All Episodes
Previous Next
July 31, 2013 - Rush Limbaugh Program
36:38
July 31, 2013, Wednesday, Hour #1
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Welcome to today's edition of the Rush 247 podcast.
And greetings to you, music lovers and thrill seekers.
And conversationalists all across the fruited plain.
Fastest week in meeting.
Here we are already at Wednesday.
And it's great to have you here.
The telephone number if you want to be on the program is 800-282-2882, the email address.com, a program note in one hour.
We're going to have Utah Senator Mike Lee on the program to explain in detail and in an understandable way what he's trying to do.
As you know, Mike Lee is leading the effort to defund Obamacare in the United States Senate.
The entire Republican establishment has aligned against him.
Consultants, establishment big wigs, party big wigs, even some donors, have aligned against him because they are convinced that attempting to defund Obamacare at the next negotiation, the end of September on a continuing resolution will lead to a government shutdown, and that will destroy the Republican Party.
Now a couple of things, and I'm not going to get into this too much now.
I'll wait for Senator Lee to uh to get here.
But at some point, don't we have to start paying attention to the Constitution and have an actual budget?
This continuing resolution technique of funding the government is a Democrat wet dream.
It is it is it is it is made to order for limitless spending increases.
But more than that, it's just it turns the Constitution upside down.
This is not how the federal budget and this country is to be funded.
It's not how this budget process is supposed to work.
And I don't know what this is the we haven't had a budget in four years.
I don't know how many continuing resolutions we've had.
The second thing is this government shutdown will destroy the Republican Party.
I I have to opine that the Republican Party is doing that already.
They're already in peril because of the strategy they have adopted of capitulation with the Democrats in calling that victory, capitulation on Amnesty, and now there's a desire on the part of some to capitulate on Obamacare.
And I've heard the objections to it.
Well, some have said, show me where you're gonna get 51 votes in the Senate for this.
Even if you could make a move on this to defund it, show me where you're gonna get 51 votes to win this in the Senate.
Where are you gonna pick up five or six Democrats to make this happen?
And how are you gonna get all the Republicans?
And I f that that's interesting to hear that because what that really means is that people don't even want to try.
What that means is that people do not want to even stand up and declare their opposition to Obamacare.
Let's take as a hypothetical, and it's not actually a hypothetical.
I mean it it may be reality.
Let's say Obamacare, no way to stop it.
Let's say that Lee's wrong.
Can't stop it, can't be done.
There's still an opportunity for the Republican Party to identify itself, to distinguish itself, to draw a contrast with itself between themselves and the Democrat Party, which is leading the transformation and in the view of many, the destruction of this country certainly is founded.
At some point, what's the harm in standing up and saying no?
What's the harm in standing up and saying I don't support this?
No matter what poll you look at, there isn't a single poll that shows a majority of the American people in favor of Obamacare.
Every poll you look at, a majority, and it's sizable, oppose Obamacare.
The Republican Party wants votes from people.
I assume they want to grow.
There is a majority of the American people waiting to be connected to.
You know, in politics, media, in your personal life, you have to make connections with people.
It's necessary for the success of a program like this.
I have to connect with you.
I have to reach out the radio and grab you one way or the other.
You have to make connection with people.
And they're not even trying to do that.
And when the when the Tea Party, I made all this pretty clear last night in my uh one-hour interview.
By the way, they can't believe it at CNN.
I happened to stumble across.
They did a segment on CNN on my one hour on Fox.
They couldn't believe it.
They said the only reason this could happen is because Roger Ail's a friend of mine and had to okay it.
Politicians don't even get a full hour.
It was a former stalker, Carol Costello, she's all ticked off.
And then they said, well, you know what?
This is really Lynn Boyden going to be here in three or four years.
He's really fading fast.
And he's just trying to show that he can still draw an audience.
And uh Limbaugh, very, very worried about these public negotiations for his radio stations.
He's just trying.
I said yesterday, spent a lot of time, that's why these people at CNN, lousy reporters.
The reason I did that show on Fox, I told you yesterday.
It was because of the persistence of Greta Van Sestran, who has been after me like I have never been after for two solid weeks.
I went into detail about it yesterday.
I finally agreed to do it to.
Well, I don't want to be critical of Greta here.
I'm just telling you, she was relentless with this.
She refused to accept no.
I must have said no three or four times.
What I didn't do was sick HR on it.
You know, HR, that's his job is to say no.
And some of these people have my direct email address.
Greta is one.
But now they're making a big deal.
Oh, this is just so for 25 years they've been saying I'm a fad.
This is the last day of the 25th year of this program.
Tomorrow's our anniversary, August 1st.
25-year fad.
I've I I have been over for 25 years.
I've I won't be around the next three or four years for 25 years.
It's laughable.
But I made all this clear last night on the interview with Greta.
I mean, two instances here that really befuddle me.
The Tea Party eruption in 2010, which led to a mammoth Republican victory.
I mean, it was so large that it is seldom discussed.
But it was it was a slapdown.
I mean, it was a shellacking.
The Democrats lost seats all over this country.
I think the total number is somewhere between six and seven hundred seats if you go to state legislatures, even down to town council.
But nobody expected the Republicans to win the House in 2010.
And they did.
Sizably.
And it was because of first time political participants that were called the Tea Party.
People, you know who they are, you are them.
Many of the Tea Party people had never done anything in politics besides vote.
They'd never been to a town hall meeting, they'd never written a letter to Congress, but they were just, these people were scared.
The rising debt, what it meant for the future, for their kids and grandkids, then Obamacare, and that was the last straw.
And the 2010 midterms were the people of this country rising up and saying no to it.
The Republican Party did not seek to reach out, make a connection with them, and bring them into the party.
Just the opposite.
The Democrats, of course, started making fun of the Tea Party and mischaracterizing it as a bunch of extremist, radical, racist, sexist, and this kind of thing.
And there were some Republicans who acted like they thought Tea Party was the same way.
So the Tea Party remained this isolated group of Americans concerned in their hearts about their country.
And nobody in Washington wanted them.
Certainly not the Democrats.
The Republicans made no effort to connect with them and reach out to them.
And now here we are in the same circumstance all over again with Obamacare.
A vast majority of American people don't want it.
It is the law of the land.
It is being implemented.
Supreme Court ruled that it's constitutional in ways that it really isn't, but you have to live with it.
And so there's a senator who's got an idea.
Let's give it one last shot and defund it.
You would think that a Republican party that wants to be a majority party would see this majority of people that oppose it and at least make a stand on their behalf.
Even if it's a lost cause, there's a patron saint of lost causes.
St. Jude.
Make the stand.
Take the opportunity to connect with these people.
Let them know that you're on their side.
Let them know that they have a home in your party.
Reach out to them.
Make it make a stand.
Tell the country that you as well.
I'm speaking of elected Republicans.
Oppose Obamacare too.
Instead of appearing to capitulate and acquiesce to it, and then hope that it's so bad that people end up hating Democrats.
For 25 years I've heard that strategy articulated about Bill Clinton and about any number of Democrats, and it never works.
Because most of the American people are never educated about who Democrats really are.
By the way, there's another full hour of me on Greta Friday with very little repetition of what aired last night.
They got enough.
Well, I a little bit, but the the one thing I described yesterday, where I said if I could reach out of that TV set and grab you and have you learn that did not air last night.
So that will air on Friday night.
What I've said was if I could, you know, I've always had this objective to make everybody understand what Democrats are, what liberalism is.
People do not like liberalism.
When they hear that somebody is liberal, they don't like it.
The Republicans seldom describe the Democrats that way anymore.
Liberalism, well, conservatives identified conservatives outnumber liberals by two to one in polls that seek that information.
It makes you wonder how do we continue to lose elections?
We outnumber them two to one.
Now it's it's like 40 to 20 percent.
There's not a majority of the American people identify themselves as conservatives, but of those who do, it's twice as many who identify themselves as liberals.
So it's a it's it's a question that people pull their hair out.
Why are we keeping continuing to lose?
And the answer to that is not that hard.
You've got 40% of the American people admitting they're conservative, and they don't have a party.
You get right down to it, they don't have a party.
The Republican Party is not a conservative Republican Party.
It is acquiescing and capitulating to what the Democrats want.
And uh look, these Republicans are not dumb.
They're not stupid.
There may be other things, but they're not that.
There's a reason they're doing this.
It escapes me.
I just chalk it up to fear, lack of confidence, uh, no desire to fight, uh, being beat down by the media, afraid of what's going to be said about them if they stand up and fight, buying this silly notion that you can't attack Obama without being hated and so forth.
Democrats have really cowed them.
But regardless, there's a third opportunity now for the Republican Party to reach out to a majority of Americans and connect with them, and if nothing else, stand up and represent them.
And let these people who are voters, they're potential voters, let them know that there's a political party on their side.
The Republicans don't even want to do that.
The third opportunity is amnesty.
Because a majority of the American People does not want amnesty to be granted without border security as part of the mix.
Everybody knows that we're not going to deport whatever number of people are here, and nobody's talking about that.
But securing the border and shutting down this illegal inflow is crucial.
And a majority of the American people want that to happen.
So you've got health care twice and amnesty here as three since 2010, three opportunities for the Republican Party to make a connection with, by virtual polling data, a majority of the American people by making a stand.
And they don't even want to make the stand.
They don't want to even express their opposition to Obamacare.
Not powerfully anyway.
So Mike Lee and Ted Cruz and Rand Paul, they're on islands, and they are isolated, as it were.
And I was thinking about something.
You know, we always consider the possibility that the polls are skewed.
And I have decided that they're not after 2012.
And I assumed that the 2010 turnout would show up in 2012.
And that all the pollsters were missing that.
And these polls that showed Obama up six and seven.
And I was comparing it to 2010.
So how can that be?
And they all said, but a presidential turnout is much different than a midterm turnout.
A, it's going to be a much larger turnout.
And you it in the 2010 midterm, there wasn't a Republican on the ballot to vote for or against the 2010 midterms were strictly an anti-Democrat, anti-Obama vote.
And I said, okay, why won't that happen in 2012?
People said you're going to have to have a Republican that is the recipient of that anti-sentim.
If you don't, it's not going to show up.
It's going to stay home.
And that's what happened.
So I began thinking last night, I've rejected it, but I get it.
What if the polling data that shows a majority of people oppose Obamacare is all made up and is a trap designed to get the Republicans to stand up and oppose it, when in fact a majority of Americans do support Obamacare.
And what if the Republicans know that just aren't saying it?
Now, I'm not, I as I'm saying, I thought about that last night and I rejected it because every poll would have to be in on that kind of conspiracy.
Sturdly, man, we when you see any poll, no car where it comes from, Gallup, USA Today, CNN, I don't care.
NBC, Wall Street Journal, ABC, Washington Post.
When you see a poll that shows majority of American people oppose Obamacare, do you believe it?
Okay.
I do too.
And the Democrats are, yeah, I think the fact that Obama and the Democrats are out trying to resell it and prevent what happened in 2010 from happening next year.
I think the polls are right.
So I don't I don't think the Republicans can hide behind the fact that the polls are fraudulent, it's a trap.
They just don't want to stand up and oppose this.
No, I haven't.
I haven't.
And then and amnesty is the same way.
But we're in a l- we're in an upside-down world.
We've got economic growth of 1.7%, which is portrayed today as just fabulous.
It's, folks, it's uh it's it's unreal.
It's upside down.
We have a paltry, I mean embarrassing.
This is this is all intents and purposes, this isn't growth at all.
1.7% GDP.
Growth rate of the economy.
It is being hailed as great news, as evidence of a roaring back economy.
Gotta take a break.
Be back.
Don't go away.
Ladies and gentlemen, I'm checking the email.
I am not saying I thought the health care polls have all been rigged.
I said last night, like everybody, I'm trying to understand the understandable.
I'm trying to understand the incomprehensible, and that is the Republican Party's capitulation with the Democrats on all of these issues that a majority of the American people oppose.
So I was just my mind active and vibrant and wandering, and I started asking myself, well, maybe what if all the polls were rigged as part of a plot to suck the Republicans suck the Republicans in?
In other words, what if all the polls actually, in truth, show a majority of people love Obamacare and the Republicans know it, and that's what I've rejected it out of hand, the Democrats doing too much to sell it.
I think uh I think one of the things the Republicans are afraid of is that once the Santa Claus aspects of health care kick in, the subsidies, I think that they are convinced the American people are going to love that, the recipients, the people that get the subsidies.
And I think they're afraid of standing up in opposition to this because that would be opposing another day of Santa Claus Christmas.
How are you?
Welcome back, folks.
Great to have you.
Rush Limbaugh serving humanity, having more fun than a human being should be allowed to have because I am doing what I was born to do.
So there are a lot of subsidies in Obamacare.
There's a lot of Santa Claus.
And I am trying to understand the Republican Party.
I'm going beyond what they say, McCain, whoever else, McConnell, why are they afraid to even express opposition to Obamacare?
I mean, this is I mean, in a in a believable, powerful way that would reach out and connect with what is a majority of the American people.
It could well be that they have now resigned themselves to the inevitability of full-fledged Obamacare, and that means subsidies.
That means it's an entitlement, folks.
That means there are giveaways from Obamastash.
There are subsidies that a lot of Americans can qualify for at the exchanges.
Maybe, I'm just speculating, maybe the Republicans are just scared to death that people are going to like this once they see it, and are just scared to death of being on the record opposing it.
Don't want to give the Democrats any potential TV ad material because they're afraid the American people might end up liking it like they like Social Security, might end up liking it like they like Medicare.
So you could you could draw an analogy.
The Democrats know, or the Republicans know the Democrats are always going to be Santa Claus.
The Democrats are Santa Claus, and the Republicans are never going to be Santa Claus.
But maybe, just maybe, if they ask nicely, the Democrats will let the Republicans be the elves at the North Pole.
You know, seen as working hard to help Santa Claus deliver the toys, the subsidies.
Even if they don't get the top billing, maybe they can be Rudolph, the red-nosed reindeer.
Maybe they can be the elves while the Democrats are Santa Claus.
And they are seen by people as I'm using an analogy here that may explain what the Republicans are attempting to do here.
Because it's it's obvious they're in a defensive posture, and they are for some reason, they're more than hesitant.
They're reluctant to really come out at this stage against it.
So maybe they look at the polls and they see a majority of the American people oppose it now, but they don't think they will once it gets fully implemented.
Not all, but you know, a lot of Americans, low information, typical Democrat voters who the Republicans are enamored of.
I mean, they really do wish they could get the people to vote Democrat to vote for them.
And that might explain the same phenomenon when it comes to uh amnesty and border security.
Maybe the Republicans feel like they are a genuine and true minority party in terms of the thinking of a majority of people in the country, and have no desire to try to persuade anybody.
They just want to pick up whatever they can in that position.
The consultants will get rich no matter what, running campaigns.
And occasionally Republicans will win elections, and occasionally they'll have their precious and beloved committee chairmanships.
And there'll be a year here or a term there that they'll be in charge of the money.
And who knows?
That may be enough for them.
Just guessing.
So I'm not in politics.
It's easy for me to sit here and think what I would do if I were in their shoes, but I don't have to get votes.
All I have to do is get listeners.
And I can get listeners, even among people who hate me, but they can't survive getting votes from people who hate them because that won't happen.
So it's a different business.
It's a different ball of wax, all of which I understand, and I'm trying to incorporate here into my thinking.
It just seems to me that this is counter to what you would really do if you wanted to be a majority party someday.
I mean, the old saw, nothing comes to people who wait for things to happen.
You have to go out and make it happen.
You have to go out, you know, every product or service has to sell itself.
You can't survive being the alternative.
Yeah, I mean, well, you might be able to survive, but you can't, you'll never lead, and you're certainly not going to be a dominant winner by being an alternative.
I mean, an idle alternative.
You're going to have to go out and make yourself a preferred alternative.
I just, it's just it's just tough.
I mean three different occasions here where a majority of the American people have made it plain how they think, and the Republicans have made no, the Democrats, when they're on the other side of a majority of Americans, what they do is go out and trash the majority of Americans.
And they come up with policies to punish them.
When the Democrats find themselves in the minority, that's when they get aggressive and wreak punishment on the people who aren't with them.
Two completely different approaches to politics.
Plus, the Democrats love government and they use it against their enemies.
And they thrive on that.
They love it.
I mean, that's something that they aspire to.
That's part of the reason they want the power, is to be able to turn that massive force of the U.S. government, the U.S. Treasury against their enemies.
They're not afraid what the independents are going to think of them if they get mean.
They're not afraid what the independents are going to do if they start criticizing Republicans.
They're not afraid what's going to happen if they get mean-spirited and extremists.
They're not worried about that at all.
But they've sure got the Republicans paranoid.
To even be disagreeable, much less combative.
The wiener situation.
Folks, every day arrives, and I keep looking for the opportunity to sweep this aside.
The day has not yet arrived.
Here is still news with Wiener and Humo.
Some of the news is that Huma is out.
Huma has left Hillary.
And there is a lot of buzz.
Did Hillary fire Huma?
Did Huma simply go on an extended vacation?
Or is Huma just gone because she doesn't want any part of this, and the grand strategy didn't work.
There's also News from the New York Times.
Jill Abramson, 59 years old, the first female managing editor.
That outside of management, she's a grand poopah at the New York Times, Jill Abramson.
She is an upper west side of Manhattan, full-fledged, traditional communist liberal.
I mean, she is she and Jane Mayer, they're inseparable buds.
Jane Mayer works at the New Yorker or one of those places, I forget which.
But she got the big gig.
The Politico ran a story on her not long ago that was critical of her, and she cried.
Jill Abramson admitted that a story critical of her in the political made her cry.
This is a woman that came from the bowels of the modern feminist movement.
This is a woman who came from the feminist movement which preached toughness, no emotion, no relationships, and if you have one, you don't talk about it, and it's not the center of your life.
And you take on the men in their bailiwick.
You take on the men in their careers, you become them and you take over.
And you do not cry.
Well, she cried.
Jill Abramson was reduced to tears because of a story run about her in the politico.
I have the details here somewhere in the stack.
I had not intended to mention this at this point.
That's why it's buried here.
Ah, here it is.
It's uh by the way, this wiener business.
I have to tell you something.
You know, you have to admire Wiener.
The guy just won't quit.
You know, I think maybe his online name instead of Carlos Danger, Carlos Cialis.
Or Carlos Viagra.
The guy just won't quit.
Well, yeah, two minutes.
No, he's the less than 30 second man.
That's on the phone.
On the phone, he's less than 30-second man, according to the sext pot who did the sexting with the with the with Wiener.
But I'm thinking, you know, the guy just doesn't quit.
Carlos Cialis would have been a better name, Carlos Viagra.
And if he um I could if he keeps this up another 48 hours, I think he ought to go see a doctor.
On the cutting edge of societal evolution, Rush Limbaugh, the EIB network, the Jill Abramson story in the Politico was published all the way back in April.
And for some reason it has just surfaced.
She told Lloyd Grove at the Daily Beast, I cried.
I should say that their story just bounced right off of me, but I'm just being honest.
I did cry.
But the next morning, but the next morning, I wasn't completely preoccupied by it anymore.
I had my cry, and that was that.
How many, how many people have the New York Times destroyed?
How many politicians, how many just people of all walks of life has have journalists at the New York Times targeted to destroy, to damage to harm.
And here's the woman that runs the operation, admitting that she cried over something written about her in the media.
And they're making fun of her out there because feminists aren't supposed to cry.
And Patsy Schroeder broke down and cried when she decided that she couldn't win the presidency.
Pardon the Stibles here, folks.
You remember Patsy Schroeder, a former Democrat Congresswoman from Colorado.
I once pulled a major trick on her as she fell for something that was just hilarious.
GoPack speech.
She actually believed me when I told everybody I bought my mother a can opener to be able to open the dog food she was going to be able to eat.
Patsy Schroeder thought that I was really serious.
That I was happy with my mother eating dog food, and I gave her a can opener.
The midst of a budget battle in 1995.
Go pack speech.
Anyway, she decided she wanted to run for president one day.
So she embarks on whatever you have to do to get the ball rolling.
And after a while, she figured out that wasn't going to work.
So she called a press conference somewhere in Colorado, I think it was Denver, and made her announcement that she was suspending her campaign, started bawling, broke down and started crying.
And then to add insult to injury, she then sought comfort from a man.
I looked at her, I said, who's that?
Because I mean she really she buried her head in this guy's shoulder, and she just really let loose.
I mean, and she said, I've I've I've decided I can't win.
Really, folks, it's like a baby crying.
And then she turned to this guy and her head's buried in her shoulder.
And I said, Who is that?
And found out it was somebody I didn't know existed, her husband.
Guy's name was Jim.
I don't know what his last name was.
Might have been Schroeder.
I don't know if she took his name, but she started, I said, Man, this is she is letting the sisters down double, double whammy, a crying, and then on the shoulder of a man.
And maybe a triple whammy, her husband.
Who heretofore, outside of their friends and neighbors in the district, nobody knew existed.
So Joe Abrams is now done another whammy here on the sisters.
She cried.
This I mean, if if one thing was drilled into young feminists to be in the late 60s and early 70s, it was never ever cry.
Never don't ever be seen crying.
Never.
It was almost as important as never act like your relationship is the centerpiece of your life.
So here we have another historically powerful woman in a position of great authority story.
Achieved without a man, although she's married and got a couple kids, but I just learned that today, too.
Didn't know she was married till today.
It's never part of reporting on her.
admitting to crying over a Politico piece.
And I just say, how many people have ended up crying over what the New York Times has done to them?
Here's a little blurb on it.
The Atlantic Wire.
It's not easy being New York Times executive editor Jill Abramson, the first woman to lead the paper in 160 years.
And because the Times is the paper of record, it frequently is the subject of criticism, which has been especially harsh as of late.
But every once in a while, it's best to lead with your right hook, not your pen.
Accordingly, the New York born and bred Abramson responded to her many critics in an interview with the Daily Beast's Lloyd Grove, highlights of which are below.
I cried.
I should say it went right off me, but I'm just being honest.
I did cry.
But by the next morning, I wasn't completely preoccupied about any more.
I had my cry, and that was that.
In part, she was able to get over the politico hatchet job so quickly because she's been hit by a truck before.
That's what they say here.
It's not my words.
They say she'd been hit by a truck before.
Yeah, Abrams was hit by a truck near the Times building in 2007, spent weeks in a hospital recovering from a broken hip, broken leg, among other injuries.
Anyway, you find it interesting that a woman editor at New York Times crying is a news story.
But it was.
Why is that news?
You have to ask yourself, why is that news?
Get this, folks.
A sex tape that Monica Lewinsky recorded for Bill Clinton.
At the height of their affair has leaked out, during which Lewinsky is heard planning a secret sexual rendezvous with Clinton and declaring she is too cute and adorable to be ignored.
Move over, Wiener.
▲
Export Selection