All Episodes
Previous Next
Aug. 12, 2014 - Rush Limbaugh Program
36:46
August 12, 2014, Tuesday, Hour #2
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
You are not going to goad me.
You are not going to get me there.
You can try all you want, but you are not going to suck me in there.
Greetings, my friends.
Greetings to you music lovers, thrill seekers, conversationalists all across the fruited plain, Rush Limbaugh, the Excellence in Broadcasting Network, the Limbaugh Institute for Advanced Conservative Studies.
Great to have you.
Telephone number, 800-282-2882, and the email address, lrushbo at EIBnet.com.
We'll get back to your phone calls here in mere moments.
But I want to get back to the shift that I have detected that's taken place inside the Beltway.
With the drive-by media, the legacy media, the mainstream media, it is apparent to me, at least at NBC News and at the Washington Post, and not just Dana Milbank, but have had a couple of hard-hitting editorials.
I think a conscious decision has been made among the Democrats in the media that it's time to start focusing on Hillary.
Distance her.
Help her distance herself from Obama.
Obama is trending downward at a rapid rate, is unsalvageable, and it doesn't matter anyway.
Rather than stick with Obama and try to salvage him and thereby salvage other Democrats with that effort, I think the decision has been made, at least at NBC and the Washington Post, to conclude that it's lame duck time now.
And that means it's time to build Hillary up and provide her cover and distance from Obama.
And Hillary herself signaled that it was time to do this by openly disagreeing in a profound manner with Obama's foreign policy in both Iraq and Syria.
When this happened, the media had, I think, decided to choose upsides and throw in with Hillary.
Now, on the radio program yesterday, we had audio sound bites of David Gregory and Andrea Mitchell, NBC News Washington, and they were both taking shots at Obama.
Now, in Gregory's case, if you were here, you will recall that I chalked that up to Gregory having heard the rumors that he was out at Meet the Press and is going to be replaced by F. Chuck Todd, that Gregory decided, okay, I got to do something to get my numbers up here so they don't get rid of me at the end of the year.
And he decided to reach out to the heartland and strike common ground with Tea Party types by ripping into Obama, which he did on Sunday.
And then Andrea Mitchell, NBC News Washington, said that Obama's excuse for why ISIS has become so dominant in Iraq and Syria.
Obama said they got bad intel.
Andrea Mitchell, NBC News Washington, called that a farce.
And she was openly disgusted and angry and even a little embarrassed, because that, of course, is the excuse that Bush offered when there were no weapons of mass destruction after we invaded Iraq.
And as I explained yesterday, everything that happened in Iraq was reported as a disaster for five years.
It was the worst thing ever.
And for Obama to steal a Bush excuse or to use a Bush excuse was more than they could handle.
So I think that what this signals, in addition to the Dana Milbank piece that ran yesterday, and it might have run Sunday.
Let me find this date on it.
August 11th.
No, it ran yesterday.
Milbank's headline, Obama Vacations as the World Burns.
So you got that.
You've got some Washington Post editorials lately that have really, really been critical of Obama.
So you've put all this together, and it, I think, is official.
The Hillary campaign's begun.
I think if you had any doubt that Hillary was running, cast it aside.
She is because the media is telling us.
I think my memory will be borne out on this.
I think that Andrea Mitchell, NBC News in Washington, and Gregory and most of NBC, huge Clintonistas.
Isn't NBC the network that shoveled all that money at Chelsea Clinton?
Having never worked in television before, they gave her a $600,000 deal.
It was calculated something like $25,000 a minute based on how often she was on TV.
They just threw $600,000 at her.
And the thinking at the time was: well, Hillary and Bill have decided that Chelsea needs to learn television because television is so crucial to campaigning.
Television is so crucial to winning campaigns.
The truth may be quite the opposite.
The truth may be that NBC just decided to throw money there to curry favor and to show their support for the Clintons.
So I think this, let me cut to the chase here.
I think that NBC News and the Washington Post, and I think a lot of the drive-by media have calculated that the midterm elections are already doomed for the Democrats, including the Senate.
And I think that they have concluded as well that Obama is basically over, that he can't rebound from this.
It's too deep.
It's too entangled.
Nothing has gone right.
And it's impossible second-term president who's not even engaged.
St. Louis is on fire.
Iraq is on fire.
The Middle East, the world is on fire.
And Obama is playing golf and took Susan Rice with him to make sure she can stay informed so as to brief him at the 19th hole when he gets off the golf course.
Now, as well as all of that is happening, Obama's policies continue to explode.
That could damage Hillary or any other Democrat running in 2016.
So it makes sense to dump on Obama now because there's no longer any real cost of doing that.
I mean, how do you hurt Obama?
He's not up for election again.
He's not going to face voters again.
So how much can it hurt Obama to dump on him?
In their world, I'm talking the way they see things.
In Obama's world, it could do a lot of damage.
He's still got a fundraised for his social justice presidential library and his lifestyle after leaving the White House and everything else he wants to do.
So he's very much interested in maintaining his image, but they're not.
So what they have decided to do is put distance between what Obama is now doing, particularly in foreign policy.
Hillary's gone for almost two years already.
And what they're doing now is they're contrasting Obama and the world on fire with what a president Hillary would have done.
And I've got a couple of soundbites to prove this coming up.
That's how they're beginning to cast this.
What Hillary would have done versus what Obama has done and how it have been much better if Hillary would have done it.
Now, I know this is all gobbledygooky gook because Hillary is just as big a disaster as Obama is, but not in their world.
And it's their world that we're speaking about now.
Taking a few shots at Obama now increases NBC's credibility, by the way.
It shows them to not be in lockstep with the regime.
So that when they do cover Hillary and what Hillary says and give her a comfortable forum to claim she would have done X, Y, and Z differently from Obama, it enhances her status because NBC has already enhanced its own credibility by dumping on Obama.
This is how these people think.
This is how these things work.
All these journalists know their credibility has been thrown aside, but it's been worth it to defend and prop up Obama.
But now it's time for the next Democrat to get elected.
So this time, throw Obama overboard and gain credibility in that process so that whatever you say, whatever you say about Hillary, it has credibility.
So NBC, I think, is going to tee up 2016 as the Buyer's Remorse Campaign.
And it's going to go something like this.
Oh, yeah, sure.
We all got swept up in the historic Obama excitement.
We all got caught up in that.
We all got caught up in hope and change.
We all got caught up in the historical aspect of the first black president.
We all got caught up in this blank canvas that we could make anything of him we wanted him to be.
We got caught up in all of that.
But the smart, savvy, experienced Democrats knew in 2008 that smart, savvy, experienced Hillary was really the better candidate.
This is what's going to be said now.
Mark my words.
See if I'm right.
Remember this.
And as you go forward and listen to NBC News and ABC, CBS, all the rest of them, I think what you're going to be hearing, and it's just a position Hillary is.
Oh, yeah, we all got caught up in 2008 and Obama this and Obama that.
But remember, Hillary came close.
She was great.
And, you know, it probably, she was the better candidate.
They're going to do their retrospectives, their deep analysis, with their analysts on camera stroking their chins, lost in deep thought.
And they will conclude in a very erudite and intellectual fashion that, yes, Hillary really was the better candidate back in 2008.
We all got caught up in this excitement.
And who could blame us?
After all, everybody did.
The first black president, it certainly was historic, but let's face it, Hillary was always the better candidate.
And let's not make this mistake again, David.
Let's not make this mistake again, Chuck.
In fact, let's correct that mistake by nominating her this time.
This time, let's get it right.
We got caught up in all the excitement of 2008, and everybody did.
So we can't be held accountable there, but we can admit that maybe we let it get away from us.
That even then, we knew that Hillary Clinton really was the better candidate and would have made the better president.
But we got sucked in.
We got sucked in by the racial component.
We got sucked in by youth.
We got sucked in by the great Crease in his slacks.
We got sucked in by the fact that he sounds just as smart as we are.
Yeah, we got sucked in by the fact he's got the same Ivy League pedigree, that he was Harvard and Yale and Columbia and Law Review, and he's just like us, except he's not.
But we didn't know that he's maybe too disengaged.
Maybe Obama really is too big for this office.
Maybe it just doesn't challenge him.
Whatever.
We misjudged it.
But now it's time to get it right.
And we knew in 2008, and so did Rush Limbaugh, that Hillary Clinton, remember Operation Chaos.
We should have listened then.
We should have listened to Limbaugh in 2008 because he was telling us the mistake we were making.
And now we understand and are ready to admit that Hillary should have been the nominee in 2008 and would have been the better candidate.
So let's correct that mistake by nominating her this time.
This is what the coverage is going to be.
Mark my words.
This is going to come.
It's going to be a giant sea.
I told you so.
You wait.
This is exactly what they're going to do.
I think it's what NBC is up to.
They're going to continue ignoring Benghazi because that's not good for Hillary.
And that'll continue to be just a Republican scandal opportunity.
They will ignore the Muslim Brotherhood because Hillary has real exposure there.
See, the thing is, Hillary was in Barack's back pocket, but they are going to have to make it look like Hillary was never really on board.
She was just being loyal, but she knew that there were mistakes being made.
But he helped her retire her campaign debt.
He didn't have to help her out, and he didn't have to put her in his administration.
And of course, there's the subtext with Bill and the racial stuff.
So there's a lot of stuff.
But now, now Hillary is the one.
But they'll ignore all these things.
They'll do their best to ignore all the similarities, and there are many, between Hillary and Obama.
And they'll take shots at O when it will help her.
I don't think it's going to work.
Let me say this.
I don't think it's going to work, and it's not going to work because I don't think the country likes her any better than they like Obama, nor do I think they like NBC.
I don't think any of this is going to work.
I'm just telling you what they're going to do because they are in the midst of panic time now.
Their guy has really let them down.
This foreign policy mess and all of it.
And Obamacare, remember, he did everything they believe in, policy-wise.
This was supposed to create a utopia.
We were supposed to have a growing economy, and the poor were going to be in the middle class by now.
And the middle class is going to be pushing the rich guys out and replacing them.
And the rich guys are going to be poor and gotten even with all of this.
Was going to happen.
Everybody was going to have affordable health care and affordable health care insurance and affordable this and affordable that.
It was all going to be so wonderful.
And Al-Qaeda was going to love us.
The Brotherhood was going to love us.
Robin Williams wasn't going to die.
It was going to be just wonderful.
And none of it has worked out.
So now it's time for Hillary.
Mark my words.
It's clever what they're going to try to do, but it ain't going to work because the people like Hillary no more than they like Obama, nor do they like NBC at all.
I'm going to interrupt the monologue and soundbite segment here on the media throwing in with Hillary now.
Get back to the phones, and this is Mark in Desplanes, Illinois.
Welcome to the program.
Hi.
Hi, Rush.
You are such a great guy.
I have a question for you about the news about Robin Williams.
Before you get, Mark, I have never really known, and I'm going to, is it Desplains or De Plains?
Well, it's Desplanes.
Desplanes, okay.
English kind of way to say it.
Gotcha, gotcha.
Okay, thank you for that.
Yeah, my pleasure.
You know, I don't want to sound insensitive, and Robin Williams was absolutely a wonderful talent.
But you know, it used to be that the media would sort of downplay celebrity suicide, which I think was actually a good and right thing.
I just feel like they're making a huge deal about this when there's so much other news like Iraq, you know, Israel, Missouri, et cetera, that they should be focusing on.
My question is: what do you think the political reason for their doing this is?
Well, interesting question.
I'm the guy that says there's politics in everything, and you've got to be able to spot it.
And you're right, there is here.
This is really an example of the dedication the media has to pop culture events and how important it is in the eyes of their audience.
Whereas in Washington, the media thinks the world is on fire because what's happening in the Middle East.
Your average TMZ viewer thinks the world doesn't make any sense anymore because Robin Williams committed suicide.
And the thing I worry about, I really do.
They're making such heroism out of this that I hope it doesn't inspire a lot of copycats by people seeking the same kind of fame.
And that's been one of my big concerns about social media from the get because when I saw these people just giving up every bit of information about themselves, just this desire to have everybody know everything about them.
And we know that one of the allures of pop culture media is this desire to be fame, famous, and have pop culture media talk about you.
And this is one way to do it, obviously.
To kill yourself is one way to get the media to spend a lot of time talking about you if you want to be talked about.
I hope it doesn't spawn a bunch of copycats.
Half my brain tied behind my back, just to make it fair.
So our last caller from Des Plains, Illinois, wanted to know what is the politics in the coverage of the suicide of Robin Williams.
Well, I believe there is some, but I don't think that the politics is driving it.
I think there was on the part of media and Hollywood, I think, genuine affection for the guy that is driving it.
But there is politics.
If you notice the coverage is focused on How much he had, but it wasn't enough.
He had everything.
Everything that you would think would make you happy.
But it didn't.
Now, what is the left's worldview in general?
What is if you had to attach not a philosophy, but an attitude to a leftist worldview?
It's one of pessimism and darkness, sadness.
They're never happy, are they?
They're always angry about something.
No matter what they get, they're always angry.
And they are animated in large part by the false promises of America.
Because the promises of America are not for everyone, as we see each and every day.
I mean, right here, there's a story, Fox News website.
Do you know?
It says right here that the real reasons that Robin Williams killed himself where he was embarrassed at having to take television roles after a sterling movie career.
That he had to take movie roles that were beneath him, sequels and so forth.
And he finally had to do television just to get a paycheck because he was in so much financial distress.
He'd had some divorces that ripped up his net worth.
And he had a big ranch in Napa that he couldn't afford any longer and had to put up for sale in a house in Tiburon he couldn't afford anymore.
This is all what's in the Fox News story.
He had it all, but he had nothing.
He made everybody else laugh, but was miserable inside.
I mean, it fits a certain picture or a certain image that the left has.
I mean, they talk about low expectations and general unhappiness and so forth.
And right here it says that it was one of one of the contributing factors to Robin Williams deciding to kill himself was survivors' guilt.
And I read it's in the headline.
Survivor's guilt.
Whoa, what, what?
What?
What survivor's guilt?
So I read it, and it turns out that three of his closest friends, the story says, three of his closest friends were Christopher Reeve, John Belushi, and Andy Kaufman.
And the source unnamed in the story said that Robin Williams felt guilty that he was still alive while his three friends had died young and much earlier than he had.
They could never get over the guilt that they died and he didn't.
Well, that is a constant measurement that is made by political leftists in judging the country.
What's outcome-based education?
Two plus two is five.
That's fine until the student learns it's four.
We're not going to humiliate the student by pointing out that he's wrong.
When he figures it out, cool.
We're going to take the fast learners, we're going to slow them down so that they don't humiliate the kids that don't learn as fast as they do, because that's just not fair.
So the bottom line here is that it's reported that he died, which is true, but he actually committed suicide.
And I just, I really hope that this coverage does not spawn copycats because the coverage is fawning and glorious and positive.
And you have so many people on social media who so desperately want fame.
You know it and I know it.
People that are voluntarily telling everybody every detail about themselves, casting every aspect of their privacy aside just because they want fame.
They want to be noticed.
They all want to be on TV.
And there's a lot of fame and there's a lot of media is doing a lot.
I mean, every story about this is a story of greatness.
Unparalleled, unequaled, unique greatness.
I mean, everybody would love to be spoken of the way the media is speaking of Robin Williams today and last night.
And I really hope, because there's some very fragile people out there that don't try to emulate or get this kind of notoriety for themselves by doing the same thing.
Here's Doug in Charleston, South Carolina.
Welcome to the EIB Network.
Great to have you.
Hello.
Hey, it's an honor, Rush.
Thank you.
Thank you very much, sir.
I'm calling in regards to this young man being killed in St. Louis.
I had some thoughts about that.
So I looked up some statistics on the CDC, and although black people represent 18% of the overall population, they represent fully half the murder victims in the entire country, which makes them six times more likely to be murdered than white people.
Now, of course, it's the leading cause of death between young black males between 18 and 24.
And the big stat is that 96% of blacks that are murdered are murdered by other blacks.
Not supposed to point that out.
Yeah, that's the inconvenient truth, isn't it?
Well, no, it's not just you're not supposed to, well, inconvenient.
That's just politically incorrect.
And that's short-sighted.
It's short-sighted.
It's insensitive, and it's irrelevant, according to the experts.
Where are the black leaders?
Why aren't they talking about this?
They're out marching.
If this young man was actually murdered, then that hopefully will come out and justice will be served against the police officer who murdered him.
But the real truth is that that is a drop in the bucket for young black males being killed on a daily basis by other black males.
Why isn't this being talked about?
Well, what do you think?
I mean, look at Chicago.
The murder rate in Chicago is off track.
It may be safer in Central American countries than in Chicago.
You know, seriously, that is same race on same race crime.
And, you know, it's not, the statistics are about all you see, just the number of deaths this weekend in the last three-day period or whatever.
But there's never any corresponding anger, not like you have here in the situation in St. Louis or with Rodney King.
When you have police officers involved, that feeds Bull Connor.
That all can be traced to civil rights movement, and one of the reasons for it was the cops who turned water hoses and dogs and billy clubs on blacks crossing the bridge.
It turns out they were all Democrats doing this.
But nevertheless, that's the root.
So there's a police officer involved here, which has historical, traceable roots of discrimination, bias, all of that, that serves a purpose for certain people in the race business.
That's why I said, look, I get your point.
This whole thing bothers me as much as it does you.
A, that it happened.
It's just tragic.
It is just absolutely tragic.
You just wonder why couldn't, why did this have to happen?
Could something else have been done instead of pulling the trigger?
You would hope that people who are cops would understand what the ramifications are going to be, that the last, absolute last choice you would make would be to pull a trigger.
But in this case, it happened.
And so it's going to feed what it feeds.
In addition to the tragedy contained within its own identity here, what is also tragic about this is that it is going to feed a stereotype that is going to prevent others escaping circumstances that they have no business being in.
And it's just not necessary.
The whole thing is not necessary.
But there's nobody inspiring people.
Instead, we have the soft bigotry of low expectations, which comforts people in their misery and blames other people for it, explains it away.
And it's just such a, it's a loss of human potential.
Just an absolute diminishing and loss of human potential that is not necessary.
I wish it weren't the case.
Doug, I appreciate the call.
We'll take a brief time out and be back and continue after this.
Here's Doug in Alexandria, Louisiana.
Great to have you on the program.
Doug, thank you for waiting.
You're next.
Hello.
Thank you, Rush, for all of the insights you bring to the table over the years.
Well, I appreciate you appreciating that.
I've followed you since the days of America held hostage in the mid-90s.
That was the day Clinton was elected, yes.
That's right.
Well, the occasion for calling right now is to give some added evidence to the Snerdley doctrine.
Even before you were dumped into Chile, an expression I'd never heard before, it occurred to me that these looting and rioting acts were not narrowly tailored, as the courts would say, to the issue at hand.
And call to mind the fact that even when a sports team across the country is victorious, the people in the home city will riot and loot just because there was a victory.
And you might think there's some excuse if they lose.
Of course, there really isn't.
But if the fact that they riot and loot when their sports team across the country is victorious indicates even more so that there is a disconnect between their behavior and the incident.
It's totally disconnected.
Oh, no.
No, no, no, no, no, no.
The leftist psychiatrist would tell you there's a totally understandable reason why traceable to George W. Bush and Ronald Reagan as to why people whose teams win nevertheless go out and loot and pillage and all that.
And it's because of the failed promises of the Reagan and Bush administrations.
And people still are suffering.
And here they are in the midst of euphoric happiness.
And then they realize the victory doesn't mean anything because they don't have any more now than they did before they won.
And so it's time to fix that, take matters into their own hands.
And if the Bush and Reagan administrations have been fair economically, there wouldn't be any need to loot.
You see, it is interesting that teams who lose rarely do their fans loot.
It's only the winning team.
There are occasions where losing team fans go berserk.
But in many cases, you're right.
It is winning teams who loot.
And in a legal sense, there is a total disconnect.
The looting has nothing to do with the winning.
And the snerdley doctrine here is that in St. Louis, the looting has nothing to do with the incident.
That's the snerdley doctrine, the official Obama criticizer here.
Now, you misunderstood when you said you'd never heard of when I say Snerdley jumped in my chili, it's just my phrase for he was giving me the business.
He was chiding me, ridiculing me for being so terribly wrong in my analysis.
That's what jumping in your chili means.
You know, give them static, irritating, bothering them.
And his point was to me that the looters in St. Louis are not looting over any outrage or desire to express outrage at their circumstances.
It's just a chance to get some free stuff where they know nobody's going to stop them.
And it's come one, come all, grab as much as you can.
You're going to get away with it.
And that was his, I guess you'd call it the Snerdley Doctrine.
It may as well be.
The Snerdley Doctrine.
Looting here is not tied to the actual event where it's happening.
Now, some people will disagree profoundly with this and say that the looting is exactly what I said it was.
That it is a reaction to the unfairness, to the wanton discrimination.
And it's just typical.
This is what happens to people that live in these kinds of neighborhoods in America.
And looting is the only way these people can show how mad they are about it.
It's go out and loot and bust up storefronts and this kind of thing.
But the Snerdley Doctrine is not just stealing.
It's a chance to steal and get away with it.
So as one who has never looted, I will admit that I'm making an educated guess in my analysis.
Should really ask Spike Lee.
He knows about it.
He's made movies about it, right?
No, no, no, no, no, no.
take that back.
I got in trouble for six.
Never mind.
No need to relive.
Remember the TV show?
Spike was doing seminars.
And I said, you know, you forgot to teach him the, oh, you hell to pay for that.
It's one of those instances of being so right on the money that you should never say it.
And so, yeah, that's what that was.
But the looting on the part of sports fans whose teams win.
And by the way, it's not just looting.
They set cars on fire.
It usually happens in the neighborhood near the stadium.
And it always happens when the winning team, not always, but mostly it happens when the winning team wins on the road, is out of town.
Because there's not a security presence at the stadium.
There's not, no, well, not nearly the security presence and police officers that would be there if the game were at that stadium.
It's an interesting observation.
Okay, a brief time out, my friends, with much more, as you know, straight ahead.
So I just had somebody say to me, hey, Rush, I can prove this guy's point even more.
Look at the looting in New Orleans after Hurricane Katrina.
That wasn't about anger.
Oh, contrary.
It wasn't about anger.
You got Wolf Blitzer.
You got Shep Smith.
You got, what's his face?
Anderson Cooper down there.
They're all asking, where's Bush?
Where's FEMA?
Where's help?
Where's fresh water?
Where's Bush?
Bush isn't here.
If FEMA's not here, is anybody going to...
Wouldn't you loot?
What do you mean there wasn't any anger?
There was anger at Bush.
There was anger at Brownie.
There was anger at FEMA.
Hell, Bush steered the hurricane in there.
▲
Export Selection