All Episodes
Previous Next
Aug. 28, 2014 - Rush Limbaugh Program
36:46
August 28, 2014, Thursday, Hour #1
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Welcome to today's edition of the Rush 24-7 podcast.
It's amazing how these cycles repeat themselves.
It's amazing how everybody behaves according to the script.
It's amazing how the formula, once put into place, seems to be followed precisely.
So right now, the drive-bys are breathlessly.
So they've moved on from Ferguson.
They moved on.
Even C and ends back to trying to find the jet.
They moved on from Ferguson for a while.
And now the drive-by are breathlessly awaiting Obama's decision on ISIS.
What's Obama going to do on ISIS?
Is the president going to do anything I think graphics on the TV news networks awaiting decision from White House on whether to strike ISIS?
It's amazing.
Meanwhile, what's Obama doing?
He's planning a fundraiser.
And now I just saw that somebody's out there saying, get this, and that the fact that this makes news.
Source says ISIS will outlast Obama presidency.
Really?
Are you telling me that somebody actually thinks that ISIS is going to be dispatched and dealt with?
Have we gotten rid of Al Qaeda?
Have we gotten rid of the Muslim Brotherhood?
Have the Palestinians and the Hamas and all the Hz Bali.
Have they been dealt?
What do you mean ISIS will outlast the Obama presidency?
You know what's amazing?
Here we are.
We're on the eve of another 9-11, and I get the sense people are more frightened than ever.
I mean, in the drive-by's, I mean, in the in the the inside the beltway uh mindset, they're more frightened than ever.
I it's just it's amazing to me.
I watch this stuff.
I'm maybe I'm getting too cynical.
After all, ladies and gentlemen, I have been hosting this program a combined 26, 20, almost 30 years.
If you count the four years I was in Sacramento on essentially doing this program, 30 years plus the years prior.
Let's just stick with those 30.
And I'm seeing so much start to repeat itself now.
Doesn't mean I'm tuning out, don't misunderstand it.
I just marvel at how the cycle repeats and everybody falls for it.
And everybody falls in line and everybody plays their role in in the daily soap opera script.
Just amazing to me.
Anyway, it's great to have you here.
Rush Limbaugh 800-282-2882 if you want to be on the program, the email address, Ilrushboard at EIVNet.com.
There's another example of this.
The Democrats have concocted a strategy to save the Senate.
And that is to have Obama do his executive order on immigration and amnesty eyes, five million of them, six million of them, Luis Gutierrez is now backing off just a little bit on when Obama's gonna do this and just how extensively Obama's gonna do it.
We have tape he was on with Cavuto yesterday backing off just a little bit.
The Democrats are urging Obama to do this because they know, they hope that it will go the Republicans into what?
Shutting down the government.
That's the Democrat strategy.
Shut down the government.
Get the Republicans to shut down the government.
That's what they tried with impeachment.
They wanted Obama trying to goad the Republicans into actually getting the ball moving on impeaching Obama.
That didn't work.
So now they are actually that's the strategy.
I mean, it's Mark Ambinder, it uh where was he uh does he write at the Atlantic or some such place?
It's uh it's a Fox website story.
Democrats last ditch hope force a shutdown to save the Senate.
Can Democrats troll their way to survival in the coming midterm elections?
It's what Mark M. Biden calls the last best hope for Democrats to save the Senate.
The plan calls for broad executive action by Obama to legalize illegal immigrants to goad Republicans into a similar fight as last year's failed Effort to strip funding from Obamacare.
The next shutdown deadline comes on September 30th.
And if the president drops his executive action on immigration on schedule, meaning at the end of the summer, it would be just in time to chum the water ahead of votes on a short-term budget measure.
And so the strategy here is to pollute the water with executive orders on amnesty, and so tick off the Republicans that what they would do is prevent funding for whatever shut down the government.
M. Binder writes, and he's encouraging Obama here, go big on immigration, wait for the GOP counter-reaction, quietly pray for the government to get shut down.
Use it like a cattle prod to wake voters up just before the midterms.
Now what is really going on?
You know they are never fully up front with what they really hope.
So what really is behind this?
What's really behind this is to stand by and do nothing and let amnesty happen with no opposition.
They've got the Republicans seemingly right where they want Democrats, as you know, have the Republicans scared to death of saying anything that might even be interpreted as critical of the first African American president.
They have got the Republicans believing that amnesty is the only thing they can do, reing with it to save themselves demographically for their future desire to win the White House.
So now they're trying to gold the Republicans into a government shutdown, right?
Trying to gold the Republicans into shutting down a government by preventing funding for Obama's amnesty.
And what what they're really trying to do is pressure the Republicans into standing by and doing nothing and letting it all happen.
Because after all, what's the objective?
For Obama, what's the objective?
They get amnesty, to get amnesty done and to get as many illegals in this country with amnesty as he can.
That's what he wants.
Forget what the Democrat Party wants.
This is not about what the Democrat Party wants.
That's ancillary.
It's what Obama wants.
This is Obama's presidency.
Now it's his agenda and it's his desires that are going to determine everything.
And if you have a little scale here on on one side of the scale as a Democrats holding the Senate and the other side, Obama getting amnesty, which do you think Obama cares about the more getting amnesty?
And if you also understand that the Democrats number one effort, number one objective, is to eliminate all opposition.
Not engage the opposition and defeat it in a debate or argument or win an election.
It's to eliminate opposition.
It's to obviate the need for an election.
I mean, it can't wipe out elections, but make them pro forma.
Democrats win by having no opposition.
So by publicly asking for Republicans to shut down the government publicly by you never announce your marketing strategy.
You never, you just execute it.
Any business, any entity, any slick PR person, you have to admit, folks, I am one of those.
Any slick PR person knows you never ever.
It wait when you're trying to separate people from their money, for example, and to sell them something, you deny it to them.
You don't tell them what you're gonna do.
You don't explain to John Quip how it is that you're going to separate him from his money.
I mean, you don't reveal the strategy.
And that's what the Democrats are doing here, supposedly.
So I I think this is all a uh it's it's Juju Jitsu.
But it's all based on the fact that they are confident that the Republicans won't shut down the government.
They're confident the Republicans will not, scared to death to.
Here, grab somebody number one, listen to the White House press secretary talk about it.
It's last night in the situation room.
Wolf Blitzer speaking with uh, I'm sorry.
Let me get the right page here.
See, I was going to start with 16, but I had it on top.
Josh Ernest, this is the White House press briefing yesterday.
And the CNN senior White House correspondent, Jim Acosta, uh, asked the question.
He said Republicans in recent days have talked about the prospect of continuing resolution vote in the fall being used as leverage to block the president from taking executive action on amnesty.
That of course raises the prospect of a government shutdown.
Do you think a government shutdown might happen this fall?
It certainly was a shame when Republicans engaged in a strategy to shut down the government over the Affordable Care Act.
And there were bad consequences for that government shutdown.
It certainly did uh have a negative impact on our economy.
And we would hope that Republicans wouldn't do the same thing again to shut down the government over a common sense, bipartisan effort to try to uh mitigate at least some of the worst problems that are caused by our broken immigration system.
It would be a real shame if Republicans were to engage in an effort to uh shut down the government over a common sense solution like that.
But uh they've done it before.
Right, a common sense solution.
Pretend the Constitution doesn't exist.
Common sense, bipartisan solution.
There is no bipartisan solution.
If there were any bipartisanship going on, he wouldn't need an executive order.
If there were any bipartisanship or agreement going on, he wouldn't need executive action.
And so there is no bipartisanship.
And this is not a common sense revol resolution.
This is bald faced power grab.
This is statism.
I mean, this folks, this is it is clear, and so many people have been saying this for so long, and it still doesn't resonate.
The Constitution is an obstacle to these people.
It's not something we had a call, a caller, what I thought was a very fascinating question.
And it was the question was born of a of a of a natural, not naivete, but a uh civics 101 belief in our system.
And we were discussing the fact that the Democrats look at the Constitution as an obstacle, that it is something that they wish weren't there, and that they treat it as something that can be swept aside whenever they want to.
Like Obama on this UN business on this climate change stuff.
You know what he's saying?
Well, I've got to do this.
I've got a dysfunctional Congress.
Wait a minute.
You can't do it without Congress.
That's the way it was set up.
This government was set up for gridlock by design.
The founders didn't want an all-powerful government being able to dictate things.
They set up roadblocks and obstacles everywhere to all three branches being able to project power.
But Obama, a dysfunctional Congress, in his view, gives him the right to ignore the Constitution because he has no reverence for it, no respect for it.
It's an obstacle.
And that's what this view from the press secretary indicates as well.
Well, we've got a common sense solution here, grant amnesty.
Congress won't help if they want, we're gonna do it anyway.
It's just too crude.
No, no, that's that's not how.
And this caller said, Well, how have we made it this far then?
Is Obama the first president to really?
And I said, in essence, yes.
She said, has it been the honor system?
And I knew what she meant by saying, well, yeah, I know in the way I understand you're asking the question, yeah, the honor system, respect for the rule of law, as the glue that binds all of this together and makes it work.
Understanding the way the Republic is set up, understanding and respecting how it functions.
Well, this bunch doesn't respect it.
They understand it and they don't like it.
And so the honor system is out the window.
In the honor system, if you're president and you want something and the Congress doesn't give it to you, you accept the loss and you find ways to get them on your side to get what you want.
And it works the other way around too.
If people in Congress want something and the president doesn't, they work together.
What happened to partisan?
Biparty compromise.
What about walking across the aisle and all this stuff?
You know, it's always a one-way street.
The Democrats never have to cross the aisle.
If the Democrats don't get what they want, then the problem is the Republicans and the Constitution, and we've got to sweep it out of the way.
So I think, just to sum up, I think what's happening here is that the president and the Democrats and the media are basically attempting to intimidate the Republicans into doing nothing after Obama grants amnesty so that it happens smooth as can be.
Now, I don't disagree the way they look at things.
The Democrats, if the Republicans did shut down the government, I have no doubt the Democrats would love that.
Don't misunderstand.
But I don't I don't think that's what their objective is.
And even if it is, it still has the same end result.
Obama gets amnesty.
And the American people do not blame him for it.
But in the midst of all this, Democrats running for the Senate are still asking him to wait until after the election.
And now we've learned that Democrats today are also waiting, they're asking Obama to wait to do anything on this stupid United Nations uh climate change treaty.
Well, it's not gonna be a treaty.
Obama's just gonna enact it, but then asking him to wait till after the elections on that too.
Meanwhile, ladies and gentlemen, get this.
I don't have time to get into it right now, but I'm gonna posit it out there, but put it to you.
Story from politico, an exclusive in the politico.
A detailed report commissioned by two major Republican groups, which means somebody or both in these two major Republican groups had to leak this to the politico.
Otherwise, how would the political no?
A detailed report commissioned by two major Republican groups, including one backed by Carl Rove, paints a dismal picture for Republicans, including female voters, women voters view the Republican Party as intolerant, lacking in compassion, and stuck in the past.
What a shock.
And you have Republican operatives conducting such a poll, getting such results, and then leaking it to the political.
Why would you leak?
What is ostensibly horrible bad news to politico?
So sit tight, my friends.
As you can see, we have barely scratched the sapphire surface.
Don't go away.
Okay, so you might be asking the radio, because that's where I am in your world.
Might be asking a radio, Rush, what's the big deal?
Okay, so Rove and another Republican group do a survey and it finds that women hate Republicans.
What's the big deal?
Let me tell you what the big deal is.
Doesn't that sound like exactly what the Democrats say?
And we have been discussing recently, have we not this whole idea that the Republicans don't seem to be telling anybody what they stand for?
They don't seem to be announcing any kind of an agenda.
They don't seek any effort to contrast themselves with the Democrats.
Even Snerdley just said to me, you know what, this immigration business, don't shut down the government.
This is the perfect example they should do what you were talking about yesterday.
Don't say a word.
Let Obama do it, let Obama do it, and it's gonna just destroy the Democrats, it's gonna cause a firestorm across the country, and the Democrats are gonna get skunked in the election in November.
Don't say anything.
And see, I understand the strategy because that's oriented toward the objective is they're winning an election in November.
But in the meantime, what happens?
At least five million people get legalized and won't be deport and bamboo.
The process begins.
While we brilliantly position ourselves to maybe win an election in November.
And then what are we gonna do?
Well, well, we'll be in power.
Yeah, well, what are we gonna do?
Because Obama's still gonna be out there ignoring executive actions, and I did the other five million, the other six million here, do that, and do the climate change thing.
We've won the election, but what what how's that gonna stop Obama?
Well, well, we'll we'll have the committee chairmanships, and we'll be able to fundraise off that.
And uh, and uh we'll be in charge of the money, and uh Chamber of Commerce will be happy, and uh we'll be in power.
Yeah, but how's that gonna change anything?
Well, well, well, we'll be able to stop Obama that well.
How?
The whole strategy has been based on not stopping Obama.
So you can win an election.
Yeah, that's right.
And when you win the election, we'll be in power.
And we'll show them.
Show them what?
Well, that we're gonna win an election, screw them, right?
Right.
Well, and then yeah, yeah, and then okay, we'll use a lame duck session and we'll de- and we'll defund them.
We'll take the money away from them.
Right.
And uh that'll shut down the government of the Democrats will win in 2016, is what the Republicans will say.
Greetings and welcome back.
Rush Limbaugh doing what I was born to do.
Okay, so I get an email in the uh in the read an email during the break.
So it sounds like you are dismissive of winning the midterm elections in 2014.
No, I'm not.
But folks, let me try to explain this to you, and then I've got to go back and explain this political story on the row of Republican and women poll.
And then I've got a soundbite you have to hear.
Because it's anyway.
The Democrats I set it up.
Everywhere I go, and I don't go that much anymore.
You know, I don't go that many places anymore.
But when I go place, like I was uh I was at Connecticut back in July, annual golf tournament, member guest golf tournament at the well-known country club of Fairfield, which is very, very near the home of the AIG executive where protesters stormed his gates and blah, blah.
And it's just uncanny, and it's not just there everywhere when I go, people ask me about the Republicans' chances of winning the next election.
And then they ask me, who do you think the nominee is gonna be in 2016?
Who do you like?
And I don't want you to misunderstand me here, because I don't think any of that is unimportant.
I don't want anybody to think that.
But I think that focus on winning the midterms in 2014 and who the nominee is gonna be in 2016, is way short-sided.
I said previously, last week, the most recent time, that we can't turn this around in one election or even two.
See, I don't think we're even on the same field the Democrats are on, folks.
The Democrats are trying to win the game.
The prize is the Constitution, and whoever wins gets to do with it whatever they want.
And in the Democrats' case, they get to disregard it.
They get to pretend it's not there, or worse, throw it out.
The Republicans are trying to get a first down.
The Democrats are trying to win the game, and the Republicans are so far down that just getting a first down is the equivalent of winning the game.
Winning an election is the equivalent of getting a first down, but we're nowhere near midfield after we do it, and we're nowhere near touchdown territory.
And it manifests itself this way.
Okay, suppose we win the 2016 election, however it happens, 2014, if we win because Obama does amnesty, and it so angers the American people that they just vote every Democrat out of office and it puts us in.
Well, on the yeah, that's excellent.
But what do we end up with?
We still end up with however many millions of illegals now legalized.
There's a story out today that one-third of the population of Mexico, if they could, would move here.
Well, if we grant blanket amnesty for the 11 million that are here and the border in the current shape it's in.
What are we doing?
We're sending a signal to come on.
And after we win the election, are the Republicans going to have a magic overnight change of attitude?
Are they all of a sudden going to think that they can start disagreeing with Obama?
Are they all of a sudden going to start thinking that the people don't hate them anymore?
And that they don't think that they're racist, they don't think they're conducting a war on women, are they going to think that they're not bigots and that they're not hobophobes?
Is that what the voters are going to think after the 2014 midterms if they throw the Democrats out?
If the 2014 midterms happen because Obama does anything, or just because of what Obama has done, and the result is Republicans win because the Democrats get thrown out.
What does that mean for the Republicans?
They haven't articulated an agenda.
They have just been the recipients of the anti-status quo vote.
But what's the anti-status quo vote mean?
Is it a license to do the exact opposite of what Obama's been doing?
Is it a license to start shrinking government and cutting taxes?
Is it a license to reduce spending?
Or will the Republicans step in it all over again if they start to implement some kind of an agenda like that?
Without setting it up.
I'm torn on this.
I know the strategy works both ways.
The strategy of shutting up, not saying a word, the old theory was when you're when your opponent is committing suicide, stand aside, get out of the way, let it happen.
We're talking about here in a political sense.
I mean, that old saw even works here on Talk Radio.
If you have a really loony tune, wacko caller, who is entertaining despite himself or herself, just get out of the way, just shut up and let them go.
Same thing.
But there's another, there's another side to that.
When you shut up and let the other side commit suicide, it really isn't suicide, because the Democrats are still going to be there after the election.
But at the same time, you've not given anybody reason to vote for you.
I see it both ways.
I understand it both ways.
I just think we're beyond looking at this in the traditional sense of Republican versus Democrat, black versus white, good guy versus bad guy, spy versus spy, and...
And every four years we have an election.
And if we win, oh goody.
And if they lose, uh goody.
And if they win, oh, we've got to go back to the drawing board.
I think we are hip-deep in the transformation of this country.
Obamacare, all of this threatening talk about executive actions here and there, the shape of the border, the economy, the job situation.
It's not something that one election is going to fix, nor is it something that one election will signal the American people's support the opposite view from Obama.
They can throw the Democrats out and still like Obama.
They can throw the Democrats out, but still not think or like Mitch McConnell or John Boehner.
Do you think we ask you this?
Let's say that what we think is going to happen is going to happen.
Obama's going to do amnesty sometime before the election.
Republicans don't say a word.
They're not going to get goaded into a government shutdown, just going to silence it up and let Obama do what they do.
And in 2014, it's a wave election, Democrats lose everything.
It's even worse than what anybody is projecting now.
The day after the election, does that mean the country loves John Boehner?
And respects him anew?
Does it mean that Mitch McConnell's the hero now?
Does it does it does any of that change even if we win the election?
And about what's the media going to do?
No, no, I'm I'm not trying to paint a picture doom and gloom.
I'm trying to say there's a much larger thing going.
They're trying to win the game.
We're trying to score get a first down.
We're defining victory in a whole different way than they are.
Their victory is converting this country into pure undisguised unmistakable socialism.
With an expansive, growing government, with an attack after attack after attack on achievers, on prosperity, on capitalism, on successful people.
The effective elimination of the Constitution.
That's their objective.
What is our objective?
Win an election.
Where is our agenda objective?
Where can any voter go and find out what that is?
Where can any really big time political junkie who immerses him or herself in all this?
Where can what can they tell you about what the Republicans want?
Now let's go back to this Rolfe poll, for example.
We've got this political poll here.
Exclusive GOP poll of women party stuck in past.
So you have two Republican groups that conducted a poll, and what have they done?
They have basically confirmed what the Democrats say about the Republican Party.
Isn't that interesting?
And then when these results come out.
If I did a poll, and the results were that the women of the United States, particularly single women, hate the Republican Party.
I wouldn't want anybody to see it.
I sure as hell wouldn't call a political and say, here, look at here, run this.
But that's what's happened.
So the politico has a story today that is based on a couple uh on a poll by two Republican groups that essentially agrees with what the Democrats are saying that women hate Republicans and they're justified in hating Republicans because the Republicans hate them, and the Republicans are conducting a war on them.
But wait, but wait, that's not even the half of it.
I always thought that it was single women that the Republican Party had problems with, but married women, different story.
I've seen a lot of polling data that says that's the case.
This one doesn't say that.
This story, this political story, makes it look like the GOP is screwed with all women.
And if you read deeper, you find out why all women disapprove of and don't like the Republican Party.
You know why?
Tea Party social conservatism.
Tea Party social conservatism is killing the Republican Party with women, and the politico can run this story because a couple of Republicans did a poll and got these results and told the political about it.
Social conservatives are stuck in the past.
And the only way the GOP can reach out to women is to walk away from social conservatism, according to this poll.
And, of course, the only way the GOP can reach out to Hispanics is to do away with the rule of law.
That's not in the poll, but that's you know, we've we've got border security trying to stand up for immigration law, blah, blah, blah.
That's that's that intimidates, that angers Hispanics.
Oh, really?
The rule of law?
Us abiding by our own law intimidates them, and so we should ignore our own rule of law.
By the way, the immigration system isn't broken.
The way it is being implemented and managed is what's broken.
The immigration system's fine.
The immigration laws we have are fine.
The problem is they're being ignored on purpose.
So the only way now to get Hispanics, this is what Republicans are saying now, keep in mind.
The only way to get Hispanic vote is to forget the border and forget, you know, you just Got a grand amnesty.
We've got to do it.
We're never going to get this.
And the only way to get the women vote back is to get rid of this social stuff.
Get rid of social issues, get rid of Tea Party, that stuff is killing the Republican Party.
That's why I say we're just trying to get first down.
We're not even on the same playing field of Democrats are on.
I got a soundbite I want you to hear when we come back.
Don't go away.
You want not evidence, but an observation to illustrate what I mean by the Democrats are playing the long game.
You remember all those hippies and yippies, the counterculture of the 60s?
The marchers, students of Democrat Society, blew up buildings, protested the Vietnam War.
What'd they do?
They all have kids.
And they raised every damn one of them to be marching little liberal robots.
And those people have now had kids.
So the grandchildren of the 60s counterculture is now raising the second, third generation of good little liberals, because they are thinking generations ahead.
Not to the next election.
And they're thinking of ways they can raise kids, and the moment some kid in an Ivy League family is born, his admission to Harvard or Yale is already guaranteed thought of, where he's going to end up working, what kind of job.
It doesn't always work out, but I mean, these activists are activists and they're playing the long game.
Just like the Soviets did.
Soviets didn't do anything in four-year election cycles like we do.
Anyway, you gotta hear a soundbite here.
Remember the exit polling data in the 2012 presidential election.
The first wave, and there was a question that when I saw the results of the exit poll, I said this election is over and Romney's been beat, and there's no hope.
It was that well over 60% of people voted blamed Bush for the economy.
Okay.
This morning on the Fox Business Network opening bell with Maria Barcheromo, Sandra Smith was filling in as host debt.
And she spoke with Fox Business Network Overseas editor Ashley Webster, a male, about a new poll on American attitudes about the economy.
Sandra Smith says, we now turn to a new poll that shows that Americans are feeling more pessimistic about our economy now than they did right after the recession.
A new survey by Rutgers University reveals that 71% of Americans believe the recession exerted a permanent drag on our economy.
Now this is far greater than another Rutgers survey taken all the way back in November 2009.
That was just five months after the recession officially ended, showing only 49% thought the downturn would have lasting damage.
More people, Sandra, believe that the recession has permanently damaged this economy.
Maybe that's all the talk about the new norm.
Right.
Well, as usual, my friends, I am required to read the stitches between the fastball here.
Why did I choose this soundbite?
What is it about this soundbite that's so urgent that I wanted you to hear it?
Well, right here it is.
Most people, Sandra, believe the recession has permanently damaged this economy.
Who do most people blame for the recession?
That would be George W. Bush.
Why do most people blame George W. Bush?
Because the Democrats had literally no opposition for four or five years, maybe more, as they set this premise up.
So even after six years of the Obama presidency With specific Obama policies, which have done great harm and damage to this economy.
We have a poll here that says most people think Obama couldn't fix it because it's permanent.
That's how bad Bush's economy was.
Gotta take a break as you ponder that.
Don't go away.
Now, on this poll where the recession's been a permanent drag, the Rutgers poll.
You don't even find Obama's name.
Obama is not mentioned in the poll questions.
He's not mentioned in the results, even though it was his recession.
But no, this is the Bush economy, and it was so bad it's now permanent.
That's what many people think.
Not even Obama could save us, folks.
▲
Export Selection