All Episodes
Previous Next
June 4, 2014 - Rush Limbaugh Program
36:03
June 4, 2014, Wednesday, Hour #2
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Thank you very much.
I am so glad to be here.
It is Eric Erikson filling in the second hour of the Rush Limbaugh Show.
I just put something on Twitter at E. W. Erickson, E W E R I C K S O N. If you're on Twitter, it's one of your must-reads of the day.
It's Michelle Malkin's column at Town Hall.com on this Bergdahl matter.
I'm gonna move on.
We may come back.
I don't want to dissuade you.
If you can get into the Rush Limbaugh program, it's an exclusive club of phone callers, I tell you that.
If you can get through, we'll still talk about it.
There are there's other news out there, including my iPhone just went berserk.
It's an AP alert.
I will just read you what it says.
Data discrepancies in health care sign-ups affect two million people.
Could jeopardize coverage.
We'll get into the health care law.
There's other data out there as well.
And I suppose that since Russia's on vacation, I want to be a good steward of the EIB network here.
You know, Apple did have its worldwide developers conference the other day.
I was on vacation, but even I stayed up late at night after the wife and kids had gone to bed to watch the video.
I can bring you the latest, because if Rush were here, you know he'd do it, and you know you'd want to listen.
We may get there.
But first we have to turn our attention to Mississippi.
I know, I know.
The the those of you in the the fifty-six other states in Barack Obama's America, you're you're wondering why focus on Mississippi.
There was a big election there for the Tea Party last night.
Thad Cochran, sitting United States Senator.
Now, Thad Cochran has been there.
Speaking of the Mac, Thad Cochran has been in Washington, D.C. since before the MAC was invented.
I think he's been Washington, D.C. since before the Apple IIE was invented.
Thad Cochran has been in Washington, D.C. since before MS Doss ruled the computing world.
Those of you who know know.
Those of you who don't know, it's okay.
He's been there a very long time.
I think I let's see.
So I turned 39 yesterday.
Happy birthday to me.
I think he's been there since I was three years old.
Molly Ball at The Atlantic wrote this this profile of Thad Cochran.
Came out the other day.
Uh yesterday, I do believe on election day, this profile came out, and she she's actually writing something about me, came down and hung out with me for a while, a couple weeks ago with the family.
But she she wrote this article about Thad Cochrane and notes that as he was coming off stage from a very subdued where he's reading the note speech, he comes down and introduces himself to her, and she had interviewed him 30 minutes before.
Now I'm bad with names, I but I'm not that bad.
Cochrane he's he's being carried around by by Republicans in Mississippi.
Here's the thing.
This is why this election is so important.
Conservatives are challenging Thad Cochran from the right.
He's been in Washington for a long time.
He he on the other day on Twitter was welcoming Bergdahl back to the United States, thanking him for his service.
He's uh been on he's been on the wrong side of campaign finance reform.
He's been there on the wrong side of a lot of issues, spending a lot of money.
He he is he's kind of more a Washington Republican than a Mississippi Republican.
But a lot of people in Republican circles have been well, they they've been profiting from Republicans in power, and they want Republicans to get back into power for profit.
And the irony is that as conservatives have been challenging Republicans to do what they said they wanted to do, to recognize government's not the problem, and just Democrats in charge of government are the problem.
These conservatives are being attacked, saying they're they're just doing it to raise money.
Said by people who are in it to raise money, who have been profiting living large off Republicans being in charge of leadership in Washington and desperate for them to get back in charge so they can get their lobbyist clients.
It's just that the hypocrisy is outstanding out there, even within the Republican Party.
Here's what's at stake in Mississippi and why this election is so fascinating here.
You see, the conservative challengers, the the the Ted Cruzes, the Mike Lee's, the Rand Paul's of the world, that the now the Benzasses out in Nebraska, who who is one out there with conservative support.
They don't have to win every race, but the establishment does.
See, look at Republicans in the Senate with just a Ted Cruz and Mike Lee, a Rand Paul, a Marco Rubio.
A few of the other guys there who on occasion joined together and shake things up in the U.S. Senate.
They're they're not a majority of the minority party.
They're not.
There are a few guys who believe in limited government, who believe in the free markets, who believe in the Constitution, and occasionally they band together and they do things, and they are a minority of the minority party, and still in the Senate, they have power to do things.
So you you've got the the the crony capitalists of the world and others, they've all bandied together to try to shut these guys down and allied around the country spending money against conservatives and have been winning, in fact, outspending conservative groups two to one, three to one, four to one, five to one, and yet it it all comes into Mississippi where now there's a runoff, a three-week runoff.
The challenger appears now to be slightly ahead of you're talking like decimal points, 49.6 to 48 point something.
And the the Washington establishment has rallied around Senator Thad Cochrane, who's just decent people in Mississippi.
I I spent time in Mississippi this past week or close to Mississippi visiting with friends who are from Mississippi, say he's just he's been there a very long time.
We're at 17 trillion dollars in national debt.
This guy's been a part of it.
We might be able to do better than that.
We've got this conservative rock star state senator.
Now what's so interesting here is that the Republicans in Washington have rallied in a way conservatives haven't, and have been I mean, playing for keeps extremely vindictive, destroying conservatives everywhere they can.
I the the attacks they've made against this Chris McDaniel guy accusing him of being a white supremacist, which isn't true, accusing him of being a misogynist, which isn't true.
They've been pulling out the Democratic playbook in advance to try to blow this guy up.
You've got some of these Republican spokesmen on Twitter and Facebook who they've spent more time attacking conservative challengers to the establishment than they've spent attacking Democrats.
And it didn't work out well in Mississippi.
Now, here's the problem.
I always say, for example, I wasn't a big Mitch McConnell supporter.
I I supported the other guy, Matt Bevan, and he lost.
And it was very apparent for a while that he was going to lose when he lost, I gave Mitch McConnell money.
At redstate.com where I am the editor, I encouraged conservatives to rally.
He's better than the Democrat, that Alison Grimes or whatever her name is.
He's far better than that.
We should rally.
Take the position, conservative in the primary, Republican in the general election, but conservatives should rally.
We're all going in the same direction, at least we think.
The question though is, and this is why this Mississippi race is so intriguing for me as a conservative analyst, as a pundit, as someone on talk radio who sees the conservative grassroots, who is a part of the conservative grassroots.
We see and hear all the time, and Rush and I both, we spend a lot of energy telling conservatives, you know, we're the our side is still better than the other side.
We don't want to carry water for our side.
We're not water carriers, but at the same time, our side is better.
There is a difference between the parties.
We should unite and vote for the Republicans.
We may not care for the Republican, but again, we go with the army we have.
Our guy may not have won the primary, but we rally to the Republican who does win the primary because we are not the party of Barack Obama.
We are not technically the party of big government, though many of our side have collaborated in big government.
We are technically the party of freedom and individual responsibility and individual liberty.
Will the establishment do the same for us?
This is the question.
Are we on the verge of a divorce of party or are we just having a little squabble and we'll all come together?
This is, I think, what makes this Mississippi race so phenomenal to see the establishment always tells us they they tell Rush, they tell me, they tell you, they tell us all we you conservatives, we just we need you now.
I I know you you you wanted someone else, but you we've got the army we've got.
Let's move forward.
Let's beat the Democrats together.
Let's rally, and everyone says, yeah, Howard Dean style yellow and move forward.
And we beat the Democrats.
But it looks like the establishment's going to be on the losing end here because you see that the Cochrane people, I don't know that they will turn out.
They're not as energized as conservative activists in Mississippi who have been engaged for Chris McDaniel, who is a head of a sitting incumbent Republican senator who's been there since I was three years old.
He's been there since the 70s, he's been around the block.
He's in his late 70s.
Now here's the most amazing thing about the Cochrane situation is he has said in an interview with the Washington Post that he really wanted to retire.
It was just the the guys in Washington told him they needed him to run again.
They they didn't want the conservative challenger.
They they didn't want a another Ted Cruz in the Senate.
So they wanted Cochrane there.
If he's not the nominee, if if Chris McDaniel is the nominee, will the establishment that always tells conservatives you've got to rally now?
But we've got a Republican.
We need to rally, we need to go together.
And then conservatives tend to always do.
We don't take our football and go home.
The media would tell you that conservatives, when their guy loses, they take their football and go home, and yet they don't.
They continue to show up.
A lot of conservatives didn't particularly care for Mitt Romney, but they turned out to support him.
Because they knew he was better than Barack Obama.
They didn't take their football and go home.
But you always get the sense in these fights that the establishment actually will take their football and go home.
The institutionalists, as some call them in Washington, because they they don't stand a profit from a guy like Cruz or from McDaniel because they want to reduce Washington.
They don't want to spin Washington Large S. In fact, you're seeing Republican lobbyists on Twitter attacking conservatives for daring to support this guy because he's going to interfere with their lobbying contracts.
They're going to disrupt Washington, D.C. They're going to actually try to scale it back.
Will the establishment, even though there's no money in it for them, if a guy like Chris McDaniel is the nominee, will they rally to conservatives?
Will they do for us what they always expect and demand of us to do for them?
This is going to be the intriguing thing.
It's a three-week runoff in Mississippi.
The Washington Post has some data out that suggests, well, it's Aaron Blake of the Washington Post, the headline that Cochrane faces really or very tough odds in the runoff.
There are reasons why, we'll get into these.
But if if Chris McDaniel, as it looks, in three weeks, the media's already suggesting he he's probably going to be the nominee.
There are calls even at redstate.com where I'm the editor calling for Cochran to just go on.
He apparently slept through the results last night.
He's so far unavailable.
I'm not sure if he's joined the witness protection program or is still asleep from last night.
Will will they rally for McDaniel?
Or will they do what they always accuse us of doing, even though we never do, will they take their football and go home?
We'll break this down when we come back here on the EIB network.
Eric Eriksson in for Rush Limbaugh.
Aaron Blake at the Washington Post, the fix blog and other places at the Washington Post.
I can't keep up with the Washington Post and all their blogs and whatnot.
He he writes this that Thad Cochrane faces very tough odds in the runoff, and one of the reasons is looking at incumbents and primaries versus primary runoffs, they tend to not do well.
They tend to actually lose.
He notes that there are really only two anomalies there.
One was William Jefferson in Louisiana, who was under indictment, and he beat his uh the his opponent in a runoff, but that was on the same day Barack Obama was on the ballot, and then Jefferson went on to lose the next month to a Republican in a heavily Democratic district.
The other Blanche Lincoln, but typically incumbents lose in runoffs.
There are some reasons out there.
There was a third party in this race.
He only got about one percent of the vote, but it might have been enough to.
Well, it definitely was enough to keep a one of these two guys, McDaniel or Cochran, from winning.
There's going to be a runoff.
But challengers going into runoffs, they're challenging because they are passionately convicted.
You can disagree with them, you can think they're wrong, but challengers to an incumbent, challengers to an establishment, insurgents feel convicted.
They feel compelled to run, and if you support them, you probably share that conviction, you probably share the desire.
The establishment guys are just trying to cling to power.
And in a runoff, they're not necessarily going to turn out.
They see the game.
They see they're losing.
They're on the outside.
The game has shifted.
The National Republican Senatorial Committee sent people to run the ground game for Thad Cochran.
And now there are reports out from the politico that it looks like they're not going to spend much time or energy in a runoff.
It looks like the outside groups who were backing Cochrane aren't.
They see the writing on the wall there.
He he is an older gentleman who actually I was wrong.
He's been there since before I was born.
I thought he'd been there.
That was another guy.
Gosh, these guys they get in Congress and they stay there forever.
By the way, I'm not a huge I'm not a huge supporter of term limits for members of Congress.
I'm much more a uh supporter of term limits for their staffs.
I I think that's probably I think that's a we may we may spend some time on that.
In any event, let's move on.
I think I should go back and take another phone call while I have some time here.
Let's go to Bozier City, Louisiana, and Pete calling.
Welcome to the EIB network.
Pete, how are you?
I'm wonderful, Eric, and thank you so much, and thank you for taking uh uh Rux's place today.
It's uh pleasure listening to your views.
However, I have a couple of comments, if you don't mind.
Sure.
Uh first comment, I I agree with most of what you said today, except that uh Bobby Gendalon, I think he's leaving our state in a much worse place than what he came in with because of the uh uh tax expenditures that he's put in place in common core.
Those are two things that he's really pushing hard.
Uh the second thing is that the Democrats um, yes, they're trying to for this impeachment thing, and I think that's where you're going with this, but I think it's for a different reason.
I think they're trying to re-establish their base, because their base is going away from them uh from all the debacle that that uh Barack Obama has done.
They're they're losing their base at the end of the day.
Wow, I now I wouldn't dispute that.
I do think that there's some of that there.
And so what they're doing is they're saying they're giving themselves a ploy or a way to say we were against Barack Obama, vote for us.
We cannot afford people like Mary Landrew back in.
And if she's going against Barack Obama, which I know she is in uh in the energy industry already, she's going against them and putting out uh the rope calls already.
Um I think the other Democrats are going to do the same thing.
Uh look at Iowa.
I'm so glad Iowa uh got miserance last night.
Yes, Joni Ernst, a a good candidate, the the lady who who ran the ads about being a pig farmer and knowing what to do in Washington by based on what she did to the pigs.
Exactly.
Exactly.
And and and I think what they're doing again with this uh with this ploy of uh of uh um impeachment is re just telling their base, hey, we're we're against Obama.
So Yeah, yeah, you see, uh I think there's gonna be some subtle signals by these Democrats and swing districts in particular.
We're already seeing, for example, Mary Landrew and and these others who have gone out of their way now to take issue with things the Obama administration is doing, whether it's it's the Keystone Pipeline or coming out quickly and saying Eric Shinsecki needed to resign before he did.
You're going to there look Democrats believe in dog whistles.
Democrats believe that Republicans speak in code that Republican racists understand.
They they really do believe that.
And that only racists in the Republican Party can hear those dog whistles.
If they believe that, it's probably because Democrats themselves practice dog whistles.
And I think you will begin to hear multiple dog whistles coming from the Democratic Party.
You will hear some in the far out left wing district saying, hey, you know, we we need to stand by our man.
But you will hear other Democrats, particularly those in the Senate, saying such things as maybe we do need to investigate Bergdahl.
Maybe, maybe we do.
I think you'll start seeing Democrats as we get closer to November.
Remember, I I've said this before on this program, and I say it on my own program routinely.
Most political analysts note that polling for the incumbent president goes on a downward trajectory throughout the sixth year election.
So where he is in January tends to be the high point, and it's all down from there.
Now there are blips and bumps and dives and recoveries along the way, but it's it's a downhill trajectory towards November.
You're going to have Democrats in absolute abject panic in another month or so.
The the the president, it seems clear, they had no idea how this Bergdahl thing was going to blow up in their face.
They had no idea.
And yet it is blowing up in their face.
It's going to impact his polling, and consequently, it's going to impact his party's polling because the American public will not see that there is any accountability out there.
This is going to be a day of reckoning for the Democrats.
Watch them start running like rats from a ship, the closer we get towards November.
Hi there.
Welcome back.
Even those of you in Rio Linda, welcome.
It is Eric Erickson, editor of Redstate.com.
I got my own local show out of Atlanta on WSB, where Rush broadcast from.
Glad to be here from Atlanta.
And hi to my family in Macon, Georgia.
Let's go back to the phones, shall we?
Let's go to Biloxi, Mississippi, where my sister and her family are right now.
Amy, welcome to the EIB network.
Thank you.
What's going on?
Well, yesterday we had our um elections, and I did vote for Thad Cochran, and which I am the the reason for that, and it came down to the fact that that Washington is a good old boys' club.
It is, it always will be, and he's already made his place there.
And that's what hit my vote for the first time.
That's a very pragmatic reason to vote for Thad.
I know it's it's but I am so glad I get to correct that error in a few weeks.
Because anyone that would support a a terrorist is what I'm referring to Bird Dog as.
Um because anyone in the military would be should be more than willing to give up their lives.
That's what they signed up for.
Um would never accept five Taliban members, leaders for their life.
That that they would be willing to give up their life and not have mommy and daddy calling for them.
Um that they should be willing to give up their life and and protect America.
That's what their job is.
And and I know the large majority of them would be willing to do that.
Yeah, yeah, you know, Amy, let me stop you there and tell you one of the interesting things that's been noted uh by people on Twitter is that there were several Republicans in Washington who tweeted their welcome back to Bergdahl and thank you for your service.
And when it became known that he appears to have walked off base without permission, possibly deserted, there's got to be a military hearing to determine the actual designation of whether or not he deserted, but nonetheless he he left without permission, appears by his own notes to have gone to seek the Taliban.
There were a number of Republicans who tweeted that, but once they found out what he had done, once they found out that he had actually deserted, they deleted the tweets.
sent the Cochran tweet is still there.
Now, to be fair, we need to be fair.
Cochran is in his late 70s.
He forgot a reporter he had interviewed with 30 minutes beforehand.
He He's having to read notes, people are writing for him on stage.
So there is an age factor there.
I doubt he himself uses Twitter.
His Twitter account has never been very active.
So I'm sure it was a staffer somewhere who's just been preoccupied with the election to actually delete that tweet, but it does kind of show that he is not necessarily in full command of of his campaign there in the Siby.
In fact, the the National Republican Senatorial Committee had to send folks down to run his ground game for him.
So you do have a chance in a couple of weeks in the runoff to change your vote.
The interesting thing here is that Democrats who voted in Democratic campaigns, they won't be able to go in now.
There's been some speculation we may see people rushing out trying to get Democrats to go out and vote for Cochrane.
Well, if they've already voted in the Democratic primary, they can't vote in the Republican runoff in Mississippi.
So that that changes the dynamic as well.
All right, folks, we have to take a quick profit center timeout.
I am Eric Erickson in for Rush Limbaugh.
Oh, we do have lots of time.
Oh my goodness, we do.
Look at that.
So I should explain this to you.
Yes, I am.
So the call screening clock has the master clock that I should be paying attention to.
But for reasons unbeknownst to any of us, it is an hour and some odd minutes behind.
So yeah, and I'm back from vacation, so I still have time, which means I can go to Dan in Cross Plains, Texas, and take another phone call.
I didn't think I had talked that long, Dan.
Welcome to the IB network.
Well, thank you, Mr. Erickson.
But, sir, you are wrong about impeachment.
This man has violated the Constitution so many times I've even written them down.
He is uh violating the Constitution by not informing Congress with this uh Bergdahl situation.
Uh also look uh fast and furious cover-up.
Also Obamacare with his uh uh partial uh piecemeal approach on uh enforcing a law, the IRS investigation, Benghazi, which is still a cover up, also indicating Hillary Clinton on that I am.
Uh also the veterans administration who are good Americans, fought for this country, are dying so that these clowns could get their damn bonuses and falsifying reports, and last but not least, not enforcing the investigation and the protecting of our borders on immigration.
This is just a travesty of justice, and he will be impeached by the Democrats if you will put it forward now, because they know they're up for election, and any Democrat that doesn't vote for him being thrown out of office will be out themselves, sir.
Well, Dan, I think the Democrats are gonna get thrown out anyway.
I I I totally hear the passion in your voice, Dan, and I get the frustration there.
I I really do.
And you're not alone there.
There are a lot of people.
I'm seeing it on Twitter and getting it an email from people telling me I'm wrong.
We we've got it, we've got to push impeachment now.
Uh and I I get the passion, and I I don't want any of you who believe that to think I'm dismissive of you or or or think you're nuts or anything like that.
There are a lot of Democrats who do.
Look, this administration has done awful things.
It has been incompetent, it has been corrupt.
In some cases, I think you can uh accuse them of being criminal.
The question on the president himself is what has he in particular done?
And you can say that the look, Harry Truman said that the buck stopped with him, but Barack Obama believes the buck still stops with George W. Bush.
So then we can't impeach George W. Bush, he's not in office anymore.
So we'd have to focus on what did Barack Obama himself do.
This is why I think, Dan, if you will, that we need to have investigations, and we can't have those investigations until the Republicans take back the Senate.
We need to do to the Democrats what they did to Ronald Reagan with Iran Contra.
Find out exactly what he himself did.
Because the impeachment, as I read the impeachment clause in the Constitution for high crimes and misdemeanors, it applies to what did the president himself do.
Not what Eric Holder did.
That would that would lead to getting rid of Eric Holder.
Not what did what did Shinseki do?
That would lead to getting rid of Shinseki.
What did the President do?
What did he know and when did he know it, so to speak, that the Howard Baker line there.
What did the president do and what did he know?
We still don't know what the president was doing the night in Benghazi.
We don't know these things.
This is why we need to have these investigations.
We do need to investigate.
We do need to dig, we do need to explore, we do need to ask questions.
In fact, there are more questions raised now in just the last few minutes from the Daily Caller.
Let me just read you the headline from the Daily Caller.
It's from Chuck Ross at the Daily Caller.
Army investigation.
Bergdahl search left outpost vulnerable to brutal attack.
When you read into this, it appears that eight soldiers died and twenty-seven were wounded at U.S. Army combat outpost Keating during the Battle of Kamdesh, which occurred on October 3rd, 2009 in Afghanistan.
It was manned by around sixty troops.
It appears that priority shifted, largely driven by the intensity of operations in support of Afghan national security forces and the personnel recovery efforts to find missing PFC Bergdahl.
They shifted resources to try to find the guy.
Look, we are going to have to agree to disagree on the immediacy of a need to impeach President Obama.
And I I would disagree with you.
I I would have to say that I the Democrats aren't going to do this.
You can say some Democrats would, but there are enough Democrats who are not up for re-election in the Senate that you wouldn't get the two-thirds vote.
Now, yes, yes, yes.
We we can nuance it.
You could certainly impeach the president.
There are the votes that the Republicans own the House.
They could vote to impeach the president.
But it they wouldn't convict him in the Senate.
It would be a show trial right now with the Democrats in charge of it, and you don't want the Democrats in charge of any sort of show trial in the Senate.
It would just blow up badly in our faces.
I do think, though, even if the Republicans get back the Senate, they're not going to have the votes to be able to do it, but we will have the votes to do investigations.
The Senate Democrats, under Harry Reid, have abdicated all of their responsibility, all of it.
They have surrendered their intellectual integrity.
They have said George Bush did things, so now Barack Obama can do things.
They have stretched precedents and created new precedents.
The Democrats won't undermine Barack Obama in the U.S. Senate.
But once we have a majority, we can begin with a joint congressional committee asking the questions about Benghazi, about Bergdahl, about the IRS, about Fast and Furious, about all of these things that Democrats have thus far done their best to obstruct.
I predict to you this.
I predict to you this.
When the Republicans take back the Senate, you will see a vast wave of retirements and resignations from the Obama administration from individuals who do not want to go before Congress and be asked these tough questions.
And we must demand of the Republicans that they have the testicular fortitude to force them through subpoena to still come.
Now we will take a profit center timeout.
I'm Eric Erikson in for Rush.
Welcome back to the EIB network, Eric Erickson in for Rush Limbaugh, the phone number 800-2822 882.
I would be remiss if I did not remind you.
You can go to Rush Limbaugh.com and keep up with what's going on with Rush with the program.
If you're on the left, you can find things to take out of context.
You can watch the Ditto Cam when Russia's around.
You don't want to see me, trust me.
And you can always listen to the show in the podcast at Rush Limbaugh.com.
I too am a paid subscriber.
It's worth every penny, trust me.
Now I want to, well, let's see.
Let's go to Cindy in Paducah, Kentucky, before I move on.
Cindy, welcome to the EIB network.
Oh, thank you very much, sir.
Um, I've tried to convince everything while I've been on hold.
Um I have a quick qualification.
I'm sorry.
Oh my goodness, what's that in the background?
I mean, can you hold on a second?
A quick qualification.
No, really, how stereotypical.
A Democrat must be at your door.
No, I'm a Democrat, so that really messes everything up, doesn't it?
Oh my goodness, Cindy.
Dogs outside.
Here we go.
Quick qualification for my statement, if you will allow me.
I was raised in a strong marine Republican household.
My mother was a strong Democrat.
We lived in peace because the balance is what is good for our country.
Uh Kentucky's motto, United, we stand, divided, we fall.
I am a conservative Democrat.
I've been married in to my husband, who is not the same color as me for over 32 years, very successfully.
So I'm a woman.
I'm a Democrat.
And I think that the stage has been set.
It's not about Bergdahl and all that.
That is a means to an end.
Hillary has been going down over the past couple of months, just really making a bad show.
Uh and look what happened.
All of a sudden there's a perfect opportunity for her to stand up for her fellow Democrats and stand up for the country.
And we're going to come in here and put these things to right.
This is just helping her get ready for the election.
That's the way I feel about this.
I really feel about this.
And everyone's there was a private meeting, a private lunch, uh, White House records apparently revealed between the president and Hillary Clinton last week, I believe it was, or maybe the week before.
I I wonder if this subject came up.
I I wonder if it did.
I wonder, you know, the the history from the twentieth century on now into the twenty-first is that presidencies, presidents, their party tends not to win a third term.
Reagan was the exception.
George H. W. Bush won in 1988, largely because people liked Ronald Reagan.
They they may have liked George H. W. Bush, but they wanted a third term for Ronald Reagan, and his vice president was the best way to get it.
But in Reagan the Bush did not win, then what would have been a fourth term.
Bill Clinton did.
Bill Clinton's party didn't have a third term.
George W. Bush's party didn't have a third term.
Obviously, Richard Nixon's didn't.
Jimmy Carter's then didn't.
It is very hard for the party of the president to go for a third term.
Is Barack Obama?
I mean, his term is over, basically.
He is a lame duck.
He can still screw things up, as Dan the prior caller would point out.
He can still do damage to the country.
And if, again, those of you who weren't here for the first hour, you have no idea what you were missing.
But to encapsulate my unified theory of the Obama administration.
He believes for the world to be strong, the United States has to be weak.
For the world to be stable, the United States must be unstable.
To level the playing field globally, he must level the United States economically, what have you.
This is why I won't lower the corporate tax rate and other things.
The president's term, he's a lame duck, but even lame duck presidents still have some power.
He knows history.
Most Democrats are ignorant of history.
Democrats, they don't care about history.
They pretend history doesn't exist because they're always on the losing side of history long term.
Democratic policy socialism fails long term.
We see it over and over and over.
But Barack Obama, he's at least a student of politics.
He's not a dumb man, even though some of you may wish to think so.
You don't win the presidency twice by being dumb.
He sees what's happening.
The president's party rarely ever wins a third term.
You have to be really liked.
Ronald Reagan was really liked.
There's not enough time for Barack Obama to be really liked again.
He squandered it all.
He's now flailing about.
So if you're flailing about, you know history's against your party winning a third term.
Maybe there's something here that he's decided he needs to just go on and implode and let Hillary Clinton be a unifier for Democrats in a way he no longer can be.
Maybe this is a way for Hillary to go forward.
Now, I full disclosure here, just so you know, I'm still not sold that Hillary's going to run in 2016.
I realize I'm in the minority.
I I admit it, and I'm perfectly willing to admit I am probably wrong.
But I think she's the bulletproof vest for the Democrats.
They've got her around them, taking all of the shots, all of the arrows, all of the hits, so that then they can throw her off, cast her aside in 2016 and have some unvetted person run and the Republicans scrambling to do APO, having been convinced that Hillary was their target.
Hillary was going to be the one.
Now they've got some poor schlub from some state somewhere who's going to run for president, maybe Elizabeth Warren.
Oh, that would be a wonderful campaign.
I don't think the Democrats can win in 2016, regardless of who they put up.
I I don't think they can.
History's against them.
Barack Obama's presidency is against them.
But they're going to try to win, and this may be the way they're doing it, so that Hillary Clinton can show she's not an Obama Democrat.
She's a Clinton.
Eric Erickson here for Rushlin Ball.
The NFL, according to ABC News, it's dropping Roman numerals in favor of fifty for 2016 Super Bowl.
Yes, yes, those those would be the Arabic numerals.
I I assure you Barack Hussein Obama had nothing to do with it.
Yes, they're they're just dropping the Roman numerals in favor of 50 because what is it?
It's an L is 50 for the people who are going through common core math would have no idea what they're looking at.
They would think it's another one of those those uh lesbian shows from HBO or something, I guess, if it was just a the the big L for the Super Bowl fifty, whatever it is.
Oh, what?
Come on.
I'm just I'm being flippant.
You can deal with it.
I yeah, better marketing.
50.
It's the 50th Super Bowl.
And I like the Roman numerals.
I'm a conservative.
We shouldn't be abandoning these things.
But I I do get it.
The single letter, the single letter Super Bowl probably wouldn't be a good idea.
So in any, I just I think it has more to do with the failures of Common Core.
I've got stuff in my stack of stuff on Common Core.
We may perhaps have to delve into that subject.
▲
Export Selection