All Episodes
Previous Next
Aug. 19, 2013 - Rush Limbaugh Program
32:03
August 19, 2013, Monday, Hour #3
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Look, folks, I know I'm the all-knowing, all caring, all sensing, all feeling, all everything Maha Russia, but I do not know why the New York Times is dumping on the Clintons.
I know what the possibilities are, but I do not know why they're doing it, and they are doing it.
There is no question that there is I don't know, an agenda or a storyline on this, but I mean Bill Clinton is just raked over the coals here for being a reprobate for being money hungry for for demanding to be paid for all their good works, for demanding to be the focus of everybody's attention.
I mean, it is not pretty.
This is not something you walk back from.
This is this is not a hit piece that you say, oh, okay, maybe I was a bit too whatever and and apologize for it or walk it back.
Nor are these stories that are being done on the Clinton Library, Massage Parlor and Foundation, nor are the stories on HUMA.
I mean, I don't think there's nothing the Clintons can do or say to uh cause there to be retractions on these stories.
The Maureen Dowd piece is an actual character attack as much as it is anything else.
I mean, when you start criticizing people for being money hungry, liberals, money hungry, demanding to be paid for every good work they do, making 17 million dollars giving speeches, and contrasting that with Harry Truman, who didn't earn a penny trading on the office when he left it.
Talking about how much Hillary makes per speech.
I mean, she c she's created a picture here of people who are in it for the money.
And that is an injurious hit to a liberal who wants to be thought of as above all of that.
A liberal is a liberal because of a good big heart and a compassionate mind and all that.
They're not interested in money.
It's one of the big myths that survives out there, and it's being blown up here where the Clintons are concerned.
Maureen Dowd also wrote, the Clintons want to do big, worthy things, but they also want to squeeze money from rich people wherever they live on planet Earth, insatially gobbling up cash for politics and charity and themselves from the same incestuous swirl.
Now that I think is, I think can be said of all of them.
That that is true of every leftist cause.
Isn't that what they do for AIDS?
Ending poverty, climate change, don't the left always find a way to get rich while the problems never get fixed?
Look at Al Gore.
Al Gore has become a three-figure multimillionaire perpetuating a hoax.
The hoax of man-made global warming.
And all of these liberals get rich while advocating and promoting their causes.
And there's always a component that requires everybody else giving up money.
You have to change the car you're driving.
You have to change your lifestyle.
You have to get poorer.
They get richer.
That's what the first New York Times story was about essentially was here you have the Clinton Global Initiative, which is a foundation engaged in philanthropy, and it chronicled all the people getting rich from it.
I mean, this is a huge veil being lifted from practically every leftist cause out there.
Let's look at Maureen Dowd here again.
The Clintons want to do big worthy things, but they want to squeeze money from rich people wherever they live on planet Earth, insatiably gobbling, that's Donations to the charity or speech fees or what have you, initially insatiably gobbling up money for politics, money for policy, selling the Lincoln bedroom or the White House coffees.
All of this was going on, and while it was happening, there was laughing about it.
There was some reporting, it was a little bit critical.
But mostly they put a veil over it in order to protect the Clinton image.
As uh people totally focused on good works and not themselves.
And that's why this is remarkable to me.
And that's why I say you can't this is going to be very difficult.
I wouldn't say it's impossible, but this is gonna be very difficult to walk back.
Now, maybe the Times could get it out of their system and then ignore it and go back to covering the Clintons the way they did, but it's still out there.
And I guess it's still possible that what all this is is simply get the junk out of the way now, clear the decks for a Hillary run so that when other people bring these things up, they can say it's been done.
Reported on.
Oh, yeah, Maureen Down wrote about that two years ago, and here I am still on the precipice of becoming the nominee, what have you.
But I think this is every liberal cause.
I don't care whether it's AIDS, ending poverty, global warming, stopping malaria, you name it.
Every liberal involved is getting rich, promulgating these charities.
while everybody else gets poorer.
Here's more from Maureen Dowd: "Clinton world is a galaxy where personal enrichment and political advancement blend seamlessly, and where a cast of jarringly familiar characters pad their pockets every which way to Sunday." How is that any different from any other Democrat and his or her cause, like Al Gore?
Personal enrichment.
This is this has long been a point that I've tried to make in my own inimitable style on this program.
A lot of liberals get rich running these charities, living off of the donations they solicit.
They don't actually have real-world jobs.
They don't actually start businesses or work at businesses and uh uh uh take a share of what is produced or created.
They set themselves up in these uh profitable or not-for-profit foundations or organizations, and they live off the donations.
But they do get rich in the process, and while they Kennedys, and while they get rich, their public image soars as great, compassionate, philanthropic people.
Remember, there's another aspect of this.
People ask me and have asked me frequently over the course of this program about all these wealthy Democrats and why they're Democrats.
People most often to me mention Buffett and Bill Gates, because those two appear to be Uber capitalists.
The people asked me, why are these guys Democrats?
I said there's a very simple answer.
These really hyper-rich people insulate themselves and their wealth by appearing to be opposed to it.
Sort of a modified limbaugh theorem.
Become rich, get really rich, and then become a person that supports liberal Democrat causes oriented toward helping the poor or what have you.
Meanwhile, you don't give any of your money to it, but you just say you're for it, and in the process, you create the impression that you're not a greedy capitalist.
And therefore nobody wants to go after your money.
But they do want to go after AIG's money, and they do want to go after certain Wall Street funds, certain individuals money.
It's simply it's In one way, it is a gutless way, but smart of making sure the peasants with pitchforks don't try to cross the moat and get to their house and get their money.
Because the peasants with pitchforks end up thinking that all these super uber rich people are looking out for them, trying to help them.
It's a pretty smart trick.
But I think with uh you know what's being exposed with the Clintons here by by, in this case, Maureen Dowd, but the New York Times in general, is an open book on every liberal Democrat cause and how these people actually do get rich and then attain this status of super compassionate, big-hearted, only cares about others characterization.
Even the Wall Street Journal, and I say even because aside from the editorial page, Wall Street Journal, it also bends a little leftward out there.
And they have a piece today entitled Hillary's Racial Politics.
And bore you with the whole piece, but what it focuses on is why Hillary is making such a big deal about voting rights acts and voting laws and why she's out there speaking to the American Bar Association and the NAALCP about the right to vote and black people and how it's being taken away from them and all of this gobbledygook that isn't true.
And here's a pull quote.
The disconnect between these facts and Mrs. Clinton's assertions suggest that Mrs. Clinton is the one playing racial politics.
The current narrow Democrat majority is largely a coalition based on gender and racial identity.
It requires big turnout among single women and non-whites.
And as the Obama era winds down, the fear among Democrats is that these voters won't have the same enthusiasm.
Take the first African American president off the ballot, not as much enthusiasm.
Get rid of the front-running feminazi female, not as much enthusiasm.
In other words, they need to cheat.
They need avenues to voter for.
This is why they're so opposed to photo ID.
What this story in the Wall Street Journal is pointing out is essentially Hillary knows she doesn't have a prayer without voting laws stacked in her in her favor.
That is maintaining the standard that there will be no photo ID required.
And there's only one reason for that, and that's that you can have voter fraud.
It's pure and simple.
And everybody knows, I actually think, given the Democrats' incessant focus on voting rights, and the idea here that there's still some effort out there to deny minorities the right to vote.
If anything, there is an effort to count their votes more than once.
If anything, there is an effort to get people not even qualified to vote to vote.
The idea that there's an effort to squash minority voting is absurd.
It's just the exact opposite.
Everybody's pandering to them.
And the way the Democrats operate, they're trying to see to it that minorities can vote multiple times.
Early voting, absentee voting, same-day voter registration is voting, all of this is aimed at overwhelming an electoral system that can't keep up with the fraud.
In one sense, you could you could you could probably say that it is a wonder Republicans win anything.
And then you would say it's got to be a testament to the power of Republican or conservative ideas.
But every time I see a Democrat on television wailing and moaning and Complaining and crying about voting rights act here and voting rights laws as though there's there's still this effort from the eighteen hundreds to deny the right to vote to minorities.
What an insult to intelligence that is.
As I said, the effort is to get those people voting multiple times.
And the whole idea that a photo ID is the equivalent of a poll tax or some sort of stuff.
All this age old language that incites old ideas of racism and Jim Crow slavery and this kind of it's absurd.
Well, anyway, the Wall Street Journal is calling her on it.
In this piece.
And uh anyway, it's all happened before she's even announced.
Which we also must point out.
Let's take a brief break.
And as promised back to your phone calls right after this.
Will met Illinois Elliott, you're next.
I'm glad you waited.
Great to have you on the program, sir.
Rush, a thrill and a delight to speak with you.
One you will never know.
Um I was told to stick to the point from Mr. Snerdley, and my point was that from what you've been arguing about or discussing about um talking with people and trying to get down to um uh political points, um people I discuss things with, if I present it carefully enough, I can get them to agree with me, and then they'll wonder why they were disagreeing with me.
But you've been talking about people who who are resistant to that and will never admit that they do understand what the point that you're making.
Well, I want to the point I wanted to make was that that corresponds to the to the old rule or whatever that you can't wake someone who is pretending to be asleep.
And I thought that might give you some uh some insight onto that side of it.
Because if they if they do understand but they're not going to admit to it, then uh it it adds another whole layer to uh Well, what are I'm um what's the context here?
What what are you uh the context is if you're the if you're talking politics uh Are you saying don't worry about people who aren't who are effectively asleep because you're never going to change their minds?
Um no, not at all.
But simply that uh uh if you're if you're talking to someone who is who will not admit that um you know you're making the point, but they are and you and you sense that they understand it, but they're not willing to go along with it.
That's the notion of them being asleep, and you can't wake them up when they're not willing to be woken up.
You just wanted to call and use that phrase.
That's why you just wanted to call them and say people who are pretending to be asleep, uh you can't wake up.
You you just wanted to use the phrase.
Well okay, that's one of the that was the main point I wanted to make, but it doesn't make a distinction between people who but yet we've got to get to them, so how do you wake them up?
Um You just said you can't.
Well, if you if you tell them that if you tell them that you can't wake up someone who's will who's pretending to be asleep, then you're gonna be able to do that.
You get a verbal version of a taser.
Yes.
That you could then call you could then accuse them of that, and then they they I don't know how they'd counter it.
Well, my my contention on all this is most people are too proud, they're never going to admit that you changed their mind.
They're never gonna let you know you did that.
That's why you have to keep trying.
I just did a quick search of rushlimbaugh.com.
The first time I used the phrase you can't wake up somebody pretending to be asleep was November third of 2011.
And I searched the phrase at the first uh now that's the first event or the first time that the website shows it as being used.
We used it many times since then.
That you cannot awaken somebody only pretending to be asleep because they're already awake.
Pretending to be asleep means they're awake.
They're just faking it.
And you're never they're already awake, so you cannot wake them up.
The point is you can't persuade people by talking to them.
But what we discussed in that instance back in uh November of of uh 2011, there's all kind the the art of persuasion is a really it is an art.
And the least effective way to persuade people is to get in their face and wag your finger at them.
That's automatic resistance.
You also can't persuade people if you come across as like parent.
You know so much more, and you dumb idiot, I'm trying to help you, you're nothing more than a child, and I'm trying to show you the ways that doesn't work.
I mean, sometimes it does.
All these things work in certain ways, but they're not the most effective art of persuasion.
The art of persuasion is not bludgeoning.
Now you can use consistent repetition, but in that case, the person has to be open to it and willing, and that's where the whole phrase you can't wake them up if they're pretending to be awake, or pretending to be asleep, they're already awake.
So the real effective persuasion is that which makes the persuadee think that they are coming to the conclusion you want on their own.
Everybody wants to think that they're smart.
Everybody wants to think that they are perceptive, and nobody likes being told that they aren't.
That's humiliation.
Nobody likes being told that they're not sly.
Nobody likes being told that they miss the obvious.
And they're going to build up a resistance, and they're going to be hellbent on resisting you just for the sake of it.
They will not want you to have the enjoyment or the pleasure of realizing that you changed their mind.
So the most effective way of doing it, or one of the most, it's hard to say the most, the most effective way to do it is to, in conversation with people, set up a series of circumstances to which the conclusion is obvious.
You don't have to make it.
You do this with a series of questions most of the time to which the conclusion is obvious, and they think they arrived at it on their own.
And therefore, if that happens, then there might honestly be a conversion.
If you just have to drill something into people over and over again, time and time again, the odds are it won't stick.
it won't take.
Now, to people who realize that there are people smarter than they are, then what you...
that's not enough.
You have to be respected at the same time, not resented.
And there's a lot of people who realize that people are smarter than them resent the people who are smarter and automatically resist or oppose.
So it really is, I think of a delicate thing on an individual basis to set out to persuade people.
Well, let me let me give you well, I didn't have the secret confab, they were already converted.
But let me give you an example.
I was not going to talk about this for obvious reasons, but it it will make maybe it'll help me make my point.
There was over the weekend in the Los Angeles Times a column by a woman who told the story of how her father just loved and adored me, and she hated me.
And she writes the most amazing things.
I don't remember her name, it doesn't matter.
She writes that she her father is a de military guy, devoted fan, according to her, devoted fan, and she's telling Him, no, he hates women, meaning me.
Limbaugh hates women.
He's a racist.
He's an extremist.
And when I was reading this, the the the take I got, look at what this woman thinks of her father.
This woman was dead set.
There was no change.
Her father could not change her mind about me.
I was racist.
I hated women, but he, her father, loved me.
Well, now what must she think of her father?
Now think about trying to, you're you're you're you're that father trying to persuade your daughter.
And she's got these obviously erroneous, totally wrong, emotional attitudes about me.
Her dad's a big fan.
The way this thing ends, she has to put him into an assisted living.
If I remember this right, I'm gonna make it some details wrong.
She has to put him in an assisted living center.
And there are some things, rush caps.
I mean, he she she writes that he donated to all of the rush charities, which would be Leukemia, Marine Corps Law Enforcement.
That made no impression on pressure impression on her at all.
None.
I still hated women, I hated this, I didn't extremist.
Her dad donated, she's writing her dad donated all my charities.
He had uh Rush paraphernalia from the EIB store.
I think he had a bunch of rush caps.
And she writes that near the end of his life, he admitted, he said to her, whatever her name is, you know, you as my daughter are more important to me than Rush Limbaugh is.
So I'll throw this Limbaugh stuff away, moving into the assisted living center.
And then she goes on to conclude, why is it this way?
Why can't we all put aside our partisanship and get along kind of thing?
But as I'm reading this, her father, by her own description, is a was an accomplished, he was 87 or 85 when he died, but I think he was a military guy.
He wasn't a kook.
Even in her eyes, that's the we wanted to cook, but I am.
And I don't, you know when you talk about the art of persuasion, here's a here's a woman, a daughter who has these horrible, totally inaccurate, wrong attitudes about me.
Her father, who listens every day, loves me.
She can't believe, I guess, how he's been fooled or whatever.
But while she thinks of me in these horrible ways, what must she have thought of her father?
That's what I wondered.
She didn't write about that.
From the article, on the day we were packing, with both of us understandably on edge, I came across a stash of Rush Limbaugh caps, maybe six of them, each with a different year printed on the front.
I couldn't let it pass.
I said, Dad, can't we get rid of these?
Rush Limbaugh's nasty, mean spirited, doesn't like women, and if he knew me, he would hate me and everything I stand for.
Can't you at least stop wearing these caps?
She's saying that to her dad, who is a huge devoted daily fan.
What must she then think of her father?
Anyway, on the day of the hat dispute, I went back into his bedroom after I had collected myself after that diatribe.
And he said, Sweetheart, I want to tell you something.
It's okay, Dad, I replied.
I know that we disagree, I'm eating.
Let's just not talk about politics.
But he persisted.
He said, I've been thinking.
And I've come to the conclusion, although I really like Rush, I love you more, so I'm going to give up the caps.
My father died this month.
He was 87 years old, he went peacefully.
I loved him and I miss him greatly, but his death has also got me to thinking.
And then she goes on and on about why can't we come together?
This kind of thing.
Rush Limbaugh's nasty.
You people listen to this program every day.
You know that all that is just a pile.
Nasty, mean spirited, doesn't like women.
If he knew me, we'd hate don't hate anybody, and you all know this.
And her dad knew that.
I think the problem is with her.
The intolerance is with her.
Her father was a totally tolerant.
Her father was totally willing to have her and me in his life, but she in no way.
And it ended up her dad had to choose.
Obviously, she chose his daughter, which is cool, which is which is fine.
But you look at something like that, folks, in talking about trying to persuade somebody, and what do you do?
And you're certainly not going to succeed with words, no matter how.
Now, that that woman might be an illustration of somebody who is you can't wake up somebody who is pretending to be asleep.
I don't her name's not important.
If you want to look it up, you can find it.
I don't want to mention her name.
It's not the point.
But here's her description of her dad.
Highly educated, a psychiatrist, multiple advanced degrees in science and medicine.
He was Jewish, deeply religious, donating regularly to charities, helping those who struggled with life's challenges, including limbaughs.
The guy sounds like a pretty smart guy to me, and he's a regular listener here, and it just I'm I'm sure a lot of you have relationship with your parents like this with this program in the middle of it.
Not a lot, but some of you do.
And I again, I don't want to overdo that, but the thing that when I read this or read it, if she thinks this, all these things of me, what must she think of her father who listens regularly, and who apparently doesn't object to any of it?
That's what I don't know.
That's what that's where the disconnect is for me.
Anyway, uh I'm looking at the broadcast clock and take a break time is here, so we'll be back after this.
Now listen to this woman's description of her father.
Again.
Dad was highly educated, a psychiatrist, multiple advanced degrees in science and medicine.
He was Jewish, deeply religious, donating regularly to charities, helping those who struggled with life's challenges.
At uh not not quite what the drive-bys would consider to be a regular listener here, right?
Very accomplished man, and she mentions earlier in the piece that he donated to the Rush charities, I think she called them.
But let me ask you a question.
Who was the intolerant person in that relationship?
And who was willing to compromise?
Who was it?
She putting her dad in an assisted living center.
Dad, can we get rid of the Rush Limbaugh?
It's his stuff.
He's going to assist Dad, can we get rid of the Rush Limbaugh?
And he said, okay, if it means that much to you.
There's a word for that.
So the father, big fan of the program, loved this program.
He gave up his partisanship.
She was unable to do that for him in his dying days.
She was unable to, by her own admission.
And then ends up asking why can't we all get along.
Well, look what had to happen for her to end up getting along with her dad.
Her dad had to give up some things that apparently meant a lot to him.
And she proudly writes about this.
I mean, it's just sometimes these people think we're extremist and intolerant.
If you read it, you might you might think that she learns something from her own intolerance.
It's up to individual interpretation.
Anyway, the whole thing.
start talking about the art of persuasion, and it's it isn't, it's just that.
It is an art.
And on that note, folks, we will artfully dodge out of here, but be back, ready to go in 21 hours.
You be here too.
▲
Export Selection