All Episodes
Previous Next
July 17, 2014 - Rush Limbaugh Program
35:58
July 17, 2014, Thursday, Hour #2
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Meeting and surpassing all audience expectations every day.
Rush Limbo serving humanity.
If it happens here, it's meaningful.
It's great to have you with us, my friends, as we head on.
Live from the Southern Command in sunny South Florida via New York City.
It's Open Line Friday on Thursday.
All right, it's about we got it fixed.
Johnny Donovan not taking the day off.
Able to make a change on a moment's notice.
Telephone number, if you want to be on the program, 800-282-2882, the email address, lrushboybnet.com.
It was Vladimir Putin who called Obama and told him that the Malaysian Airlines jet had been shot down.
Putin was scheduled to call anyway.
He was calling Obama about sanctions, U.S. sanctions on Russia.
The call was therefore scheduled before the plane was shot down.
The AP is claiming that Putin is who informed Obama.
And so I had some people asking me earlier today if they thought Obama apologized to Putin for the plane being shot down.
I doubt that, since it was Putin who made the call.
Telephone number 800-282-2882.
If you get through today, you can bring up anything you want.
You can talk about whatever.
I don't care how kooky it is or how kooky other people might think it is.
I don't care.
If it wouldn't make the cut on a normal, busy broadcast day, it will today.
That's what Open Line Friday and today on Thursday is all about.
Simply letting you talk about whatever you want, especially things I don't care about.
We never hear about those things.
Do you realize if I don't care about it, I don't talk about it.
And there's a lot of stuff every day I don't care about.
I mean, it could be a big issue of the day.
I could just be worn out on it, and I don't bring it up on purpose because I don't want to be bored or frustrated talking about it.
It's not going to be exciting to listen to.
But see, on Friday, or Open Line Friday and Thursday in today's case, it doesn't matter.
Whatever you want, folks, it's a golden opportunity.
Now, this Gallup poll that has been released today showing just how much public disgust there is with immigration in this country overall, and particularly the influx of unaccompanied children.
We now know, if there was any doubt, we now know why the drive-by media did its best to ignore the flood of illegal aliens that's been going on.
You know, it started in December is when this actually began.
They've been ignoring it for a good period of time.
They wanted to give Obama and the Democrats time to ram through amnesty.
It's abundantly clear now this is not something, contrary to what popular conception is, this didn't just kick up in March or April.
Now, I want to take you back.
I want to continue to remind you, we found posted on a government website jobs postings for logistics and transportation companies, specifically to transport newly arrived, unaccompanied, illegal children.
Now, that was in January.
This influx began in December.
The drive-bys didn't talk about it until March, maybe even April.
We now know why.
They were trying to make sure that there wasn't any negative news so that the Democrats could succeed pressuring the Republicans to go ahead and getting an amnesty bill done before the November elections.
And also keep in mind that despite the Washington Post-ABC poll from the other day, Gallup found that most people think the Republicans will handle the crisis better.
You remember, I guess it was Monday or Tuesday, ABC News Washington Post had a poll which showed that the vast majority of the American people disapprove of the Republicans' handling of this over Obama.
Obama was bad enough.
Six in 10 thought he was goofing it up.
But it was 67% who thought the Republicans were.
And that poll gave the drive-bys free reign to create a narrative that this was a Republican problem.
But the Gallup poll just blows that out of the water.
Gallup found that most people think the Republicans will handle a crisis better.
And the last time these numbers fell this way was 2010.
And if you'll remember, 2010 saw the birth of the so-called Tea Party and those massive Republican House victories that retook control of the House from the Democrats.
Here's a little passage from the Gallup story.
While the 17% of Americans naming immigration as the top problem is not large in absolute terms, the fact that the issue is of particular concern to Republicans and older Americans, which make up the big base of the Republican Party turnout, could be critical to the election outcome.
See, here we go again.
All this time, we've been told the Republican Party was dead unless it came out for amnesty, right?
And now, not only is it fizzled as a Democrat issue, amnesty and immigration, now it's, oh no, it's possibly a huge advantage for the Republicans.
Oh my God, how did this happen?
Well, it never was the slam dunk issue for the Democrats.
And it never was something the Republicans had to make a dramatic change on in order to stay relevant.
Well, look, I don't mean to be redundant, folks.
I just happen to think this is profound.
I happen to think that what has been illuminated here is once again the gigantic manipulative trick.
The only thing that remains a little bit of a puzzle to me is how the Republicans keep falling for this stuff.
And I don't think that they're that stupid, so I don't know that it's accurate to say they're falling for it.
I think there are a number of them who already agree with the Democrats and want amnesty and immigration, and not for the viability of the Republican Party, but rather for money.
We also know that there is a sizable contingent of the inside-the-beltway Republican Party that's perfectly fine with big government, as long as they run it.
We also know that there is a sizable contingent of inside-the-beltway so-called conservative media who also believe that the time for big government has arrived because the American people keep voting for it.
And they say it's time that we face the music.
The idea of a limited government, smaller government is passe.
The American people don't want it.
We've got to stay on the right side of the American people.
So what we have to do, goes the theory.
We have to show that we're better and smarter at running a big government and making it more efficient and less intrusive.
But the people want a big government, providing endless amounts of services and so forth.
In fact, what number is the Christie might grab something about number 17?
This is from yesterday afternoon.
It's on CNBC Power Lunch.
John Harwood, chief correspondent, he's been the New York Times, the Wall Street Journal, now he's at CNBC, and he may still be at the New York Times for all I know, did a quick little interview with Governor Christie at the CNBC Delivering Alpha conference.
And Harwood says, Governor, do you think we need less government?
What I think is we need less government being intrusive in our lives in every way that it is.
Now, there are absolute fundamental roles for government, which is protecting the health, safety, and welfare of its citizens.
And so I believe in a strong and vigorous national defense.
I believe that government has an appropriate role in regulating different activities that go on in the country.
But I think what's happened is that there's a divide between the two parties where who can do most of that best.
It's not that Republicans don't believe government has a role.
Well, there you have it.
That's exactly what I'm talking about.
The argument is no longer big, intrusive, too large government.
The argument of who is going to run the big government better.
And Governor Christie is trying to make the case that the Republicans are better at running a big monolith than the Democrats are.
Hey, we Republicans, it's not that we don't think government has a role.
We just think the question is who can do the most the best.
That's what he said.
Where who can do most of that best?
Who can do the most of the best?
And that's what the arguments come down to.
And there's Weekly Standard editorial position is American people have voted for big government.
They want it.
We have to tell them we're better at running it.
The Republicans inside the Beltway, there's no desire to fight for a smaller government.
There's an acceptance of what is, and they claim it's rooted in this is what the American people are voting for.
We're silly if we try to oppose this, Mr. Limbaugh, they tell me.
You're never going to win an election running on small government.
Look at way too many people need it.
Too many people depend on it.
Too many people want it.
We cannot just wish that away.
I wish it weren't the case, but it is.
So our strategy has to be that we're smarter, that we're better, and we'll be less intrusive as we run.
Well, that's not a choice.
That's not really a choice because a big government can't be run efficiently.
A big government can't be run smarter.
But that's the old argument modern day liberals make to explain away the failures of Gorbachev and Stalin and Lenin and Mao.
Well, you know what?
They weren't the right people to really close the deal.
We are the ones you've been waiting for.
We're the ones to make it.
We are the ones smart enough to run big government.
We're the ones that really are now on the scene.
We're the ones who can make socialism work.
That's the leftist argument.
The Republicans have modified that.
We're the ones that can run a big government better.
Why does the left never abandon it?
Because they're committed to it.
They're committed to it.
Because I'll tell you why the left never abandons their ideology, is because public opinion is irrelevant to them.
Public opinion is meant to be manipulated, bent, and shaped, fooled.
They're into fooling the people.
If you listen to Republicans, the American people are voting for big government.
I mean, they say they want it.
We can't change that.
The Democrats, when people vote against Democrats, do the Democrats change?
Do the Democrats say, wow, you know what?
American people don't want a big government.
We better come out for a smaller – do they ever do that?
They never do.
It's a little bit more complex than saying the Republicans listen to the people and the Democrats don't.
But there is some truth to that.
The Democrats have their agenda, their ideology, and it's their religion.
So just as you're not going to be able to talk a Christian out of Christianity, you're not going to be able to talk a liberal out of liberalism.
Well, it happens.
I know it, in both instances, it happens, by the way.
But the Republicans don't approach.
The Republicans are.
I think they exemplify, you know, people like this, totally obsessed with what people think of them and try to satisfy them.
Can somebody tell me what the Republican agenda is?
I know what the Democrat agenda is.
I mean, I know what Chuck Schumer wants.
I know what Obama wants.
I know what Biden wants.
I know what they want.
Can somebody tell me what the Republican agenda is today?
Other than what Chris Christie just said here.
No, you can't.
That's one of the problems, I think.
Be right back.
Don't go away.
Back to the phones we go.
This is David Richmond, Virginia.
It's great to have you, sir.
Thank you for calling.
Hello, El Rushbo.
This is my pleasure.
Well, thank you.
I appreciate that, sir.
Yes, sir.
I had a comment I wanted to pass on to you.
A few months ago, we had, at my church, we had a men stepping up group where most of the fathers and their sons went.
And, you know, we just, he was telling us how to be a man.
And, you know, we were talking, you know, just everybody was bannering stuff off of each other.
So the pastor, he goes, will y'all go around the room and tell us who's a mentor to you, a mentor, or somebody who you looked up to?
Well, the pastor went last, and he said, in 1988, I was going to Penn State.
He said it was a guy on the radio named Rush Lembaugh.
And he said, in that day, nobody in any medium, any medium, television, anything, told it like it was, told it how it was the truth, and stood by what he said through good and through bad.
So I just wanted to pass that.
She was like a role model for my pastor, you know, 26 years ago.
I thought that was very interesting.
That is.
That is.
That is quite humbling, actually.
It takes a lot of courage for somebody to admit that today because there is so many people lined up to ridicule somebody who would say that.
And he just, he appears to be fearless.
Now, granted, he was among his flock.
Assume that most of the people in your group there were supporters, but that's still, that's, I really appreciate your telling me that.
What is his first name?
My name is David.
And what is his first name?
Oh, his first name.
His name is Ken.
Ken.
And you guys are at Richmond, Virginia.
Yes, sir.
Well, I'm kind of speechless here.
That really is a great thing for him to say, and I'm glad you got through to repeat it to me.
We try to be role models for everybody here.
Youth of America, even pastors, mentors, what have you.
Yes, sir, because he was talking about, you know, like some people said their father and some said, you know, spokesman.
And then he just said, because truth, to be a man, you have to speak the truth.
You have to stand up for what is right.
And he said Rush Limbaugh did that in the 80s when nobody else was doing it.
Well, that was true, not because of any bravery of mine.
It was simply in 1988, the media still had their monopoly.
There were only three networks, and CNN was it on cable.
The rest of it was entertainment.
So CNN was the only cable news network.
I was it in terms of national media that was oriented toward conservatism.
Now, I realize that some of you think that a pastor should have chosen a biblical figure when mentioning a role model or mentor or inspirational figure.
But I think the pastor had real world examples on his mind.
Besides, for those of you who think that the pastor should have chosen someone biblical, don't forget, I have talent on the loan from God.
And so Pastor Ken's choice, not that strange.
David, seriously, I really appreciate it.
Make sure you tell him that I profoundly appreciate that.
And you better grab audio soundbite number 17 again.
We may need it here as we head back to the phones.
This is Henry in the Washington area.
Henry, welcome.
Glad you called, sir.
Hey, Grush, great to talk with you.
Yeah, I'm glad you grabbed that clip.
I heard it a little different, and you cut it off just before the end.
Preface, I'm not a big Christie fan, but I think that he was about to say, who can do, who can, he said something, the government can ensure peace and the health of the citizens and the security of the citizens.
And then he said, the question is, who can do it better?
And I think he was about to say, Democrats think the government can do it better, and Republicans think the private sector can do it better.
Well, I don't have that.
The only thing I know that he said is what I have here on the roster.
Do you know that he continued to speak after, let's play the bite?
I'll just play what we have here.
This is on CNN yesterday afternoon, and he was asked by John Harwood if he thought that we need less government.
What I think is we need less government being intrusive in our lives in every way that it is.
Now, there are absolute fundamental roles for government, which is protecting the health, safety, and welfare of its citizens.
And so I believe in a strong and vigorous national defense.
I believe that government has an appropriate role in regulating different activities that go on in the country.
But I think what's happened is that there's a divide between the two parties where who can do most of that best.
It's not that Republicans don't believe government has a role.
So he continued speaking.
You heard him say that he thinks the private sector could do most of this better.
Well, I'm going to have to research it, but I just thought I'd bring it up because what I know of the guy, he wouldn't be a guy that would be saying, I think Republicans can do big government better.
But, you know, I'm amazed I got through.
I just thought I'd make that point.
I'll tell you what, I will research it and send you an email to see.
Well, we'll find out.
We've got the whole bite.
We edit this stuff just for brevity.
We never edit things to take people out of content.
We don't do that here.
So I'll find out if there's anything additional here that would change the context.
But I would be shocked to learn that that happened in this case.
All I can tell you is you may wish that Republicans would say what you think they were going to say.
I used to think they would say it too.
I used to think that they believe this stuff.
But more and more, it's not just Republicans, it's so-called conservatives in the media.
I'm not making this up.
Here's the thing, Henry, is I think everybody's going to come to grips with the fact that the Washington establishment, the establishment Republicans have made it very clear they like government.
They like big government.
They want to control it.
They want the levers of power in big government.
I don't hear as a campaign message or as a mission statement or anything representative of an agenda from the Republican Party about smaller government.
If they do say it, it's tossed in as an afterthought.
It's not something that they lead with.
Now, here's something.
The New York Times wrote this story up, and here's something else that Christie said.
I don't have it on tape.
I'm just going to read this to you from the New York Times.
I for certain believe it's wrong to say government needs to spend more money on education.
In my state, we spend $17,700 per pupil on average on K-12 education.
We don't have a spending problem in education, New Jersey.
We have a quality problem in many parts of our state.
Infrastructure, uniquely a government role.
Well, where's the money coming from exactly?
We do need at some point to say there's a bottom to this, but I do think that infrastructure is something that government needs to invest in and needs to partner with folks on.
Absolutely, I do.
So most of what he was talking about here was government spending.
And he was saying, we don't need any more government spending on education.
It clearly isn't working, but we do need more government spending on infrastructure.
He didn't say the private sector would be best capable at dealing with that or more suited at dealing with that.
I think it's come to grips with the fact that this is not the Republican Party I grew up in.
This is not the Republican Party that automatically – look, where has the opposition to Obama been?
Where's the pushback been?
We've never had in my lifetime, we've never had a greater opportunity to contrast the supposed differences in the two parties than the last five and a half years.
We have big government.
We have expansive, we have the redistribution of wealth.
We've got liberalism on steroids.
And it's not just theoretical anymore.
It's real.
It's happening.
And it's destroying things.
Where's the pushback?
Where is the contrast?
Where is the Republican Party saying, no, this is not the answer?
The answer is the exact opposite of this.
It would be so easy to say.
It happens to be true.
It's exactly what the Republican base wants to hear.
You see all these stories every day.
Give you another illustration of this.
Every day, ladies and gentlemen, I don't care what the story is, be it the impeachment of Obama or immigration, you name it.
The focal point of every story in the media is what the Democrats are doing to keep their base happy.
What the Democrats are doing to get their base out.
Even if it includes tricking the Republicans into impeaching Obama.
Even if it includes amnesty for illegals or what have you, if it includes making it sound like every woman needs a birth control pill 25 times a day, whatever it is, everything they're doing is oriented toward turning out their base.
Do you ever see such stories about the Republicans?
You don't.
The stories you see about the Republicans and their base is how they are embarrassed by their base.
You see stories about the Republican and their base, and it's about how they're trying to avoid their base or about how they don't want their, i.e. the Tea Party.
The Republican Party is, you never see stories about the Republican Party doing what it can to solidify its base.
It seems like everything the Republican Party's doing either is intended to or it just happens to provoke their base.
On the other hand, every story about the Democrats and their base is how the Democrats are trying to please them, to stoke them, to fire them up, keep them happy, get them turned out.
You never see that about the Republicans.
And you would if the Republicans were actually opposed to what's going on.
Now, it could well be that they are.
They're just afraid to say so.
And that may hold a grain of truth, too.
Don't forget, Obama's race acts as a great paralyzer.
It just, it shuts down any legitimate criticism.
People are afraid that it's going to be chalked up to racism.
It's going to be discounted, ridiculed, personalized, and then people just say shut up.
But regardless, whatever the reason, there is no pushback.
There is no opposition.
There is no effort to contrast the difference in the two parties.
And the Republicans do not make it look like they're interested in their base being happy.
Quick time out.
We will continue after this.
Don't go away.
All right.
One more.
I don't have the audio, but I have the transcript.
One more thing that Governor Christie said in the interview on the CNBC with John Harwood.
Harwood said, let me ask about the macro division between the two parties.
Essentially, what you hear from Republicans in Washington is government needs to do less, spend less.
We need to borrow less.
We need to get out of the way.
From Democrats, they say we need, as Hillary Clinton said recently, the building blocks in the 21st century and industry, more workforce training, more science.
Where are you on that, Governor?
And Governor Christie said, well, the fact is the difference between Republicans and Democrats.
Democrats believe the government are the people who could be doing those things that Mrs. Clinton mentioned.
Republicans believe the private sector is better to do that.
That's the fundamental core disagreement.
Now, having run a government for five years, I agree with my party even more than I did before.
You see her as a big spending Democrat liberal who wants to grow government, Governor Criton.
No, no, I think you said that.
So he does not see or he refused to call Hillary Clinton a big spending liberal.
Now, he did say here, as the caller thought he might, that Republicans believe the private sector is better to do things like science and whatever the hell else Hillary's talking about.
But Harvard Soul, you see her as a big spending Democrat liberal who wants to grow government.
No, no, no, I didn't say that.
You did.
What are you shaking your head for in there?
You know why he said this.
Why do you think he said that?
Why would he not?
Let's go.
Why would he not take the opportunity to agree that Hillary Clinton is a big spending liberal?
He doesn't want to what?
I don't think it has anything to do with not attacking the girl.
I think it's a tantamount admission.
He comes from a liberal state.
I mean, the people that elected him believe in big government.
Who knows?
People in New Jersey may love Hillary Clinton.
He may not want to be on the wrong side of Hillary because he's going to need the people of his state later on.
This is what I mean, though.
I mean, if you can't distinguish yourself in terms of the role of government and big spending versus small, if you can't distinguish yourself from Hillary Clinton, Then what are you doing?
She's the, she is the epitome of what we oppose.
So's Obama.
But if you cannot say that, or if you won't say it, what are people to conclude?
You leave it open.
Here's Doug in Grove, Oklahoma.
You're next on the EIB network.
Hello.
Hey, Rush, Doug.
How are you?
I'm fine, sir.
Thanks for the call.
You bet.
Here from Tom Coburn Country.
It's a real shame we're going to lose the man.
Watching him in community meetings, the intelligence and the sincerity and the wisdom of Tom Coburn.
It's going to be quite a loss for us.
I like him.
He's a good guy.
Yeah.
What I was calling about is the drive-by media.
Out of all of the problems that you listed in this recent survey, I think the underlying, the pinning problem is the poor information.
What do you call it?
A low-information voter, uninformation voter, which you're...
I call them the low-information voters.
Yeah.
Yeah.
I'm thinking, why don't we create a crowdfunding system called the Freedom of Information Fund, and let's sell shares to the American people at $25, $50 a share and convert those into shares and buy up NBC and buy up 51%.
And when we do that, we'll take on ABC and the others.
There's enough business money and Republican money in this country to stop this nonsense of these radical drive-by media.
We'll just own them.
So you want a Kickstarter campaign, in other words.
Yeah.
We'll have a Freedom of Information Fund.
And if you'll help me, I'll start it and we can get some stockbrokers to start it.
I don't know what it would take to, well, how much would it cost to buy ABC or NBC?
You have any idea?
You could buy CNN right now for maybe 8 million?
Really?
8 billion?
What did I say?
8 billion, maybe?
Yeah, I think you'd buy CNN for NBC.
I don't know what it is, but with people like you and Romney and a whole bunch of affluent people, we could orchestrate the buy-up of these networks and correct this problem.
I think it's the major problem this country is the low-information voter not getting the stories on the evening news.
And I think we can fix it.
What do you think we could do it?
You know, this has come up throughout my 25 years of doing this show.
Why don't you, or why don't rich conservatives just get together and buy a network?
Yeah.
Why don't they?
I've never heard, I've never really, I've never asked anybody this question.
I've just had people like you call and ask me about it.
I don't know what their objection to it is.
But I don't know the rules, the security rules of converting crowdfunding, and it wouldn't be donations.
This would be investments.
That wouldn't work.
You'd have to.
No, that's a lot.
Well, maybe we need to just set up a campaign to buy the shares till we can control it.
But that would change everything in this country if Pelosi and these people couldn't run these stupid comments and have that carry the evening news.
Well, look, I totally agree that the landscape that we have today is directly traceable to the media.
It's what I was getting at yesterday when I, you know, innocently asked people what they thought the percentage of the population is gay.
And the media makes it look like if you ask anybody under 30 in this country, they think it's 30% of the population is gay.
And the reason they think that is because the way gay lifestyle and so forth is portrayed in all media, entertainment media, news media, it is made to look like it's omnipresent and that it is however it's portrayed.
It's just there.
And so people get the idea that it's just, it's almost half the country when it's not even 3%.
Now, Rupert Murdoch just offered $80 billion for Time Warner, which includes CNN.
He'd have to sell it off.
And that's where the $8 billion for price tag CNN actually surfaced.
But he was rejected.
So he's got to come back.
He's got to sweeten the pot.
Something like this has to be approved by regulatory agencies and so forth and so on.
I know they're never going to let it happen.
Look, Doug, you know who Jack Welch is?
Jack Welch, the famed chief executive officer of General Electric.
Jack Welch is out there every day now on cable news and writing columns, and he's just bashing Obama's economic policies like you can't.
He ran NBC News when GE owned it.
Did it change?
It didn't.
It was such a small part of General Electric.
Tom Brokoff's check came from the GE Refrigerator Division.
Another exciting hour of broadcast excellence has been completed.
And there is yet one more to go, my friends.
Sit tight, come back, raring and ready to go for our final big, busy broadcast hour this week.
Mark Stein will be here tomorrow.
▲
Export Selection