All Episodes
Previous Next
Nov. 5, 2014 - Rush Limbaugh Program
34:38
November 5, 2014, Wednesday, Hour #3
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
The views expressed by the host of this program make more sense than anything anybody else out there happens to be saying because we're interested in the truth.
And we offer poof of the truth.
And we find it and it sends the rats scurrying for cover.
Happy to have you.
Telephone number is 800-282-2882 and the email address illrushbow at EIBnet.com.
So it looks like we pick up eight seats in the Senate now with Alaska.
And it could still be more, but it won't be less.
The Republicans are going to have greatest number of members in the House of Representatives since 1946 as they pick up net 10.
Every member of Congress from Arkansas is a Republican.
This sweep, this wave, this landslide was thorough, top to bottom, dramatic.
It was heart-stopping, and it was genuinely catastrophic for the Democrat Party.
Now, if you're just tuning in and you missed the opening segments of the program today, fear not.
I'm not going to repeat them, but we already have them up and transcribed.
The audio is available too at rushlimbaugh.com.
And it's even been linked to by Matt Drudge.
It's on the front page of the Drudge Report.
And I just, you know, I'm unlike you.
I have never had the thrill of listening to this program like you do.
And the reason for that is that I'm hosting it.
And I don't listen to myself after the fact.
I've never liked it.
I never watched myself on TV.
I hated it.
I was never satisfied.
I don't listen to myself on tape and radio, so I never hear myself like you do.
I have missed that thrill.
But I do read my own transcripts.
And this one I heartily recommend if you missed the first hour of the program.
Again, what happened was a thorough slapdown.
Smackdown, if you will, a thorough and total rejection of liberal Democrat, and not just policies.
This was a smackdown of liberal Democrat governance.
And it was everywhere.
It knew no demographic limitations, geographic limitations, gender limitations.
We've got Tim Scott in South Carolina, who is the first black elected to the Senate since Reconstruction.
He was serving on an appointed term, and he was elected for the first time.
And he's a Republican in South Carolina.
And he was elected by Republicans and Democrats, thereby nuking one of the cliched talking points that the Democrats have popularized about Republicans, racist, sexist, bigot, homophobe, you name it.
There were Republican governors, women reelected in droves last night.
The war on women meme was shot through the heart in Colorado and all over the country.
Although it won't go away, by the way, I disagree if you've heard analysts on TV say that, and Dr. Krauthammer said this, and I'm not, don't misunderstand.
I'm not trying to be disrespectful here.
I just, I don't think the Democrats give things up.
It's not the end of the war on women.
I mean, they're still claiming Republicans want to eliminate Social Security for old people.
They're still claiming that Republicans want to kick old people out of their houses.
They were grabbing 50-year-old pages out of their playbook in this campaign.
So they're not going to give up on the war on women.
They're going to keep trying it.
That's all they've got.
They cannot talk about their policies.
Nobody wants their policies.
If Barack Obama had been honest about his policies, he would never have been elected in the first place.
And we wouldn't be here.
Liberal Democrats have to constantly mask who they are and what they believe in, couch themselves in terms that are presentable and acceptable.
The American people keep falling for it because of branding and the media and the notion of compassion and fairness and equality.
And the Republicans supposedly oppose all that, which, of course, is bogus and ridiculous, but that's what kind of success the mythmakers have had.
But reality is an entire different thing.
And particularly in this election result last night or yesterday, the reality is that the American people don't want any more of what they've had, what we've had, for the past six years.
Now, the media has a responsibility, and that is to make you think something else.
The media's responsibility today and going forward is to tell you that this election was about anything but the truth.
And this election was about a total rejection of liberalism, policies, and governance.
It was a total rejection of Barack Obama and Obama-ism.
The media, however, will continue to do everything they can to persuade you it was about something else entirely.
Let me give you an example.
I'm holding here in my formerly nicotine-stained fingers a piece from today's New York Times, written by Jeremy W. Peters and Carl Hulse.
Republicans' first step to victory was to handle extremists in party.
Now, the premise of this story is the Republican victory depended entirely on the Republican establishment silencing and eliminating any Tea Party candidates.
Corey Gardner and Joni Ernst, not included, and some others.
It was late spring, and Republican leaders knew if they wanted to win the Senate, they needed to crush the enemy.
Not Democrats.
No.
They needed to crush the rebels within their own party.
And Chris McDaniel, a Senate candidate for Mississippi, who had a history of making sexist and racially insensitive remarks, was a problem.
Notice Nancy Pelosi is never an extremist.
Harry Reid is never an extremist.
Dick Durbin, never an extremist.
No, no, no.
Hillary Clinton, never an extreme.
No, no.
The only extremists are in the Tea Party, in the Republican Party.
And the Republican Party is well aware.
And the only way the Republican Party can win is to kill off the Tea Party, as epitomized by Chris McDaniel.
Candidates like Scott Brown, running for the Senate in New Hampshire, called the National Republican Senatorial Committee to complain that if Chris McDaniel was not stopped, he could drag the whole party down.
This would be Scott Brown who lost again In a race for the Senate, this time in New Hampshire, to an absolutely corrupt woman by the name of Gene Shaheen, who we have learned worked hand in hand with Lois Lerner to target the Tea Party at the IRS.
Gene Shaheen was one of the U.S. senators, along with Al Franken and others, encouraging the IRS to deny tax-exempt status to Tea Party fundraiser groups.
We couldn't mention that, of course, that would be partisan.
In June, the Republican Party establishment just barely vanquished Mr. McDaniel, reaching a turning point in their dogged campaign to purge their own party of extremists and regain power in the Senate.
And again, it's funny, ladies and gentlemen, how we never hear of any extremists in the Democrat Party.
We only hear of extremists in the Republican Party, acknowledged by other Republicans.
We only hear of extremists as named by other Republicans.
We don't hear of one Democrat, even after they have just received another historic shellacking.
But nobody ever dares suggest the Democrats need to dial back.
Some of their extremists, no, no, Harry Reid can go make fools of himself all day long, and it's mainstream.
And Pelosi and Debbie Blabbermouth Schultz, who define radical extremist kook cases, are free to say and do whatever they want, and they're considered brilliant strategists.
Republicans' impressive showing, this is back to the New York Times piece here.
Republicans' impressive showing Tuesday night was the result of methodical plotting, careful candidate vetting, and abundant preparation to ensure that the party's candidates would avoid repeating the same devastating mistakes that cost them dearly in 2010 and 2012.
Because you see, only extremists, only conservative extremists make mistakes.
If only conservative extremists make mistakes, and Joe Biden must be the biggest conservative out there because he's one of the biggest extreme radical Dumkoffs that we have.
But when he does it, it's just old Joe.
You know, that's just old making fun of the Indians at 7-Eleven.
That's just old Joe.
There's not a racist bone in old Joe's body.
In interviews, more than two dozen lawmakers and strategists describe the meticulous efforts.
Why in the world are Republican establishment wizards and smarts going off to the New York Times to explain their brilliant strategy of limiting extremists in their own party?
Why aren't the Wizards and Smart at the Republican Party going to the New York Times and describing the extremists in the Democrat Party and explaining to the New York Times why the Democrats just lost?
Instead of explaining, yeah, you know why we won?
Because we kept people like Todd Aiken out.
We kept people like Chris McDaniel out.
And we kept people like Sharon Angle out.
We got rid of the wackos.
We got rid of the extremists.
We shut the Tea Party up.
That's why we won.
And you know what it means, New York Times?
Republican leaders in this story are telling the New York Times that the meaning of the election is the voters want us to work together to solve problems.
Party leaders managed to elbow aside insurgents like Mr. McDaniel and Liz Cheney, the daughter of former Vice President Dick Cheney, who had planned to challenge Senator Mike Enzi of Wyoming on the grounds that he was insufficiently conservative.
Liz Cheney is a dangerous extremist in the New York Times piece.
Liz Cheney is a dangerous extremist, as called out by Republican leaders in this piece.
But Nancy Pelosi isn't?
And Harry Reid isn't and never has been.
And Debbie Blabromel-Schultz is not an extremist?
Dick Durbin's not an extremist.
But in the end, says the New York Times proudly, in the end, the disciplined approach by the Republicans worked.
No Republican imploded with the kind of fatal campaign gaffe that crushed the party's hopes in the last two elections.
Every establishment candidate prevailed in the primaries.
Republicans credited this to their rigorous training program.
The fake trackers would even surprise candidates at the curb outside the airport when they flew into Washington to meet with a national Republican Senatorial Committee official.
Did you know this happened?
Let me explain.
Can I tell you what happened here?
All these potential candidates are flown to Washington to meet the Republican Senatorial Campaign Committee.
And they come in together on flights and they got their bags and they're out on the curb waiting to get in a car and a bunch of Republican leaders, pretending to be reporters, come up to them with microphones and cameras and start shouting questions to them about abortion and rape.
It was a training exercise to see if they could discover that any of them were Todd Aiken and would say something stupid, or if any of them were Chris McDaniel, would say something extreme.
Fake reporters, Republicans, would come up to these newly arrived chosen candidates and ask them, so tell me, rape's okay, right?
You think rape, in some cases, it's a natural existence.
And say if somebody gets pregnant for rape, it's okay, right, right?
And these arriving candidates think it's the media asking them this.
And it turns out it's just a training exercise.
But this was how thorough the Republican mainstream establishment was in ferreting out the potential danger in candidates who would say radically stupid stuff.
And this is why they won.
Because of the brilliance of the Republican strategists who figured out how to keep the Tea Party from being involved.
And that's the media's job this week.
The media's job this week is to give everybody a totally wrong-headed, incorrect reason why the Republican victory took place.
And it wasn't because they kept the Tea Party in.
It wasn't this or that.
It doesn't matter what the Republicans stood for.
They were the other guys, and the American people want these Democrats stopped.
The Republicans were not elected because they kept the Tea Party out.
They weren't elected because they want people to work together.
They weren't elected because of compromise.
They weren't elected because they weren't elected because they're conservative, because they didn't have any position.
They weren't elected.
Nobody knew who the Republicans were on a national basis.
I'm going to say this over and over again because the Republicans stood mute.
They didn't tell anybody anything about themselves.
They didn't articulate one policy.
Individual candidates did, but the National Republican Party had no identity.
Purposely.
So they've won.
And now they're telling themselves in the New York Times that the reason is the right people picked the right candidates and kept a Tea Party out of it.
And there weren't any embarrassing statements that we had to try to defend, limit our fundraising, and that's why we won.
You really think that people went to the polls yesterday, and as they're marking their ballots or pulling the levers or whatever, do you think people are actually saying, you know what, I'm going to vote the Republicans this time because I don't remember any stupid things some guy in Missouri said.
Yeah, yep, yep, that's it.
Voting Republican.
I don't remember anything.
This was not on their minds.
They walked into the ballot box, they walked into the polling place, and the only thought on their mind was: this is our only chance at stopping what is happening to our country.
And they weren't thinking about rape, and they weren't thinking about war on women, and they weren't thinking about climate change.
They weren't thinking about anything.
They were thinking about stopping what is happening to our country.
And that means stopping the people who are causing it.
That happens to be Barack Obama and the Democrats.
And that's all this election was about.
Okay, back to the phones we go.
This is Ed in Western Pennsylvania.
Ed, I'm glad you called.
Welcome to the program, sir.
Hi, how are you doing?
Good.
Thank you.
I reached my 15 minutes of saying talking with you.
Well, hubba, hubba.
I'm happy to hear it.
Well, I think Obama injected himself into the elections by saying his policy were on the ballot.
Yep.
So the Republicans could come in and fix the problems in this country.
And then he can claim that success for himself, because otherwise, he knows as well as everybody else does that the country is in shambles.
And what else is he going to put in this presidential library besides Zolowinski's book?
Absolutely nothing.
Besides the what?
Oh, the Solowinski book.
So what is he going to put in his library?
Okay, your theory is that Obama may not even upset the Democrats lost because the Republicans now are a natural enemy.
And anything that doesn't get done, he can just blame them.
They're not working with me.
I've got to take steps on my own.
They're just obstructionists.
They're just doing greedlock.
They're not helping me.
Well, I think this has always been a possibility.
And it could well be.
Ed here thinks that Obama undermined the Democrats on purpose.
Hey, you know what?
They're lying.
My policies are on the ballot.
And every one of these people that don't want me around, I wouldn't be where I am without them.
They made me possible.
Every one of these Democrats did everything I asked them to do.
And they're lying to you when they say they don't like me.
All right?
All entirely possible.
It is.
I still think, I still think that we're going to hear at some point, I don't know when, maybe next year after all this gets voted on and the new Congress is actually sworn in.
I can hear him saying, you know, I wanted to work with these people.
I respect the results of elections.
I really do.
But these extremists, I mean, they're just obstructing everything I want to do here.
We've got to help people.
And then list all the things he's trying to help and then portray the Republicans as refusing to have.
He's got to take action on his own.
And he'll justify Republican gridlock and obstructionism as the reason he's reluctantly, gee, I hate to do it, but I got to do these executive actions.
Yeah, nothing would surprise me because that's what he wants to do.
If you look at his approval ratings, it's not working right now.
I mean, he's been blaming Republicans for his problems for the last two years, and it hasn't helped his approval numbers.
People, this election was not about punishing the Republicans.
I hate to tell you.
It was about punishing the Democrats.
It was the American people that we look at.
I'm getting blue in the face saying it.
You get the deal now, right?
Welcome back, El Rushmo, serving humanity, executing assigned host duties flawlessly.
Zero mistakes.
San Bernardino, California.
This is Larry.
Welcome, sir.
It's great to have you.
Hi.
Hello, can you hear me?
I hear you fine, yeah.
Okay, good.
Well, first of all, what I want to say is thank you for everything you've done and everything you're doing because you're doing this for the black people, too.
Big time for the black people.
And I want to say this: you know, I wish they would stop calling this man, I can't call him no president, this man in the White House the first black president, because he is not the first black president.
He does not have the same bloodline that blacks in America have.
His bloodline is totally different from ours.
And the way he's going about California, and I'm talking about like Riverside, San Bernardino, Fontana, Ontario, L.A., Bakersfield, everywhere, blacks are no work because all the jobs he gave to illegal immigrants.
And they got the money, and they got the jobs, they got the money.
You know, I have been waiting for somebody like you to say something like this.
And the idea, what you're basically saying is that he's not got a civil rights linkage in his life to the civil rights coalition or past.
He's not down for the struggle.
He comes from a different experience.
And he's taking jobs away from you people by opening up immigration.
And that's going to lower wages for everybody for illegal immigrants.
And you're basically saying you got no loyalty to us.
You don't.
Now, are you still there?
Now, look at this.
You know, they want to say in Washington that we can't, we took impeachment off the table because he's the first black president.
Well, he is not the first black president because the first black president is yet to come.
And he is not.
And impeachment is what black people want.
They want him out of the White House.
Well, no, no, that's not entirely true.
The first black president was Bill Clinton.
No.
No.
Bill Clinton is nowhere, him and his wife both are just like Obama.
You know, they hate blacks.
And Obama haters.
Now, wait a minute.
Wait a second.
Now, now, Matt.
He's got every reason to hate us, too.
That's going a little far.
He don't hate blacks.
Yes, he does.
How can he not hate us and he take everything away from us and give it to somebody else?
What do you call that?
Folks, let me tell you something.
It's a fascinating take.
If I were, I've done this exercise a lot.
If I were African American, and if I fit the bill, I vote Democrat every opportunity because I believe the Republicans don't like me and have great harm for me.
Intended, but the Democrats are looking out for me.
And so I'm going to vote for them.
They're going to take care of me.
They're going to protect me against the racists.
They're going to protect me against these evil Republicans.
And after a while, it may say, what am I getting out of this?
What am I getting for this?
And now, especially, it seems that the Democrat Party is more interested in the Hispanic minority than they are in the black minority.
And I've been waiting for somebody to make this connection.
I'm glad you called, Larry.
By the way, speaking of this, Charlie Wrangell went back to CNN today.
Wolf Blitzer wanted to give Charlie Wrangell a chance to walk back his comment that Republicans still want there to be slavery.
And Charlie Wrangell doubled down on it.
And Blitzer was clearly distressed, pointed out, how can you say this?
Republicans just elected Tim Scott, the first black senator of South Carolina since Reconstruction.
He's a Republican.
And Wrangell doubled down on it.
You can't fool me.
They're all Ditzy Crats.
And they all want, if you had a dead of your drugs, they'd be wanting to have slavery still.
Even today, Charlie Wrangell's out saying that what the Republicans really, really want is to reinstitute slavery.
I don't know.
Worry about where Charlie's mind is is to assume it was okay yesterday.
And I don't think Charlie's been right for a long time about anything.
But the problem is that Charlie got re-elected.
People believe him.
I don't know how isolated that is, but I'm telling you, that's not a service to his constituents in any way, shape, man, or form.
Larry, thanks much.
Hugh in Jacksonville, Florida.
Great to have you on post-election day EIB.
How are you, sir?
Very fine, sir.
Thank you for taking my call.
You sound like you're as happy today as I am with what happened last night.
But here's my question.
Last year, the Democrat Congress changed the rules with regard to judicial appointments, eliminating the filibuster.
My question I'd like your thoughts on is when the new Republican Senate comes in in January, why not throw up the ante and say, all right, no more filibusters for any vote in the Senate.
Everything will be a straight up or down vote.
If one side can do it, the other side can do it too.
I understood about half what you said.
It wasn't your fault.
It's the phones.
I'm sorry, sir?
Well, you basically want the Republicans to do what the Democrats did and just broom the filibuster and give them a taste of their own medicine.
Exactly.
Yeah.
Well, this is all we don't know what the Republicans are going to do.
I heard a comment last night about this, and it was from our old buddy George Will on the Fox News channel.
And George Will, it was an interesting comment.
George Will said that a lot of Republicans, I'm sorry, a lot of Democrats are not all that upset because they're confident that the Republicans will reinstitute all of the rules that Harry Reid changed and make the Senate a deliberative body again, which would give the Democrats a voice.
And he said, truth be told, that there are going to be a lot of Democrats tomorrow morning, even if they lose the Senate, that are not going to be that unhappy.
Now, his point was this.
Harry Reid, because of rules changes and a number of things, there hasn't been, there hasn't been any deliberative legislative action occurring in the Senate in two years.
Three years.
And Harry Reid did this to protect Obama.
It is a well-known fact.
Barack Obama has not been popular as president for at least two years and maybe more.
Harry Reid changed the Senate rules, a lot of them, not just the filibuster rules.
He changed a number of rules.
Republicans have not been allowed to submit amendments to legislation.
There have not been debates on legislation.
There hasn't been legislation.
There have been continuing resolutions on the budget and things like that.
But the Senate, under Harry Reid, the past three to four years, has stopped being a deliberative body.
Every piece of legislation the Republicans passed died in the Senate.
Nothing was ever taken up.
And this was done purposely by Reed to eliminate any role the Republican Party had whatsoever in the Senate and to protect Obama.
So the Democrats think that the Republicans, like Mitch McConnell and whoever his deputies are, they're honorable and they will reinstitute the rules that Harry Reid wiped out.
And they will once again make the Senate a deliberative body.
And the Senate Democrat minority will once again be allowed to submit amendments and participate in debates on the Senate floor about legislation.
So they're not that unhappy because the theory is that Mitch McConnell will not keep Harry Reid's rules in place.
That they'll go back to the way it was, even the filibuster stuff before Reed changed it all.
And what our caller is saying is he hopes Mitch doesn't do that.
He hopes that the Democrats are forced to live under the same limitations and rules changes that they forced on the Republicans.
And I am at a loss to predict what's going to happen in that regard.
If I had to make a guess, it would be that Mitch McConnell, in this ongoing effort to prove that they are willing to work with the Democrats and to compromise and to try to come together on disagreements,
will take steps that will empower the Democrat minority more than the Republican minority was to show what good people they are and what honorable people they are.
They won't be said, that won't be the reason.
The reason will be to restore the Senate to its time-honored traditions.
One of the things that has been fascinating about all this stuff that Obama's been doing extra-constitutionally, enforcing laws, not enforcing them, making them up as he goes.
What would happen if all of these precedents caused the next Republican president to do the same stuff?
The Democrats would have a conniption fit.
And it was always, you know, Republican leaders said, yeah, yeah, this is why the Democrats will never do this stuff because they'll realize that they'll lose someday and we would have the same power over them.
But now, George Will said last night that he's got a, I don't know how many, but a number of Democrats said, hey, you know, the Senate's going to be okay if the Republicans win it because they're going to turn it back into what it was always intended to be.
Meaning the Democrats will have a voice in the Senate, even though it's a minority voice, unlike the Republicans who were basically silenced by virtue of Reed's rules changes.
Welcome back, ladies and gentlemen.
I am Rush Lindbaugh, as always.
Half my brain tied behind my back.
Just to be fair with everybody, it is a requirement that I place on myself each and every busy broadcast day.
Back to the phones to Artesia, New Mexico.
This is CORI.
Great to have you with us.
Hello.
How's it going, Rush?
I'm fine.
Thank you.
Yeah, I was about to say, first off, that I just started listening to your show earlier this year, two months, actually.
And I am actually happy to say I have no idea what the hell I was listening to before.
Well, it's great to have you here now.
So back to the reason why I'm here.
Yesterday I tuned in to that little fellow from, I believe, Colorado.
He was the self-proclaimed libertarian talking about.
Is that marijuana?
I was pro-marijuana.
And I got to say that I kind of came to the conclusion that a libertarian is about a hair away from a complete full-fledged Democrat, mostly because it seems that their intentions are what matters, not the means or the results.
Almost oblivious to the reality of things, huh?
Don't you think?
Well, that's the first time I've heard libertarians characterized as just a hair away from being a complete full-fledged Democrat.
I think the I understand what you're saying.
Your point was that he was being misleading and disingenuous.
That you believe, I think probably that he and a lot of proponents of medical marijuana are just a bunch of stoners, and they want it legalized for recreational purposes, but they get to hide behind this medical use business, which legitimizes their pursuit.
And that way they don't have to be portrayed as Jeff Spokoli stoners and stuff.
And a lot of people think that about medical marijuana.
It was on the ballot here in Florida.
I went there.
The ballot box, medical marijuana.
Hmm.
Hmm.
How should I vote on this?
It didn't matter.
My vote didn't matter because it went down a defeat.
You need 60% for ballot initiatives to pass in Florida.
I got 57%.
It was close.
So I know that here in Florida, there were a bunch of just distressed stoners last night.
Washington, D.C. passed recreational marijuana.
Yeah, I mean, that's on the rise.
That's coming.
It's going to happen.
You can see the trend line.
It's occurring.
It's going to in more and more states.
Just mark my words.
Remind me, I don't have time right now.
Remind me to tell you how some of these continuing resolution deals happen.
It's a great illustration of how Republicans and Democrats work together in Washington to help each other get things for their own states and so forth, which exacts a political price later.
▲
Export Selection