All Episodes
Previous Next
July 18, 2013 - Rush Limbaugh Program
36:50
July 18, 2013, Thursday, Hour #2
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Okay, that's right, Schnerdley.
If you read, by the way, I'm through.
I'm not going to read you any more this silly piece in the New York Times.
I'm just going to tell you what it's really about.
It's about amnesty.
It's about the amnesty bill fading away.
It's about more and more people recognizing the Senate amnesty bill is an absolute disaster.
And it is an attempt to put pressure on Republicans to end up supporting the Senate version of amnesty in the House.
That's what this is about.
By shaming and humiliating Republicans as cowards, being afraid of people like me.
I do want to find the passage.
Talk about my book.
I do, yes.
But before I get to that, let me just go back to the 2009 Thomas Edsel piece, which is simply another version of this piece has in the New York Times today.
Same piece, 2009.
Too many ideologues in the Republican Party.
And the ideologues are led by me.
And it was just the next year that the Tea Party caused this massive down ballot defeat for Democrats.
Thomas B. Edsel writes this piece about how the Republican Party is being killed by the ideologues, the conservatives.
And then the very next year, he wrote that piece in November.
The very next year, the 2010 midterms, we know what happened.
So he was really ticked off when that happened.
But in the 2009 piece, he also quotes Thomas Doherty, who is the first person quoted in the piece today, the former enforcer for Pataki.
So he recycles Thomas Doherty from 2009.
One of the most outspoken Republican strategists is Tom Doherty.
Doherty contends that one of the biggest liabilities of the GOP is an image of intolerance.
Leaders need to set up a process where all Americans are equal in the Republican Party, whether they're gay, straight, transgender, or bisexual.
That's our biggest problem.
We're viewed as a party dominated by the far right.
Gay bashers.
And now immigrant bashers.
So back four years ago, Doherty was complaining about gays.
Four years later today, Doherty is complaining about amnesty.
And this whole New York Times piece today, but Thomas B. Edsel, is about amnesty and the Democrats losing it and the House slaw walking it with Senate amnesty bill.
They're telling us who they fear.
But again, I'm struck because they're blaming us and we don't have any control of anything.
We don't control the GOP.
We don't control anything in government.
We have no hold on the Republican leadership or the party system.
Yet we are the problem.
Now listen to this passage.
There's a striking correlation.
This is from today's piece, and this is it.
This is going to be it for the story today.
There's a striking correlation between the rise of conservative talk radio and the difficulties the Republican Party's having in presidential elections.
In an April Reuters essay, right-wing talk shows turned White House Blue.
Mark Roselle, the acting dean of the George Mason University's Scrule of Public Policy, and John Paul Goodman, or Goldman, the former chairman of Virginia's Democrat Party, wrote,
Since Rush Limbaugh's 1992 bestseller, The Way Things Ought to Be, his conservative talk show politics have dominated Republican presidential discourse, and the Republicans' White House fortunes have plummeted.
But when the mainstream media reigned supreme between 1952 and 1988, Republicans won seven out of the ten presidential elections.
So you see, folks, the Republican Party was much better when I wasn't around.
The Republican Party, when it was just the mainstream media, when they had their monopoly, well, yeah, the Republicans are winning everything.
But then I came along and I began to sow the seeds of Republican Party presidential politics defeat.
It has nothing to do, of course, with who the Republicans nominated.
Bob Dole, 1996, George H.W. Bush in 92 really didn't care, didn't appear to care to win re-election or didn't take any opposition seriously.
And we had George W. Bush for eight years.
I guess that was in spite of me.
But the authors didn't continue.
The rise of the conservative-dominated media defines the era when the fortunes of GOP presidential hopefuls dropped to the worst levels since the party's founding in 1856.
Isn't it amazing how Thomas B. Edsel, the boys want the Republicans to win the White House?
Isn't that amazing?
Who knew?
Did you know that?
Did you know that Thomas B. Edsel, the New York Times, really sitting out there disappointed that Republicans aren't winning the White House anymore?
It's really kind of sad that Obama won.
They really wanted a Republican to win.
But damn it, this Limbaugh guy's running around and he's getting in the way of our Republicans winning.
Did you know that?
Did you know the Democrats really want the Republicans to win the White House?
It'd be happening if it weren't for me.
No, this is another one of those occasions.
I just wish my father were alive.
He would not believe it.
Forbes magazine study: unattractive people are targets for cruelty at work.
Story says that the ugly used to have it easy until Rush Limbaugh's bestseller in 1992, the way things ought to be.
Up until then, the ugly were, in fact, not getting along just fine.
They were actually dominating, and they were everywhere.
And then Limbaugh wrote his bestseller, and talk radio ideologues came along, and now the ugly are being mistreated, maligned, discriminated against, and are now the targets for cruelty.
Your workplace probably differs from the social scene of a typical hassruel in significant ways, and most would agree that's a good thing.
But a recent study reveals that when it comes to how attractive and unattractive people are treated, your orifice and your hassruel are not so far removed.
The study was conducted by researchers from Notre Dame and Michigan State University.
They actually studied this.
This is more useless waste of time and money on our American campaign.
Actually, want to spend real money to find out whether it's tougher for the ugly out there.
I don't know what they spent for 10% of it.
I would have told them everything they need to know.
The researchers surveyed 114 workers at a healthcare facility, which, you know, the ugly tend to hang out there.
I don't know if you know this, but if you go to a healthcare center, most of the people there would be, you've seen it.
It's like at a bowling alley.
Well, just don't take my word for it.
Go.
Go to a healthcare center.
You'll see what I'm talking about.
Researchers surveyed 114 workers at a healthcare facility about how frequently co-workers treated them cruelly, defined as saying hurtful things, acting rudely, making fun of them.
Now, these are behaviors collectively referred to as counterproductive work behavior.
The researchers, I mean, there's a reason they chose healthcare centers.
They knew they'd find ugly people there.
If you're going to survey the ugly and how they feel, how they think they're treated, you've got to go where they are.
The real question is: how did the researchers decide who's ugly and who isn't?
So you're going to do research on the ugly, and you're going to go talk to them, and you're going to find out how mistreated they are and how they feel about it.
You then have to identify them.
The survey does not tell us what the criteria are or were for being ugly.
Maybe it's like what Potter Stewart said about pornography.
Well, I can't really define it, but I know it when I see it.
The researchers took digital photos of the people that they surveyed.
They asked a different group of people who didn't know the first group to judge their attractiveness.
But they had to start somewhere, and they went to a healthcare center.
They went to a healthcare facility, and they picked people, took pictures, and they took the pictures off.
You think these people are ugly or not?
And the research began.
And they said, we find that unattractive individuals are more likely the subject of rude, uncivil, and even cruel treatment by their co-workers.
And not only do we, as a society, perceive attractive and unattractive co-workers differently, we act on those perceptions in ways that are harmful.
Said study co-author Timothy Judge, professor of management at the University of Notre Dame's Mendoza College of Business, which is located on the Mendoza Line.
You know where the Mendoza line is, Stergley.
Dawn, you know where the Mendoza line is?
Brian, you should know.
You know where the Mendoza line is?
It was named after Mario Mendoza.
I can't believe you guys don't know this.
The Mendoza line?
Mario Mendoza was an ugly shortstop Major League Baseball who could never hit above 200.
A batting average of 200 is known as the Mendoza Line.
And Timothy Judge, professor of management at the University of Notre Dame's Mendoza College of Business, at the Mendoza Line.
Now, this is not the first study to link physical attractiveness or lack thereof to bullying behavior, but it is the first to show the cruel dynamic at play between co-workers while taking into account personality factors, and the results are not a win for professional courtesy.
So, we are really mean people.
Our distinct, unique American culture is really, really mean.
But you know what this adds up to?
There was a key word I just read: bullying.
Yes, my friends.
And so now, since it has been established at the Mendoza line that the ugly are treated cruelly and unfairly and rudely and all that, now people have been given ammunition to force down more laws on bullying.
And of course, it's another opportunity for the leftists to whine about how unfair life is and to create a new victim group that needs, of course, federal assistance.
Now, let's go to the opposite of ugly.
Matt Harvey, pitcher for the New York Mets.
He did an interview recently in Men's Journal, the August edition, and he said that Derek Jeter is his role model.
Derek Jeter, the shortstop of the New York Yankees.
This interview is a standard.
Matt Harvey's 24 years old, so we can make some allowances.
And this is his first year of real stardom.
But he's already, there are pictures.
If you know where to look, Snerdly, page six, New York Times has pictures of Matt Harvey strolling through Central Park with his six-foot-tall, 45-inch legs, blonde bombshell model.
The next place they'll find him is the museum.
I mean, it's almost written.
The museum, then an art gallery, and wherever else women want to go.
That's where he'll be with her.
But while he's running around with this, in many people's minds, gorgeous long, tall, blonde model, Matt Harvey told Men's Journal about Derek Jeter, that guy's the model.
I mean, first off, let's just look at the women Jeter has dated.
Obviously, he goes out, he's meeting these girls somewhere, but you never hear about it.
That's where I want to be.
So he envies and wants to be like Derek Jeter.
Derek Jeter, every year, every month, is pictured with a different babe.
And what Matt Harvey has observed is, my God, where's he meeting these women?
He's meeting them someplace, but you never read about it.
The media never tells us where Jeter's hanging out and what he's doing when he's there.
All we do is see the picture of the next Jeter babe.
And so Matt Harvey says, that's where I want to be.
I want to date celebrities.
I want to date actresses.
I want to date models, but I don't want anybody knowing how.
I want to be pictured with these women, but I don't want anything else known about it.
Now, his girlfriend is Anne Vielatsina, 27 Russian supermodel, perennial sports illustrated swimsuit beauty.
When Matt Harvey and this babe first made headlines as Love Birds, his teammates gave him a round of applause when he walked into the Mets locker room.
Men's Journal tried to find this woman, but they couldn't.
They wanted comments from her after, because they wanted to say, you know, we just finished an interview with your boyfriend, and he just said he wants to be like Derek Jeter, a different date, different girl every month or every six months, and that's who he admires.
And he wants to date celebrities and models and so forth.
And they wanted some comment from her, but they couldn't find her.
Like Jeter, Matt Harvey sounds like a bachelor on the prowl.
And they quote Matt Harvey saying, Man, do I effing love this city?
I'm young.
I'm single.
I want to be in the mix.
I could buy a place right now, like Jeter, but I got to wait for that $200 million contract.
If I'm going to buy an apartment, it's got to be the best one in the city.
Now, maybe some people are going to applaud this because all he's doing is giving voice to every dream every guy's ever had.
He's just giving voice to it.
But he's being razzed for this in the local New York media.
Anyway, so that's both sides of it.
The ugly being mistreated, and of course, the beautiful people being celebrated and envied.
All of that.
We'll be back.
Don't go away.
We're back.
Rush Limbaugh doing Open Line Friday on Thursday.
This is Greg in Lul.
Great to have you on the program.
Hello.
Hi, Rush.
Hi.
I think the purpose of this article today was mainly to drive a wedge between the elements of the Republican Party to get you mad at them and then mad at you, maybe.
So I think that was one of the driving motives behind it.
I do think that talk radio and you specifically are mistaken about immigration.
I think the Senate bill is a bad bill, but I think we need to.
Wait, wait, wait, wait, hold on.
You think I'm mistaken about immigration?
Yes.
I think talk radio has been, and you specifically, but talk radio in general, has been very hostile to immigration.
I think that's a mistake.
I think immigration is a good for you.
Give me an example of being where you've heard me be hostile to immigration.
Well, talking about amnesty, the 2007 reform was pretty much stopped by talk radio.
I think we could probably agree on that.
Yeah, but that wasn't opposition to immigration.
Well, I think the I've never once said a word against immigration.
I'm all for immigration.
I think it bleeds over into the people characterize that we're just.
No, you see, I'm being blamed for your inferences.
It's really not, it's not fair.
You are associating an attitude with me that I don't have and I have never expressed.
I simply think.
You favor immigration.
You favor increased immigration, more tech people coming in.
Steve Jobs' father was an immigrant, his natural biological father was an immigrant.
Half the Silicon Valley companies were founded by immigrants or children of immigrants.
Immigration is a good thing for the country.
So I get the impression that you're against that, but if you are freaking out, then maybe not.
But that's the impression I get.
Hold it.
You think I'm against B1B visa immigration?
I'm all for it.
I think we're letting, I think we need to open up and let all kinds of more, particularly the ones we're educating.
I'm simply opposed to the law of this country being violated.
That's all.
Now, you're right, this story is about immigration, but I don't hate these people.
I think they do hate me.
I don't hate anybody.
I don't dislike anybody.
But I tell you what, I'm not opposed to immigration at all.
You are being really unfair.
You are inferring Something I've never said.
You're going along with the crowd.
We have the most immigration in the world in this country.
Why isn't that enough?
I'm all for legal immigration.
I've never said a word against legal immigration.
Quite telling, isn't it, that when you simply oppose illegal immigration, you become all these horrible, rotten things, racist, bigot, all of this.
We, our immigration system isn't even broken.
We have plenty of fine immigration law already on the books.
It just isn't being enforced.
And it isn't being enforced because Washington doesn't like this law.
This law doesn't let in enough of the kind of people the Democrats want.
And increasingly, a number of Republicans want.
Canada, Canada has an immigration policy we might want to emulate.
They want more skilled and educated immigrants.
In fact, that's all they take.
But see, since nobody's watching them and they're not a superpower, nobody really cares.
So they are allowed to act in their best interests.
The United States, as a superpower, in order to be fair, must engage in behavior that's not good for it.
That's how the United States demonstrates that it's fair.
And that's how the United States demonstrates that it's nice.
And understanding is when the United States does things not in its best interest.
But when the United States of America does things in its best interests, it is hated.
I'm sorry, that just ticks me off.
It's illogical.
And furthermore, it's psychological.
Here's Chris in Detroit as we go back to the phones.
Hi, Chris.
I'm glad you waited.
Great to have you on the program.
Thanks, Rush.
I'm curious to know if you enjoy a good cigar when you're flying on EIB-1.
Oh, yeah, many times.
In fact, the air filtration system, the EIB-1 cabin, is pressurized for about 6,000 feet.
And to achieve that, I mean, that's no matter what altitude you are above it, that's the altitude air pressure created in the cabin.
And to achieve that, in part, the air is changed completely 12 times a minute.
It's one of the most advanced air circulation systems around.
Much more frequently is it circulated and refreshed than a commercial airliner.
But I tell, you know, a lot of people beg me for rides.
A lot of people beg me for it.
It's amazing, they do.
And if I have to be going where they're going and I don't mind, I'll warn them, I'm going to smoke a cigar.
It's my living room.
And they all say, okay.
But my point is that even if they're non-smokers aboard, screw them.
My airplane, it's my cabin, it's my living room, and I smoke cigars up there.
And in case you're wondering, the flight crew has absolutely no problem with it whatsoever.
It's not even all that smoky because of the recirculation that takes place on board.
Why were you curious about that?
Just curious.
I fly commercially very often and enjoy cigars often as I can and just, you know, many hours in a plane.
Just thought of that.
And I heard you talking about ESG1 and just one of those curiosities I've always had.
Thank you.
Yeah.
I do pretty much on the airplane everything I do on the ground.
Let your mind wander.
But it's, yeah, it's fine.
A bunch of guys on a plane head out to a for a golf tournament weekend or something.
That's fun.
It's not a problem.
But yes, the answer to the short answer to the question is that I do.
And you got a we went to in June, we took a long overdue and much needed vacation.
We went to Europe and it was a nine or ten hour flight.
And I probably had seven cigars on the trip.
You know, different lengths.
One thing about it, they don't last as long because there's no humidity up there.
They dry out and they start cracking.
So you have to put them out sometimes even before you're halfway finished with them.
They just start falling apart.
Which is fine with me.
I don't know.
I was just asked, they have a stronger effect at altitude like alcohol does.
I'm not aware of any effect from tobacco anywhere, so I can't answer.
Although, you know, I am going on this, I got a golf member guest thing.
I always take some of the most kick-ass cigars to give to opponents, to zone them out.
Because it can loop them if they're not used to these.
It can make them dizzy.
For just a competitive edge.
And all the while, they think I'm a great guy.
Sharing my stash with them.
Anyway, appreciate Sue.
Here's Sue in Lancaster, Ohio.
You're next in the EIB network.
Hello.
Hi, Rush.
Thank you so much for having the courage to speak out.
I have to admit that I'm guilty for being a part of the silent majority.
I'm a Christian conservative.
And a few weeks ago, when this abortion issue took place in Texas and the words came out of someone's mouth that the Virgin Mary should have aborted Jesus, that was the time where I couldn't sit silently any longer.
It's time for Christian conservatives.
Who was it, Nancy Pelosi, who said that?
I think it was a protester out in Texas opposed to abortion.
But my reason for calling is to encourage people to stand up for what we believe for this country.
We are losing this country on a daily basis, and we have so many people who don't want that to happen, but yet we all sit silently and it's just deteriorating daily.
And so what I did after I finally couldn't sit silently anymore.
So a couple of weeks ago, my husband and I went to find out about this group opposed to Agenda 21 and to find out, start to learn more and more about.
We know some, but we want to find out more.
And what we were told there, and this is my reason for calling, I just want people to get involved at the local level.
What we were told was that Washington, D.C. is so huge, and it's impossible for us to change Washington.
But what we all can do is get involved at that local level.
And what this group suggested that we do is start attending our city council meetings, our township meetings, our school board meetings.
And, you know, I am so guilty of not doing that.
And it's not that you have to be one of those people involved if you just go, just get up off your bottom and go.
Go to a school board meeting.
You're paying taxes.
Go and listen to the direction our educational system is taking.
But we cannot sit silent any longer.
And I'm using this call because if I can encourage anyone to just get involved locally, just go attend a meeting.
That's all just basically.
Well, you can do more than that.
There are countless grassroots organizations that exist.
You said, you said something that it sounds correct, and it probably is in the context that you meant.
You said you can't change Washington.
Well, you can't go to Washington and change it.
One person can't go to Washington.
Even presidents, they make a good shot at it if they're the right guy.
Reagan.
I'll take it back.
You can go to Washington and you can advance damage.
You can do damage, but fixing it, as you mean, you know where that's done?
Exactly what you're talking about.
Fixing Washington is a local political effort.
I can't remember where I read this piece.
It was in the past month or so.
But it's dead on right.
And it's actually very simple.
It's a saying, he who controls the precincts controls the party.
And that is true because there's a saying, all politics is local.
And it's kind of, it's been bastardized over the years.
But it really does have some truth to it.
But the precinct level, precinct captain, precincts, you know, running the voting facilities, being in charge of party politics at the precinct level, because it all bubbles up from there.
The precinct level is going to determine the kind of people who are going to get nominated, win primaries and this kind of thing.
So what you're doing is exactly right.
You're getting involved at the precinct level.
The problem is there's no glamour there, and it's not attractive to people.
It is the town council.
It is the school board.
It is the PTA.
What's the fun in that?
You know, everybody wants to debut in the big leagues.
Everybody wants to be in Washington.
If they're in politics, our lobbyists, everybody wants to be in Washington.
Everybody wants to be, well, it used to be the McLaughlin group and Crossfire.
I don't know what it is now because there's so many of those kinds of shows.
But it is at the precinct level where the foundation and the control of the party, Any party.
And therefore, the identity and the issues it stands for and so forth.
That's where it has its roots.
I'm glad you called, Sue.
Thanks much.
We'll be back, folks.
Don't go away.
It was Brad Thor.
Brad Thor, who controls the precincts, controls the party.
The novelist Brad Thor wrote.
Well, whatever, he's right.
At any rate, ladies and gentlemen, it might have been from Freedom Works, but whoever wrote it, whoever wrote it.
He who controls the precincts controls the party.
Dead on right.
Open line Friday on Thursday.
Laurie in Hershey, Pennsylvania.
Great to have you on the program.
Hello.
Hi, Rush.
Hi.
I would love to see the reincarnation of the budget deficit awareness ribbon.
Oh.
Well, that was a device that worked well on television.
Well, yeah, I'd like, you know, I'd like to see it more at my neighborhood grocery store, just to remind each other, because there are a lot of us, you know, this part of the country.
And just to remind each other what we're working toward, that issue's getting kind of cloudy with all the other stuff going on, scandals, verdicts, decreases.
You know, I would just, I would just, somebody made, somebody observed to me the other day, this is profound.
It's amazing what you've said.
Somebody, somebody said to me in an email, or it might have been a text message, but somebody said, it has gotten so bad that everybody's just forgotten about the debt.
That's so much has happened since the debt was run through the roof that that's just a side issue now.
But it's not, it is a side issue on the media's part.
Well, it always is, but it's not front.
It's front and center.
We live with it every day.
Oh, I know.
I'm just, but public consciousness is the issue.
Oh, no, I know.
That's what I absolutely agree.
But, you know, I'm a mom of three young boys who eat me out of house and home, let me tell you.
And every time I go to the grocery store and every time I have to get them clothes or a backpack or something, it just you just realize what a tight budget you're on.
And then I see, you know, Air Force One flying all over the place and this.
And the entitlement to royalty.
Oh, yeah.
Oh, Barack and his wife have this entitlement to royalty.
That is just it's.
It's like thumbing their nose at everybody.
By the way, the budget deficit awareness ribbon for those of you that don't know what that is, you remember back in the early 90s when there was a colored ribbon for every issue.
There was a red ribbon for HIV, there was a yellow ribbon for this and a blue ribbon for that.
I remember one day on my radio pro, I came out wearing nine of them, nine or ten different colored ribbons, and I told everybody, because I'm wearing these ribbons, I'm a better person than you are and I care more than you do.
I don't see anybody in the audience.
I said I don't see you guys wearing ribbons, but I'm wearing.
See these, I care.
This makes me a better person than you.
And then we came up with the deficit reduction awareness ribbon, which is a dollar bill folded in the same shape as those other issue awareness ribbons, and we had folding instructions, how to fold it to make look.
Make it look like one of those other uh ribbons.
It was a brilliant invention.
And people started showing up in the studio audience, the TV show, wearing the things.
And they were popping up.
Even members of Congress.
There were a couple, maybe more members of Congress that ran around wearing deficit reduction awareness ribbons.
To give you an idea how long the deficit's been a problem.
Anyway, we could do that again.
We could use the website for this.
The opportunities are limitless on this kind of thing.
I appreciate your reminding me of that.
Because I don't really spend a whole lot of time thinking about what I once did or what once happened either here or on the TV show because I'm just so focused on the present and then tomorrow that the past is a like I've been there, done that.
So I'm always flattered to be reminded of these things.
It's not a bad idea.
And it was clever, too.
It was, it was, what is that?
That looks like a dollar bill.
It is.
It's a deficit reduction awareness.
Oh, wow, that's really cool.
How do I get one?
Well, it's in your pocket.
And here are the folding instructions.
And people want the secret to higher earnings for women is to marry a poor man.
▲
Export Selection