All Episodes
Previous Next
Nov. 3, 2014 - Rush Limbaugh Program
37:49
November 3, 2014, Monday, Hour #1
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Welcome to today's edition of the Rush 24-7 podcast.
When we were last together on Friday, folks, I told you to just have fun over the weekend.
Pay no attention to anything that matters because I would do that for you.
After all, Diddy's my job men.
And I did it.
And I said, as an antidote, not only will I tell you what you need to know, I will tell you what to think about it.
I love saying that because it tweaks the left.
They think you're a bunch of hick, mind-numbed robots anyway, so I just love.
No, really, we are really loaded here today, and it's a great opportunity once again to make some very persuasive points about a lot of things that need to be made, I believe.
So I've been looking forward to it.
Glad Showtime is here.
Telephone number if you want to be on the program, 800-282-2882.
The email address, lrushbo at eibnet.com.
How about this headline?
Bill Clinton plugs Kay Hagan in North Carolina.
And she was wearing a blue dress.
You should saw a picture of this.
Can you imagine?
And this is the politico.
Bill Clinton plugs Kay Hagan in North Carolina.
You can take that headline any number of ways.
Former president joined some of the biggest Democrat names in North Carolina to fire up a crowd of supporters, which, by the way, Obama can't do anymore.
I mean, he went to Philadelphia and endorsed some shoe-in Democrat.
Half the place was empty.
They had to tarp over the seats to make it look like it was a sellout.
And they couldn't even do that.
I mean, it was embarrassing.
The place was half full.
President United States.
Anyway, Clinton went in there with former Governor Jim Hunt, the longest-serving governor of the state, Representatives David Price and G.K. Butterfield.
And they hailed Hagen while plugging her as the choice for working families, women, and minorities, with whom she's got absolutely nothing in common.
The former president name-checked issues like education, equal pay for women, voting rights, the influx of money in politics, all of which they are responsible for.
And the minimum wage to loud cheers from the crowd of about 1,300, some of them dressed in Halloween costumes at a high school gym in Raleigh.
1,300 on hand.
No, no, 1,300 on hand to see Bill Clinton plug Kay Hagan.
You should have seen some of these costumes.
There were a couple people there.
They put balloons on their heads.
And went as, well, I mean, what do you put a condom on?
So that's what.
And Bill Clinton plugging Kay Hagan.
Well, you got a bunch of guys with balloons on their heads.
In North Carolina.
How about Tom Dung Heap Harkin?
Ladies and gentlemen, you classic, classic illustration of the double standard.
Let's go to audio soundbite number 10.
This is last week.
It was in Ames, Iowa, at the Story County Democrats annual fall barbecue.
And here's Tom Harkin.
There's sort of this sense that, well, you know, I heard so much Joni first.
She's really attractive.
And she sounds nice.
Well, I got to thinking about that.
I don't care if she's as good looking as Taylor Swift or as nice as Mr. Rogers.
But if she votes like Michelle Fox, she's wrong to the state of Iowa.
So what?
These people can bring up women's appearance with impunity.
Tom Dungheap Harkin can talk about Joni Ernst and her appearance, good or bad, and it's not sexism, and it doesn't constitute a war on women.
Tom Harkin says, don't be fooled because Joni Ernst is really attractive.
So you got Clinton unplugging Kay Hagen.
In North Carolina, you've got Dungheap Harkin, who's obviously got a thing for Joni Ernst.
She's attractive, but he said, don't be fooled because Joni Ernst is really attractive.
Now, if I wanted to join this fray, if I wanted to join this, I could make some comments about, well, what would Dung Heap Harpin say about, say, old Mary Landrew?
Would he say, don't be fooled because she is really attractive?
No.
What he would say is she looks vote for her because, well, think of Rush Lindbaugh's undeniable truth of life number 24.
What would he say while Bill Clinton is plugging Kay Hagen?
Would he say, don't be fooled by Kay Hagen, who's really attractive?
Would he say, don't be fooled by Debbie Blabbermouth-Schultz, because she's really attractive?
Nobody would.
Could they find, this is where I dip my toe in the water here, folks, to join Tom Harkin in the deep end.
Could Tom Harkin find a Democrat female candidate about whom to say?
No, that's why he pointed it out about Joni Ernst.
This is unreal.
All these supposedly sensitive, compassionate, understanding, yes, single women can trust Democrats.
Single women can totally trust Democrats and know that they do not objectify them, and they see them as pure human beings, and they have no grand designs on it.
What's he out there doing?
The thing you shouldn't notice about the Republican Joni Ernst, who's up seven, by the way, in the latest Des Moines Register poll, is that she is attractive.
She's a looker, in his view, and that disqualifies her.
That's the point.
People are supposed to ignore that.
Yeah, she sounds nice.
She's really attractive, but that's not a reason.
You know, she votes like Michelle Bachman.
So they went and found Joni Ernst on Fox and Friends this morning.
Steve Ducey said, when you heard Tom Dungheap Harkin, the sitting senator from Iowa, say that about you, that you're attractive, what did you think?
I was very offended that Senator Harkin would say that.
I think it's unfortunate that he and many of their party believe that you can't be a real woman if you're conservative and you're female.
If my name had been John Ernst attached to my resume, Senator Harkin would not have said those things.
Let me tell you what this is all about, and I'm not afraid to say this.
Harkin and a number of other Democrats are intimidated by what they think is Joni Ernst's attractiveness.
Now, why would they be offended by that?
I'm just asking.
I mean, I want you to think about it.
What is offensive?
What is intimidating about an attractive woman?
Why is that a disqualifier?
Of all the things that Harkin could point out about her to try to gin up opposition to her, why mention her looks?
You imagine if a Republican did that.
What is it that's intimidating about her looks?
What is it that's off-putting about her looks?
Is it that unique?
In Harkin's world, does he not run across very many attractive women in the Democrat Party?
Is that why this is something that stands out to him?
Of course he's refusing to apologize for his sex history.
Of course he's not going to apologize.
The drive-bys are not going to insist that he apologize.
He hasn't done anything wrong.
He's a liberal Democrat going the way he's headed to that big dung heap in the sky in retirement, and he's just, he's not going to apologize for it.
Don't be fooled because she's really attractive and sounds nice.
It was in Philadelphia on the campaign trail two days before the midterm elections, President Obama went to one of few places that would take him, Philadelphia.
Campaigning in support of gubernatorial candidate Tom Wolf.
Obama spoke to about 5,500 attendees at a mid-sized 10,000-seat arena that had to be partitioned off with a curtain to cater to the incoming crowd.
This is a far cry from his days as candidate Obama.
Remember when he filled Invesco Field at Mile High behind the cheap crepe paper Greek columns.
70,000 people to hear his acceptance speech, and now he can't even get 6,000 people in a 10,000-seat arena, Democrat stronghold of Philadelphia.
And they have to curtain it off so that people can't see the empty seats.
In the South, in the South, the Democrats are playing the race card again, and I really didn't think that there was any lower that they could go.
I thought they found the gutter.
But I was wrong.
The Democrats are in such a low place now that when they look up, they see the gutter.
Now, a vote for a Republican in the South is a vote for the KKK.
How many years ago in the playbook is that page?
I mean, that's got to be a 60-year-old page in the playbook.
Not to mention which the only Klan member that's ever served in the United States Senate is a Democrat, Sheets Bird from West Virginia, the New York Times.
Folks, this is so great.
The New York Times, a couple of guys, David Shanzer, Jay Sullivan, cancel the midterms.
Have you seen this?
Cancel the midterm elections.
It's pointless anymore.
The Democrats are famous for this.
This is how you know.
This is one of the signs.
This is one of the indications that they think that they are going to lose huge.
And this may be one of the surest signs yet how well the Republicans are going to do.
Because the authors of this screed want to increase the term in the House from two years to four years.
And they want to increase the term in the Senate from six years to eight years.
And then they advance some ludicrous arguments.
They claim, for example, that since World War II, the midterm elections have made presidents weaker.
The midterm elections are one of the reasons why we can't have a great president anymore, because the midterm elections, the president's party always loses, except 2002 when Bush's party won.
And they would never suggest this if a Republican president were going to lose, what, enough seats to lose control of the Senate, lose 70 seats in the House total in two years or whatever.
Never suggest this if a Republican, no, no, no, let's make these midterms one year instead of two.
It's so transparent.
It's so patently obvious.
Cancel the midterms.
The Constitution screwed up.
The Constitution's a mistake.
We need to limit the access to the representatives the American people have.
We let them vote too often for their representatives.
The people are stupid.
The people are dunces.
The people are dense.
The people are glittering idiots.
And we have to protect Washington from the people.
And therefore, we need to limit the number of times people can elect their representatives.
So we need to expand House terms to four years instead of two in order to save failing, incompetent Democrat presidents.
Obama, this is in the weekly standard.
He was in Rhode Island today.
Well, it's actually the date of this is October 31st is last Friday.
Or was it Saturday?
Whatever the day.
This is the third.
Halloween was the 31st, right?
Well, it always is.
Was that a Friday?
Trick or.
Okay, so that's when this is from.
In a speech in Rhode Island on Friday, Obama called for more taxpayer spending on pre-scruel in order to make sure that women are full and equal participants in our economy.
And then he said this.
Are you ready?
Quote, sometimes someone, usually mom, leaves the workplace to stay home with the kids, which then leaves her earning a lower wage for the rest of her life as a result.
And that's not a choice we want Americans to make.
Obama talking about women who stay home to raise kids, that's not a choice we want Americans to make.
Let me read it to you again.
Sometimes someone, usually mom, in most cases a woman, but not always anymore.
Usually mom is a mother.
Will you agree with that, Rachel?
Usually.
It's not always true anymore.
But for this purpose, we assume he's talking about women.
Sometimes someone, usually a female mom, leaves the workplace to stay home with the kids, which then leaves her earning a lower wage for the rest of her life as a result.
That's not a choice we want Americans to make.
Moms who stay home to raise kids.
Family values, Democrat Party, Barack Obama, the same guy who, well, you know his role in infanticide and post-abortion abortions in Illinois.
So there's that.
Mitt Romney, if the Republicans win the Senate, we'll get amnesty.
And he is happy about it.
If Republicans win the Senate, we're going to get amnesty.
He's clapping his hands.
Got a rare, you want to hear it?
Everybody else sounds like 15.
Sunday morning, Fox News Sunday, Chris Wallace said the Senate, on a bipartisan basis, passed comprehensive immigration reform.
House Republicans blocked it.
So what?
You're going to see a provision, first of all, to secure the border.
Second of all, to deal with those who've come here illegally.
And third, to make sure that our immigration policies are more open and transparent to the many people who do want to come here illegally.
That's going to happen.
You're going to see a bill actually reach the desk of the president if we finally have someone besides Harry Reid sitting in the Senate.
He said it.
You heard it.
The establishment Republicans must actually believe that we're all chomping at the bit for the president finally to get a comprehensive immigration bill he can sign.
They must think we really, really want this.
They must think we're really frustrated out here.
Must think that we want to win the Senate so that we can get an immigration bill, which, of course, secures the border first.
There's other news about all of that and that kind of thing.
I've got a whole stack polling data.
I don't want to tease it.
I'll just get to it.
But after all that good news, I had to do it because that sets up what's coming next.
I mean, it's I'll tell you what, let me get hit.
Well, time, heads up.
The Republicans are running around, it's in politico, but the Republicans are the source.
The Republicans are running around saying if we win, if Mitch McConnell wins, and if all these established Republicans win, that means the Republican Party is casting aside the Tea Party.
That means mainline Republican establishment moderate policies is what Republican voters want.
That's what they're setting up to say.
We'll deal with it if the program unfolds.
Sit tight, my friends.
We will be right back.
Mr. Snertley, do you remember the woman known popularly as Dumplin?
Dumplin', Dumplins.
Do you remember who that was?
That was the one-time governor of North Carolina, Bev Perdue.
And you remember what was likely the beginning of the end for her is when she suggested that house races need to be moved.
They're too often.
House races, elections in general, occur too often.
Every two years is too often.
She suggested, much like this guy, moving and making it once every four years, much like the New York Times.
I firmly believe that was the first time North Carolina voters had it confirmed for them that they were dealing with someone who thought the voters were irritants and get in the way.
Most Democrats think that.
Most Democrats disdain elections.
They resent having to go before the voters.
Other than the Democrats in safe, sure shots like the Kennedys always had.
I mean, it was fun.
It didn't matter.
You could do anything.
But other Democrats who have to fight for their victories really resent the hell out of having to do it.
They consider themselves to be so superior to the obviously inferior hayseeds that vote in this country.
They think it's just unseemly that derelicts, like Mary Landry, thinks of people living in Louisiana, but you're racist and sexists.
I mean, misogynists and all that.
She just resents the hell out of the fact that people like that have a say-so in whether she wins or loses.
What an insult.
They resent the hell out of it.
Bev Perdue was the first.
Now the New York Times has come along.
Now, here you have Obama suggesting that mothers who stay at home to raise their kids, that's not a choice we want Americans to make.
He didn't say that's not a choice we want Americans to have to make.
That would have been a different thing.
He could have been talking about economics.
Oh, we wish that Americans didn't have to make that choice.
And what he said was, it's not a choice we want Americans to make.
We don't want them staying home raising kids.
We don't want that to be required, necessary, and so forth.
Okay, Senate updates.
The poll's point, Nate Silver, 538, is up now to 78% chance Republicans win it all.
Let's see, Washington Post, 96% chance Republicans win the Senate.
CNN, 95%.
New York Times, 70%.
Nate Silver, 78%.
At the 538 blog, and a lot of these people are saying it's not just winning the Senate, that it is going to be, I mean, Pelosi, a bunch of Democrats are running around.
It is going to be catastrophic for the Democrats.
So, as you can see, we have a lot to uncover here.
Yep, right here.
Greetings and welcome back.
Great to have you.
Rush Limbaugh, the EIB Network, and the Limbaugh Institute for Advanced Conservative Studies.
Okay, there's a piece in the Politico today.
It is a hit piece aimed at conservatives.
But you knew that.
It's a hit piece aimed at conservatives in the Politico, sourced by members of the so-called Republican establishment.
And the headline of the piece is: Mainstream GOP sees tipping point versus insurgent candidates.
Insurgent candidates are conservatives.
The insurgent candidates for the purposes of this story are Tea Party candidates.
And here are the first couple of paragraphs of this piece.
For the Republican Party's leadership, taking control of the U.S. Senate might not even be the sweetest part of a victory in 2014.
Now, stop on that for just a second.
For the Republican Party leadership, winning the Senate might not even be the sweetest part of a win tomorrow.
Well, if the purpose that they've all told us we should vote for them for is to win back the Senate, if that's not the real thing to celebrate, then what would it be?
I mean, the Republicans are sending fundraising emails all over the place.
I get them, you get them.
Some are panic-filled.
Others are confident to one degree or another.
But the objective is clear.
We've got to get rid of Harry Reid.
We have got to get control of the Senate.
We have got to get control of the chairmanships of the committees in the Senate.
To any casual observer, it would appear that the Republican motivation is to literally win the Senate so that we would have a Senate majority with a House majority and therefore have a united bloc against Obama and the Democrats in all of Congress.
But the politico story says no, the real celebration in a victory over Tuesday would not be taking control of the Senate.
No.
And of course, you know what's next.
With growing confidence, as Election Day approaches, Republican leaders are preparing to argue that huge and broad and sweeping and wide Republican gains in the House and the Senate would represent a top-to-bottom validation of the party's moderate wing.
And what that means is that Republican leaders are preparing to argue that a broad Republican gain in the Senate, a broad Republican gain in the House, would represent a total repudiation of the Tea Party.
And that, ladies and gentlemen, is what these people, this is a political story, but the Politico wouldn't have a story if it weren't for sources talking to them.
And I don't think these particular sources are Democrats here.
Now, I've got to walk a very fine line in explaining this to you because none of this should be new to you.
Now, it may be just as upsetting or might make you just as angry as always, but it shouldn't be new.
I mean, this is not a new attitude the Republican leadership has adopted.
The Politico says the real celebration, the real popping of the champagne corks will come as the Republican moderate leadership, described here as mainline wing.
The mainline wing is the moderates and the Republican, but they are preparing to go out and say that this huge wave landslide win also repudiates the Tea Party along with the Democrat Party.
Having taken a newly heavy-handed approach to the primary season this year, top strategists of the Republican coalition say capturing the majority would set a powerful precedent for similar actions in the future, not just in Senate and congressional races, but in the presidential primary season as well.
Meaning, we better not mess around with any conservative candidates in the Republican primary because we're going to demonstrate here that it is moderate Republicans that win landslides, as will be evidenced, they say, by the results tomorrow.
Then the next paragraph, National Republicans managed this year to snuff out every bomb-throwing insurgent who tried to wrest the Senate seat away from one of their favored candidates.
They spent millions against baggage-laden activists such as Matt Bevan, the Louisville investor who mounted a ham-fisted challenge to Mitch McConnell.
Mississippi State Senator Chris McDaniel, a conservative upstart who imperiled a safe seat by nearly ousting Fad Cochran.
The people at the Politico are as happy to write about this kind of Republican win as they are to write about a Democrat win.
It's amazing to read this.
The Politico, a little cramp here.
Hang on just a sec.
There we go.
Hamstring cramp.
What can I tell you?
But I fixed it because as a former athlete, I know how.
Anyway, the Politico here sounds as excited over a Tea Party defeat as they do of a Democrat win.
This Republican win, moderate mainstream, has got the writers at the Politico as happy as if the Democrats win.
Never seen it before.
This really does represent, this is a new one.
This is the day before the election, and the Republican Party providing sources to the Politico, telling everybody how much they're going to celebrate what they think will be a repudiation of the Tea Party.
The Republican Party apparently doesn't see any problem having their buddies at the Politico write a story detailing how ecstatically happy the Republicans will be at their own base, theoretically losing.
I don't think I would ever see this about a Democrat race.
I don't think Democrat establishment would ever attempt to undermine an element of its base.
They do quite the opposite.
National Republicans managed this year to snuff out every bomb-throwing insurgent who tried to wrest the Senate nod away from the leadership.
The confrontational approach by both party committees and outside super PACs represented a sharp departure from the GOP's cautious strategy in 2010 and 2012 when cartoonishly inept nominees aligned with the Tea Party lost the party as many as five Senate seats.
Oh, yeah.
And they're talking about Sharon Angle and Christine O'Donnell and Rubes and amateurs like that that the Tea Party championed.
So the Tea Party was responsible for all of these Republican losses, not the moderates and the Republican Party, not the established.
Nope.
The Tea Party's the reason the Republicans were losing everything, and now they're going to get rid of the Tea Party in one wave election, and they're already celebrating, and Politico has all the details.
Now, there's a companion story here.
John Podoritz yesterday in the New York Post in the headline, Why the GOP Needs a Stampede in the Midterm Elections.
Now, he's got some good points in here.
I will give him that.
But he's missing something at the same time.
Let me read the first couple of paragraphs before getting into the analysis.
For a year, the big question in political circles has been whether Tuesday's midterm elections will be a Republican wave.
Optimistic conservatives, Republican operatives say and hope yes.
Concerned Democrats and annoyed liberals say and hope no.
These are terrible conditions for Democrats.
The president's approval rating hovers in the low 40s.
Taken together, these should be like boulders tied to the legs of Democrat candidates, weighing them down and effectively drowning their hopes.
And they are, but in fewer cases than most people expected.
And that's the point in the real world.
It ought not be.
Mr. Snerdley, would you agree with me that if everything were operating in a sane way, there wouldn't even be any doubt about tomorrow being a wave.
If we were living in the real world, what would be talked about would be, will the Democrat Party win enough to survive and continue?
That's how bad the Democrat defeat should be with every bit of damage the Democrat Party and its president have wreaked on this country for six years.
And it is damage that people are living.
It's not damage they have to be told about.
It's not damage predicted.
They are living it.
The number of Americans who want to work and can't find a job is close to 20 million.
92 million are not working total.
I mean, the percentage is around 18%, not 18%.
It is there is we've got the destruction of the health care system.
We've got the president purposely dwindling the influence of the United States all over the world.
The Democrat Party has destroyed the mainstream economy by stealing from it to grow the government.
There are fewer and fewer opportunities for people to, quote, reach the American dream, all brought about by Democrat policy.
This ought to not even be a question.
We ought not even have to ask ourselves.
You think it's going to be a wave?
You think the Republicans are going to win this and it's going to be close, 67?
The Republicans ought to be smoking Everything that's up for grabs tomorrow, and then take away 10% for California, New York.
But instead, it remains, well, even Mr. Pedoris is not sure what's going to happen.
It might be a wave, it might not be a wave.
We might get the Senate, we might not.
There ought be no question about it, folks, in the real world.
If the Republican Party had embraced the most amazing political event of our lifetime, and that's the rise of the Tea Party.
Now, you might want to say the fall of the Berlin Wall, but that also has foreign policy connotations.
But out of nowhere, this massive political movement rises out of nowhere in 2010.
It arises precisely because of its opposition to the Democrat president and the Democrat Party and what they are doing to the country.
And to this day, the Republican Party has refused to embrace it.
In fact, it's the opposite.
They've attempted to diminish and impugn the Tea Party to the point now we've got a politico story which says that the real thing the Republicans are going to celebrate if they take the Senate is not taking the Senate, but vanquishing the idea that the Tea Party is needed for Republicans to win.
Now, folks, I want to be very careful.
I am not, and I'm not going to, telling you to stay home.
I am not, and I don't believe in that.
And I will talk to anybody today who wants to argue with me about it.
I do not.
These two things are not related.
You're not going to teach anybody a lesson by not showing up.
You're not going to teach any, you're not going to show anybody anything by not voting.
That's not going to accomplish anything.
And I don't want anybody, although I can't control the people that take me out of context known as the Democrat Party.
But there is in no way, shape, manner, or form that I am suggesting that because of all of this, you stay home and not vote, because that's not the answer.
And I'll explain.
I don't think I need to with all of you, but I will anyway, because that's what the show is for.
Screams of joy at the very mention of my name.
And there's some screams of panic as well.
At the very mention of my name, he'll rush bow, a household word in all four corners of the earth.
So Mr. Snerdley tells me that he just had a, was it a woman that was mad?
He did not clear her through, and he now regrets it based on what he just heard me say.
But she was mad at me.
She said I was sabotaging the Republicans by reading to you what's in the politico piece.
Now, that could only be the case if she thinks the politico piece is untrue.
But the politico piece that I just read to you, the sources there are Republican sources.
They claim it's not Democrat sources reporting this story for Politico.
And it's not news.
The Tea Party is feared by both Democrats and Republicans.
I just sit here and think what would have happened if the Republican Party had embraced the Tea Party.
Every election would be a wave election if that had happened.
But instead, what's hey, this is inarguable, folks.
All you have to do is listen to Republican ads and listen to Republican consultants on TV.
While the Republican leadership is missing their absolute best and easiest core vote, the Tea Party, they'd be invincible.
The Republican Party would be invincible embracing the Tea Party, but instead what they're doing is wasting time and money wooing Hispanics and blacks.
And make no mistake about that.
I mean, that's not even arguable.
The Republicans think that they are expanding their base by doing this, and they believe that those demos are needed to win presidential elections.
Liberals and establishment Republicans, if Pat Roberts wins and Mitch McConnell wins, they're going to say, you don't even need a political story to tell you this.
They are going to say the Tea Party's dead.
They're going to say the Tea Party was never that big a deal.
The Tea Party never had that kind of influence.
We were wise to spot that.
That's what they're going to say.
But if there's a wave election tomorrow, it's going to be because the Tea Party people sucked it up and voted like grown-ups and voted to stop Obama's authoritarian takeover of the country.
If there is a wave election tomorrow, it's going to be because the Tea Party shows up.
If there is a wave, it's not going to be because the Republicans are going to succeed in getting black and Hispanic voters.
They might get a few more than usual.
But if there's a big wave tomorrow, it's going to be because of the Tea Party.
And if the Tea Party shows up in enough strength for the Republicans to win in a wave, it's going to be because the Tea Party is doing whatever it can to stop Obama, which is what this election is about.
It's not about stopping the Tea Party for crying out loud.
It's about stopping Obama.
And that's why the Tea Party is going to show up because of their character and their sense of concern about the future.
One more time, this election is not about the Tea Party.
This election is not about the Republican Party.
The Republican Party not saying anything.
This election is about the repudiation of Barack Obama and the Democrat Party.
▲
Export Selection