted legalization, it doesn't cost you that.
It's a massive economic incentive for employers to not hire Americans or fire Americans in favor of those who are here illegally.
And that doesn't make any sense.
Senator, is it true what is said that the people we're talking about now, the 11 million, if the Gang of Eight bill is passed, signed into law, that they won't be able to vote for, what, 13 years, whatever.
Is that true?
Is that what I'm giving to understand?
They can't vote in addition to everything else?
I mean, that's the current delay to become citizens, although actually for certain categories, it's accelerated faster than that.
Yeah, but you don't expect that to hold up, do you?
I mean, within a day or two, Senator Schumer is going to find a camera and talk about how discriminatory it is.
Here, we've just granted these people status.
We've just allowed them to come out of the shadows, and it's just unconscionable now that we don't let them vote.
And so a whole new amendment might be made to eliminate the 13 years.
Stuff like that.
I don't blame people who have a cynical view like that.
You're absolutely right.
That is certainly coming.
It's why I've introduced a number of amendments to try to fix this mess.
One amendment that I talked about today on the floor of the Senate is an amendment to put real teeth in border security.
This bill has no teeth in border security, to triple the border patrol, to increase fourfold the helicopters, fixed-wing assets, technology on the border, to put in place a strong biometric exit entry system.
Those are all voted down.
They have been.
And critically, the most important piece is to say secure the border first before any legalization.
What this bill gets most fundamentally wrong is it starts with legalization and then it promises, like Wimpy in Popeye, I'll gladly pay you Tuesday for a hamburger today.
It promises border security sometime in the future.
And we all know the border security ain't never going to come, but the legalization happens immediately.
Senator, the CBO report also has this nugget.
They claim the CBO says that 75% illegal immigration would continue at the level of 75% of current levels.
Even with the passage of the bill, that without the border security, you're still going to have 75% influx what we have now.
Well, and I can tell you what we're seeing right now.
We are seeing a massive spike in illegal immigration this past year.
And this has happened every time amnesty is discussed.
Look, people respond to incentives.
If you're in a foreign country, you want to be in America and you hear, hey, they're getting ready to do amnesty.
It's a huge incentive to come illegally.
And one of the real tragedies of our system is that you've got hundreds of thousands of men and women entrusting themselves to coyotes, to drug dealers.
And every year there are hundreds of women and children who die in the desert, who are sexually assaulted, who are trafficked.
I mean, it is a grotesque and inhumane system.
And this Gang of Eight bill, if it passes, would increase illegal immigration.
One quick question before we go.
I noticed, or I read the other day, that the majority leader, Senator Reed, now seems intent on hurrying up and getting this bill passed by the 4th of July break.
Why?
I think, look, I certainly wouldn't presume to speak for Harry Reid, but I think he's starting to get nervous.
And I think he's starting to get nervous because the American people are starting to pay attention.
In 2007, the American people realized there was a proposal to grant legalization first before securing the border.
They spoke up loudly.
They picked up the phone.
They called their senators.
They called their House members.
They said, no, we don't want legalization first, then border security, and it killed it.
I think Harry Reid is getting nervous.
He thinks he has the votes right now.
And as I said, there are probably 20 Republican senators on the fence.
And the biggest difference your listeners can make is today, tomorrow, the next day, picking up the phone and letting your elected representatives know, don't go down this road.
It is politically foolish.
And as a policy matter, it would be terrible to the country.
It doesn't fix the problem.
We need to fix the problem, secure the borders, and improve legal immigration.
Senator Ted Cruz from Texas, I really appreciate your time, Senator.
Thanks for giving us a half hour today.
It's great.
And we wish you the best in your endeavors.
God bless you, Rush, and always keep speaking the truth.
The more rocks they throw at you, the more good you're doing.
Thank you, sir.
Thank you very much.
I appreciate that.
Once again, Senator Ted Cruz from Texas, weighing in on the status of the immigration bill, the Gang of Eight bill, and what he thinks the true impetus behind this is.
That is an interesting nugget.
The CBO in all of this scoring and all of this economic data that they're projecting says that even with the passage of the bill, illegal immigration will continue at a rate of 75% of current levels.
We'll be back.
And we're back, and I'm just going to go straight to the phones here, folks, because people have been lined up for a full hour and a half, and that is plenty of time for people to be patient.
We'll start in Lillingdon, North Carolina.
And Mike, welcome, sir.
Great to have you here.
Well, thank you, Rush.
And an honor and a pleasure to be a second time caller.
Oh, good for you.
Okay.
Well, there's more to this than the Democrats making a whole bunch of new Democrat voters.
Part of the plan is now 2014, you're angering the base if this bill passes.
So if they thought a bunch of people didn't show up in 2012 for the election, wait until 2014.
I don't think the Republicans are going to clear out anymore.
And also, Rubio and Paul have been assassinated.
The Democrats have successfully assassinated them without even doing any character destruction because the Republican base is not even going to want to elect these guys as dog catchers.
These are two interesting theories, ladies and gentlemen.
Let me take these one at a time.
The first theory is that if you think Republicans sat home in 2012 because they were angry at various things, you haven't seen anything until we get to 2014 if the Gang of Eight bill passes.
The theory being Republican voters are not going to want to reward Republicans who saw to it that this became law.
The Republican voters are going to say, why should we affirm this?
Why should we pat these guys on the back?
Why should we care that they run Congress?
Or why should we care that the Democrats should be stopped?
Because the Democrats are getting everything they want anyway with our guys where they are.
So if you guys, and he says the Democrats are very smart.
The Democrats are making sure that Republican voters are going to stay home.
And what the way they're doing it is incorporating conservative Republican leaders into their legislation, putting them face forward.
I know what he didn't say this, but I know what he means.
The Democrats have put Rubio out there as the face of Gang of Eight.
Now, Rubio, and I can tell you this, you know it as well as I, Marco Rubio, to a lot of Republicans is the great hope.
Presidential politics, Marco Rubio ranks high on many people's list.
And I can tell you, folks, there are a lot of Republicans who are hoping they're willing to give Senator Rubio a pass on this because, to a certain extent, because he's so good at articulating conservatism.
I mean, his campaign against Chris, when Rubio rose to national prominence, it was precisely because he was Reagan-esque.
Precisely.
And there are a lot of people who are willing to give him a pass.
In this sense, they're saying, gee, I hope this doesn't ruin him.
I hope that doing, they're hoping he'd back out of it.
They're hoping at the last minute that he'll just withdraw from this so as not to be tainted by it.
Because the fact of the matter is there will be significant Republican outrage if this thing passes and it's made possible, passage made possible by significant Republican participation.
And then his second point is, is that by virtue, the first point, this is suppressing Republican turnout without having to run a negative ad once.
And then by making Rubio, Rand Paul, or whoever else the face of the bill, they are successfully assassinating Republican political leaders without having to run a negative ad, by making them the face of what the Democrats want, and by making it look like the Republicans are facilitating Democrat objectives.
So I understand the thinking.
It's a guy from Lillington, North Carolina, and Crossroads of America.
You've got to figure that there are a lot of people with this kind of thinking.
And I've heard, I've had a number of people say to me about Senator Rubio, what I just passed on to you.
Gee, I really wish he'd get out of this.
Whatever happens, I hope he's fingerprints on it when it's all over.
Senator Rubio is, I'll tell you what he wants, what I think.
Look, there is a, and I meant to run this by Senator Cruz, and he answered it in an indirect way without my asking him.
But we talked about this idea that Senator Graham said, we've got to get back in the good graces of Hispanics.
They hate us, and therefore we've got to grant amnesty, or we've got to support the immigration bill.
Only then will Hispanics realize that we're good guys and we don't hate them.
Senator Rubio is confident that he can persuade liberals of conservatism.
He's confident that he can persuade and inspire middle-of-the-roaders and people that are not committed ideologically to join him once he's very confident in that.
He's very confident in his ability to speak to a crowd and persuade a lot of them.
When it comes to the Hispanic community, I mean, he is Hispanic.
He's Cuban.
There's that linkage.
But I think he is of the belief, and I don't want to put words in his mouth.
So to his staff, I could be wrong here, and if I am, I'm sure you'll let us know.
But I think there's an element here of Senator Rubio who believes, or that believes, he won't be listened to by the Hispanics we need to persuade if somehow this legislation ends up in such a way as to further the notion that we hate them.
Politics is perception.
We don't hate them.
We don't hate them.
We don't have animus for anybody, folks.
That's the truth of the matter.
But the perception is Democrats and the media have been very successful in convincing minorities particularly that Republicans don't like them and don't want them to get anywhere or go anywhere or become anything.
And so they think they've got to overcome that.
And they won't be able to overcome it if this bill goes down in flames.
So I think there's an element here I'm not going to even have a chance to persuade these people.
And he maintains, Rubio does, that border security, he's back on that.
Now, by the way, Senator Graham had a fascinating quote yesterday.
Senator Graham is frustrated.
Let me see if I can find it.
I think I threw the damn thing away.
Senator Graham, I'll paraphrase this.
After Rubio came out yesterday and said that after all this border security wasn't enough and he couldn't support the bill as it is, and he did say that, Senator Graham said, what the hell's going on?
I mean, the guy who came up with the bill, the guy whose bill it is now says he can't support it.
What the hell is going on?
What are we doing?
That was Senator Graham reacting to Senator Rubio.
So the caller is right.
The one thing I know, and there are many things I know, the one thing I know is where you all are on the Republican Party today.
And people have said the country's hanging by a thread.
Well, so is the party.
The Republican Party is hanging by a thread.
I don't think that.
In fact, some actually do know it.
And I think this whole notion that they're embarrassed of their base and wouldn't mind at all if the base left the Republican Party, even if it meant losing a couple of elections, I think there's that element in the party.
Don't doubt me on that, by the way.
They're either embarrassed of the base and they don't like the base, you know, the pro-life, the caricature, pro-life, the gun-toting, shotgun shooting, tobacco-spitting crowd.
It wouldn't be embarrassed, wouldn't be bothered at all if that group of people said, the hell with you, we're leaving, man.
And even if it meant losing a couple of elections, but the Republicans can't afford any defections because they don't have any people who are going to make up slack.
And if they're thinking this gang of eight bill is going to pick up the slack for whatever base they lose, they have got another thing coming on them.
That's just not in the cards.
Because as I explained yesterday, you cannot outliberal a liberal.
I appreciate the call, Mike.
We'll take a timeout here.
An obscene profit timeout.
I'll be back with much more after this.
Don't go away.
Here is the Lindsey Graham quote: How do we put together a bill and then the guy who put it together says he may not vote for it?
I just don't get what we're doing here.
That was Senator Graham to the Huffing and Puffington Post.
How do we put together a bill and then the guy who put it together says that he may not vote for it?
Meaning Rubio, they're positioning Rubio as the guy who wrote it as the guy who came up with it, as the guy who conceived it.
Rubio's the face of it.
How can the face of our bill say he may not vote for it?
75% of illegal immigration would continue under the Senate immigration bill.
That's from the CBO.
Then, of course, what is the point?
What is the point if 75% of illegal immigration is going to continue after if this bill is signed into law, then what is the point?
CBO also has other findings that the drive-by state-controlled media will studiously ignore, such as the fact that the CBO says the Gang of Eight bill will only reduce the number of people here on visas by 25%.
That's another way of looking at it.
75% will continue, or the Gang of Eight bill will only reduce the number of people here on overstate visas, but 25%.
That's another thing.
We have no way of finding or controlling people to overstay their visas and dealing with it.
The headline's a little misleading.
75% of illegal immigration would continue under Senate Immigration Bill.
Because we've noted previously, the Wall Street Journal has found that overstayed visas account for somewhere between 40 and 50 percent of the current illegal alien population.
Overstayed visas.
Well, we have all kinds of ways.
We're not doing it.
We've got immigration laws on the books.
Don't misunderstand when I say we have no way of finding them.
With the NSA, what they're doing, I don't know how we can't find anybody.
I don't know how we can't find Snowden.
Did you hear what Obama said about this?
If you are a U.S. person, what is a U.S. person?
If you are a U.S. person, well, he didn't say American.
He didn't say citizen.
A U.S. person, anybody happens to physically be here.
So if you are a U.S. person, your emails can't be read.
They can't be listened to.
None of that can happen.
If you are a U.S. person.
If you're not a U.S. person, who knows?
But this CBO admission here that 40 to 50, maybe 75% of, well, let's say 40 to 50% of the current illegal alien population's overstayed visas.
That's an incredible admission.
And then to say 75% is going to continue.
But see, this isn't a problem for the Democrats.
Is any of that a problem for the Democrats?
75% will continue?
Not a problem.
People overstaying visas?
Not a problem.
And it's all you need to know.
None of this is a problem for the Democrats.
Here's Carol in Boston.
Carol, I'm glad you waited.
It's great to have you on the EIB network.
Hi.
Hi, Rush.
I'm so nervous to talk to you, but I can't tell you how much listening to you helps get me through some of the days, especially being locked in the People's Republic of Massachusetts.
But I have two comments.
One is, I'm afraid that Marco Rubio has really spent his political capital.
I don't know how he can continue to go out and back this thousand-plus page bill.
I mean, did he learn nothing from Obamacare bill?
Does he think that 1,000 pages is loaded with just great safeguards?
I don't understand that.
And I also am very disturbed by people like Carl Rove and Reince Priebus picking our candidates for us.
And I mean, I do believe that Crossroads ran ads against people like Ted Cruz in order to promote a more moderate candidate.
And I am concerned because Reince Priebus made a statement on the news where he said, oh, we do really well in local and state elections, but we're not doing well on the presidential election, and we have to re-look at that.
And he started talking all this inclusive stuff rather than to look at the candidates that they run, like McCain and Dole and Romney, are really mostly moderate candidates in conservative clothing, and they only run that way when they're running.
And then when they get into these debates and everything, people realize looking at their records that they're not conservative.
And the last big election, even Reince Priebus said this, that we won by huge majorities was 21 or 22 years ago.
Well, who was that?
Let me ask you a question.
Let me cut to the chase with you here.
Let's use the, who did you mention?
You mentioned Dole.
Right, McCain and Romney, all moderate.
Let's just use the McCain campaign of 2008, for example, just to pick one.
Okay?
Can you think and tell me who on the Republican side might have won because of a McCain candidacy?
Who might have won in terms of a local or instead of him?
I didn't say elections.
Oh.
Who might have benefited might be a fairer way?
Absolutely.
Everybody in Washington, D.C. would have won.
Most particularly the Democrats win because, you know, John McCain is special for, you know.
No, my point is this.
The consultants who run these campaigns make millions of dollars even when a candidate loses.
And if they know a bunch of big money donors are going to support a certain candidate, then whether the candidate can win or lose may be of secondary importance.
True.
It's how big the donor pool is because the percentage of that is how you earn your living, if you're a consultant.
True.
They're advertising agencies get 15% commission every ad they run.
So the more campaign contributions a candidate engenders or inspires, the more successful the consultants are.
In other words, Steve Schmidt, who ran the McCain campaign, did not lose.
Nor do any other consultants.
These are big ticket items financially.
Campaigns are.
And of course, there's a big deal when you win because it enhances your reputation.
But even when your candidate loses, he's still spending gobs of money that has been raised that you get a percentage of.
Folks, that's it for this exciting, busy broadcast hour.
But a brief prespit at the top gets us ready for the big finale of our excursion into broadcast excellence today.
▲
Export Selection