All Episodes
Previous Next
Nov. 10, 2014 - Rush Limbaugh Program
36:26
November 10, 2014, Monday, Hour #1
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Welcome to today's edition of the Rush 24-7 podcast.
And greetings to you, music lovers, thrill seekers, conversationalists all across the fruited plain.
I am Rush Limbaugh bringing the news, bringing the truth, bringing wisdom, bringing expert analysis to you at the speed of sound here on the Excellence in Broadcasting Network.
The telephone number, if you want to be on the program is 800-282-2882 in the email address, Ilrushbow at EIB net.com.
Among the many things that we are going to do today on the program, it might happen relatively soon.
I don't know when it's going to happen because this whole program is always improvisation.
I mean there's not a script.
I mean, there's not a I don't I don't put together a uh uh an outline or a series of storyboards and say, okay, this is when I'm gonna do this, and this is what I'm gonna do.
Just whenever I feel like getting into something is when it happens.
But we're gonna go back to the grooveyard of forgotten favorites, and we are going to have another Gorbasm today.
Because the drive-by media is in fact having one.
It's the 25th anniversary of the fall of the Berlin Wall, and the drive-by media is out celebrating Mikhail Gorbachev as though he let it happen.
As though Gorbachev made it happen.
You know, I met Gorbachev.
It was at George H.W. Bush's 80th birthday, and it was at uh Reliance Stadium in Houston.
And there was a big celebration, and I didn't go to the celebration on the field.
There was a there was a pre-bash in the bowels of the stadium in there.
And I went and I showed up for that, and uh Gorbachev was there with that bald-headed interpreter that's been following him around for 30 years.
And James Baker was there, and well, everybody was there, and and uh this bald-headed guy with Gorbachev kept looking at me, and I said, This guy can't know who I am.
I mean, this is Gorbachev, these guys don't speak English, he has no idea, but he kept looking at me.
So finally I I would up James Baker.
I'd like to meet Gorbachev.
I happened to have it was wearing the exact same color gray suit that Gorbachev was wearing.
It's uncanny.
So he uh he took me over and introduced me and and the he introduced me to the interpreter, and I heard the interpreter explain to Gorbachev who I was.
I heard the name Limbo.
Rusky Limbo, something like that.
And Gorbachev smiled and cocked his head and looked at me, and we posed for a picture, and when when we posted the picture at Rush Limbaugh.com, the birthmark that was on Gorbachev's forehead, had gone from his to mine.
It ended up on my forehead.
You should see it.
We put it up there at Rush Limbaugh.com.
Anyway, that was the um uh big birthday bash, and I left early, and I didn't I didn't want to stay for the whole thing.
And that I mentioned I got out to the airport and I had to wait for it to end anyway.
Because George W. Bush was there, he was president, and the president's there, they ground all airplane traffic over the city of Houston, while the president's there, so I had to wait till the party was over to leave.
So I should have stayed.
I thought I was leaving early to get out of there.
Anyway, for those of you too young to know, I will explain what a Gorbasm is at that point in time when we get to it.
Now there's a lot of teachable moments out there today.
Oh, I should point out, I should say, that the um efforts being made to mischaracterize what I said, my analysis of what the election meant.
The efforts to shall I say, what's the right way to put it?
Well, let's just say in on the conservative media side of things, there is an effort to mischaracterize what I say or said, and it's uh best understood by just telling you that there are members of the conservative media running around and saying, well, you know, Rush, yeah, but he's only half right.
We gotta do more than stop Obama.
That's not what this meant.
We didn't mean stop, but we gotta get things done.
And then they say we have to take the occasion.
These They're running around saying they're not mentioning my name, but they're running around saying these people say that all this election meant was stop Obama.
No, no, no.
We've got to advance conservatism.
And I listen to this in total incredulity as though it is possible to believe that I, El Rushpo, am not in favor of advancing conservatism.
I mean, it's just it's it's mind-boggling to me.
But such is the nature, ladies and gentlemen, of competition everywhere.
Now, I've spent an inordinate amount of time last week explaining my take and doubling down on expanding it, making sure that nobody could possibly misunderstand what I said, and they continue to act as though some do, uh, continue to act as though I only got it half right.
Now, I'm not going to beat you over the head with it again today.
I just wanted to reference the fact that if you're out there and you happen to be casually tuning in media, and you hear people say, well, you know, this idea we got to stop Obama, yeah, but that's not all.
That is an effort to mischaracterize what I said.
Does anybody really believe?
I don't look at, as I say, I don't want to beat this horse dead again.
But it seems to me common sense.
Stopping Obama is indeed all about advancing conservatism.
But even if it weren't, I stated what we should do, and I'll do it again.
You advance conservatism by teaching about it.
That's the best opportunity we've got.
How do you teach it?
You come up with legislation, since that's what people say the election meant.
We need to get things done.
Okay, well, let's do things.
Then let's come up with precious legislation, such as repealing, I don't know, a couple things in Obamacare.
Then you get a public opinion poll on it, showing that 60, 75% of the American people support getting rid of XYZ and Obamacare, and you send all of that up to Obama.
You send the bill and you send the public opinion poll results, and you publicize it all.
And then you make him veto it.
And you make him the obstructionist.
You make him the guy that's the party and no.
By the way, I think Obama, this is this is kind of funny.
In the immediate aftermath of the election, Obama was hellbent on making sure that it wasn't his fault.
Right?
It was everybody else's fault with his.
He had nothing to do with.
Then Valerie Jarrett or somebody got to him.
So no, no, no, you're gonna have to accept some responsibility.
So he he went out and uh he he he he basically basically said the message that I took from this election, and and we've seen this in a number of elections, successive elections.
People want to see this city work, Obama said.
And in that little quote, does Obama think he's the mayor of Washington, or does he think he's the president of the United States?
Well, it's not about seeing the city work.
That is the trap everybody is falling into here.
They see Washington gridlocked and they're frustrated, and they know one person in Washington, and that's the president.
And so, yes, I must take some responsibility.
They see Washington gridlocked, they don't see Washington gridlocked.
The Obama agenda is moving forward.
The Obama agenda is advancing, and this is why people voted the way they did.
They want it stopped.
They want the end of the Obama agenda, pure and simple.
It isn't even complicated, but he's out there now trying to claim a little responsibility for it by claiming, well, I know people want to see this city work.
Mr. President, you're not the mayor.
You are the president of the United States.
He said, I've got to take responsibility for the Democrat loss in the uh in the midterms.
I say, I don't think Americans see gridlock.
They see Obamacare jammed down their throats.
They see and hear that Obama is going to grant amnesty to however many millions of illegals, many of whom are sick, many of whom have serious criminal records, some feared to be terrorists, flooding the southern border.
They see their careers being downsized to part-time jobs.
This is not gridlock that they're upset about.
And that's a convenient excuse for the elected political class to fall back on.
Because that's easy to solve.
All you have to do is write some legislation, write some bills, and then have a few debates and then send it up to the president.
And voila, Washington's working again.
That's not what this election was about.
The people of this country are not out there wringing their hands over the fact that Washington doesn't work.
That's another left-wing media trick, designed to convey the false impression that the American people only care about whether or not things are happening in Washington, and they care about what kinds of things are happening in their personal lives that are being ordered, directed, or otherwise steered from Washington.
If the American people thought gridlock was the problem, they wouldn't have elected the opposition party in overwhelming numbers to go up against Obama.
They would have sent a bunch of Democrats up there so that gridlock could end and they could get all kinds of things done.
But they don't like the kinds of things that have been done, and they want them stopped.
Mr. Snerdley, am I I mean, I what when I say I I really don't see how why this is so complicated.
Am I missing something?
I actually think if uh well, how can I put this?
Given the nature, ladies and gentlemen, of competition, and it's everywhere.
There's competition in the left-wing media, there's competition in conservative media.
If, say, pick a name out of my head, let's say pick a name.
Any analyst on Fox said exactly what I said it would be oh, if Carl Rove had someone, it'd be brilliant.
If Carl Rove said, if Carl Rove was echoing exactly what I think it'd be genius, and that's all they'd be talking about.
Oh man, this is really right on them.
It's brilliant.
But because I'm not on Fox and I said it uh it's got to be mischaracterized and misstated a little bit.
But don't be distracted by it, folks, because it's it's really not complicated.
You know what you did.
You know why you voted.
You know exactly what you want to happen.
You want Obama's agenda arrested, stopped in its tracks, no more.
It's not it's not complicated.
Have you seen or heard the audio snippet of the actual author of Obamacare?
His name is Jonathan Gruber.
He is a professor at MIT, professor of economics.
And he wrote both Romney care and he wrote Obamacare.
He's a oh, yeah, brilliant smart guy.
Oh, totally smart guy.
And last year, almost a year ago, in October of 2013, he was in Philadelphia speaking at the 24th Annual Health Economics Conference, and he spoke about Obamacare and how and what they had to do to make it a reality.
And I want you to listen to how this prominent Democrat, prominent leftist professor of economics at MIT, how he addresses you and references you and speaks of you, the American people, and how, be it in Obamacare or anything else they want done, what they have to do in order to get their agenda forward.
This bill was written in a tortured way to make sure CBO did not score the mandate as taxes.
If CBO scored the mandate's taxes to Bill dies.
Okay?
So it's written to do that.
In terms of risk-rated subsidies, if you get a law which said healthy people are going to pay in, it made explicit the healthy people paying and sick people get money.
It would not have passed.
Okay.
Lack of transparency is a huge political advantage.
And basically, you know, call it the stupidity American voter or whatever.
But basically, that was really, really critical to get anything to pass.
In other words, they had to lie to you.
And they relied on your stupidity.
They counted on your stupidity to believe their lies, such as you get to keep your doctor, you get to keep your health insurance plan, such as your premiums are going to come down.
No, they're not taxes.
There's no way it's taxes.
No, no, no.
And you're going to get subsidies if you can't afford it.
Don't sweat it.
Everything's going to.
And the media carried the lie forward, and it was all based on their belief that you are too stupid to figure out what they're doing.
All they had to do was find a way to service your ignorance and your stupidity, and they could create support for the bill.
But you know what happened?
There never has been majority support for this bill.
That's the one thing you could never lose sight of here.
Don't ever forget.
They never did fool a majority of the American people.
This bill was rammed down the throats of the people of this country on what?
Christmas Eve?
Or Christmas Day in 2000, Christmas Eve in 2010, and there wasn't one Republican vote in it.
There never has been a Republican vote in favor of this.
But this is how many times I I love this because it's validation of what I've always known and what I've always said.
They mask, they camouflage, they don't dare admit what they really intend to do.
You'd never support it.
And they have contempt for the average American citizen.
The average American citizen is adult.
The stupidity of the American voter.
And I'll tell you where this is led.
The Supreme Court's going to hear another phase of Obamacare, and that's about the subsidies.
And depending on how this one goes, I don't know.
I don't want to make any predictions because the slam dunk prediction on the first Supreme Court case on Obamacare, we were all wrong.
Because the Supreme Court chief justice decided to write the law himself in order to avoid declaring it unconstitutional.
He thought, nah, I can't do that.
It's a will of Congress.
I'm just the we're the system.
We can't go up some will of people's unconstitutional.
See, he rewrote the law to make it palatable.
So anything's possible here.
Uh but essentially a bunch of people have gotten subsidies, subsidies that do not deserve them, that do not qualify for them.
The only people get subsidies are from the states.
State exchanges.
And most states did not set up an exchange, which meant the federal government came in and essentially in violation of Obamacare, set up their own exchange and provided their own subsidies, which is not legal.
And the Supreme Court decided to hear this case, even though there hasn't been any disagreement yet at the at the appellate level.
They generally wait for that before taking a case, but they took this one right away.
And that's why people go, well, maybe, maybe they're eager to fix their first mistake.
Dangerous to think that way.
But we've got violations of the law all over the place in this administration, and this one's going to go right back up to the Supreme Court.
Quick time out here, folks, as we uh uh take stock of where we are in the busy program and figure out what's next when we get back.
Don't go away.
The lack of transparency was the key because the stupidity of the American voter would have killed Obamacare.
That's Jonathan Gruber, and once again is an economics professor at MIT, and he said lack of transparency, meaning honesty.
Lack of honesty was a major part of getting Obamacare passed because the stupidity of the American voter would have killed the law if more people knew what was in it.
And there you go, America.
That is what the Democrat Party thinks of you.
This is not something new.
They said this a year ago at a conference of uh economists.
But it's not new.
This is how the Democrat Party thinks of most people.
And it's not hard to believe.
They think most people are incapable of taking care of themselves, for example, particularly women.
They think most people are incompetent and will make the wrong decisions if living a life of self-reliance.
A Democrat Party thinks everybody's a victim, primarily of America or of the Republican Party or of conservatives.
And they don't dare be honest with you about what they believe.
They know you wouldn't vote for it, and that's why you're stupid.
You don't have the intelligence to see the brilliance of their ideas.
No, what you have is the common sense to know they're not good.
So this arrogant condescension is a commonplace point of view that is held by practically everybody, particularly at the top ranks of the Democrat Party.
The bill was written in a tortured way to make sure the CBO didn't score the mandate as taxes.
If it was taxes, it would kill it, meaning you don't want to pay higher taxes.
Even though you're paying higher premiums, buyer everything, they had to lie to you about that.
Otherwise you would have resoundingly opposed it and it wouldn't have happened.
And they couldn't dare be honest with you.
They still can't.
Hey, welcome back, my friends, El Rush Ball and the Excellence in Broadcasting Network.
Not only were the American people not fooled by the Democrat Party's lies on Obamacare.
Again, it has never had majority support.
Just like amnesty for illegals has not had majority support.
Much of what this administration has done has been done against the will of the American people.
The American people didn't vote for what has happened is so many things.
The Democrat Party knows they would be rejected.
They have been rejected, you know, in two elections.
The 2010 midterms at 2014 midterms.
I don't think people realize just how bad this is for the Democrat Party.
This is it's more than a wipeout.
And it's so well deserved, I can't even begin to tell you.
This has been so long in coming.
This is a party which has knowingly lied to the American people, which has constantly held a majority of the American people in contempt, as epitomized by Jonathan Gruber's statement that they relied on the stupidity of the American voter.
Well, they they had to do what they did because the stupidity of the American voter had they had to lie about what was in Obamacare.
You know, they said it was under a trillion dollars.
They scored it the trillion dollar figure was magical because that's what the Iraq war cost.
And Obama was running around saying it's net no expense whatsoever.
We're simply going to replace the exactly right.
Anybody and everybody listening to this program knew exactly what Obamacare was all about.
And the but not just here, everybody had the uh well, not everybody, but there were a lot of media outlets that had the truth about this bill from the from the get-go, and and the and the philosophy that was serving as its foundation.
This bill never fooled a majority of the American people.
And you know what?
This goes back to Hillary care.
Hillary care was never ever supported by a majority of Americans.
It never had a prayer.
The Democrat Party literally had to lie and literally ram this down the throats of this country because the American people didn't want it.
And the only way they could do it was to lie.
That's what lack of transparency means when this Gruber guy says that lack of transparency was a major part of getting Obamacare passed because the stupidity of the American voter would have killed the law if more people knew what was in it.
Grab Sun by 20 again.
Listen to it again in his own words, Jonathan Gruber, MIT economics professor in Philadelphia, 24th annual health economics conference.
This bill was written in a tortured way to make sure CBO did not score the mandate as taxes.
So it's written to do that in terms of risk-rated subsidies.
If you get a law which said healthy people are going to pay in, it made explicit that healthy people pay and sick people get money, it would not have passed.
Okay.
Lack of transparency is a huge political advantage.
And basically, you know, call it the stupidity American voter or whatever.
But basically, that was really, really critical to get anything to pass.
And then he he had one more sentence which followed this.
He said, Look, I wish Mark was right that we could make it all transparent, but I'd rather have this law than not.
So they had to lie.
That's what lack of transparency means.
Lack of openness, lack of honesty.
They had to hide from you what was really in it.
And of course, these mandates are taxes, and they're unconstitutional.
And that's what the Supreme Court punted on when they heard the case.
They are taxes and they're taxes that the federal government's not allowed to levy.
But all of that's beside the point.
The American people never supported it.
But even today that doesn't matter.
So it's a it's an extremely teachable moment.
And now the the law will end up back at the Supreme Court over the constitutionality of the subsidies that the regime is passing out that probably are illegal.
But that won't be known until the court actually rules on this.
Let me grab a call about this.
We've got Pete in uh in Altoona, Pennsylvania.
Hey Pete, I'm glad you called, and welcome to the program.
Hello.
Pete, are you there?
Yeah, hi, Pete.
Hi.
Um my quick question as for you is why do you think that this professor would say about this bill right now?
Why would you why do you think that he would say he couldn't be transparent and they had to be misleading about the bill now after Republicans have taken majorities in Congress and the House?
Well, he said it a year ago.
Oh, I'm sorry.
He said it a year ago, and the reason he said it was arrogance.
He's speaking to some like-minded economists at a conference of economists, the 24th annual.
Uh, he hung up what is it?
24th annual uh let me find it here.
Yeah, 24th annual health economics conference.
So he was speaking to what he of some like-minded people.
This is a YouTube, by the way, this this is one of these uncovered videos.
This was this the news media didn't cover this.
The drive-by media didn't get this.
This is a YouTube video from from within the conference.
This hasn't made the mainstream media, folks.
No, he he thought no, he thought he was speaking to some like-minded people who were as smart as he and held the same basic opinion, low opinion of the American people, and he was relating to them.
And he was giving them the inside scoop.
He was not at all in Timmy.
He's not this is not a faux pas.
He wasn't misspeaking.
It's it's uh you have to understand the arrogance these people walk around with and the conceit that they have.
And by the way, a year ago, the Supreme Court's ruled his guy think it's home-free now.
It doesn't matter what we say.
They can't stop it.
They can't do anything about it now.
He wasn't thinking about it being an election, and in fact, it wasn't a factor in the election.
We hear about this after.
So I just arrogance and conceit.
And the fact that he thought he was in a room with a bunch of like-minded people, that he could be open and honest about what they had to do.
And by the way, I'm gonna add to it, I'm sure that he thought he was being very brilliant.
I mean, he was he was sharing with his audience what has to be done to make things progressive things happen in this country.
You've got to lie to American people.
We can't count on their intelligence to understand us.
We cannot rely because they do not have enough intelligence to keep up with us and to know how much wonderful that we have planned for them.
So we have to lie to them in order to get them.
The real thing that offends them is that they even have to subject themselves to elections, or that their ideas even get put up to uh to a vote.
Obama has presided over two.
Devastating defeats for the Democrat Party.
Did you see Bob Woodward on Face a Nation yesterday?
Bob Woodward on Face the Nation yesterday said that he hears from Democrats, not just Republicans who hate Obama as well.
Bob Woodward said to Bob Schaefer, that's absolutely true.
You get the Democrats in private, and they're on fire because he won't spend the time, he won't listen.
I mean, the the the the the Democrats tell me privately they hate Obama too.
This is Bob Woodward.
Well, there's a reason why.
Dan Balls, of all people in the Washington Post yesterday, has a column or a story, and the headline is two midterm elections have hollowed out the Democrat Party.
And that's right on the money.
Two elections, 2010 and 2014, have hollowed out this party and exposed this party for what it is, Jurassic Park.
And by hanging on and holding on the way they have, they have eliminated the evolution of a bench of young, energetic, charismatic Democrats.
All the Democrats that are out there are a bunch of old fossils, like Pelosi, like Reed, like Boxer, like Feinstein, Mary Landrum, I mean, you name it.
Let me give you a couple of pull quotes from this piece.
But a political party cannot be constructed around two people, Obama and Clinton, as the Democrats seem to be constructed today.
It is a golden, shiny fat pitch for the GOP to educate people on conservative ideas.
That's my that balls didn't write that.
That's exactly what this is.
I say that very frustratingly because I don't know that that's the uh the point of view held by Republicans, but man, what an opportunity this is.
And 2010 was, too.
Now, Dan Ball says none of this means that Democrats are going to lose in 2016.
The coalition that Obama assembled to win in 2008 and 2012, to the degree it remains intact, gives them a head start in a national campaign, as does the electoral map.
And those realities continue to worry many Republicans.
But before he gets to that point, Dan Balls writes about how Obama and these two elections have literally hollowed out and destroyed the Democrat Party.
And you will not hear this discussed on TV.
You will not hear this discussed on cable news anywhere.
You will not hear it.
It just doesn't fit any soap opera script.
All you're going to continue to read about is divisions in the Republican Party.
You're going to continue to read about how Republicans want to do nothing about reviving Reaganism.
You're going to continue to read about this Republican or that conservative thinks leave Reagan alone.
It was 20 years ago.
And you're going to end up thinking there's no unity in the Republican side, even after this big win.
And you're going to end up thinking the Republicans are tearing themselves apart.
What you're not going to hear is how devastated the Democrat Party is.
The past two midterm elections have been cruel to Democrats, costing them control of the House and now the Senate, and producing a cumulative wipeout in the states.
And that's another thing that's not being discussed.
There are 23 states where the Republicans hold the governorship in the legislature.
23 in only five states can the Democrats make that claim.
The 2010 and 2014 elections saw the defeat of younger Democrat politicians, some in office, others seeking it, who might have become national leaders.
As the post-Obama era nears, the Democrats'best-known leaders in Washington are almost entirely from an older generation, from the vice presidency to most of the major leadership offices in the House and Senate.
The generation in waiting is going to have to wait a little longer.
And Hillary Clinton is thrown in with the uh the Jurassic Park crowd in this piece.
But, and I want to expand on this a little bit, but before I got to take a break here, before I get there, one reminder from last week.
The Democrat Party used to be a bunch of disparate coalitions that were united by a couple of things.
The belief in big government and government control over as much of the country as possible, and hatred for conservatives.
And that's how you would have the feminists over here and the environmentalist wackos and the animal rights people and the civil rights coalition.
And they were all, they all had competing interests, but when it came to the things they had in common, they were united in their belief that government should grow bigger and more powerful and people should have less freedom, taxes should go up and up and up, and the Republicans were the absolute modern incarnate of the devil.
But the Democrat Party is different now.
And I don't think Balls kind of realizes how he gets so close to describing it.
He doesn't see it, I don't think.
The Democrat Party's now made up, I think, of two groups.
And I'll explain what I mean when I get back from this obscene profit timeout.
Don't go away.
Everybody asks me, and some of you have on this program...
When did the Democrat Party become so extremist leftist?
When did it happen?
And I always point back to the Kennedy assassination as the starting point for the modern evolution of the Democrat Party.
But in the old days, as I said, the Democrat Party was all these disparate coalitions unified by a couple of things.
But it's, I think, a different structure now.
I even saw a piece, I forget where last week on the on the web that made this same point.
The Democrat Party is now, with the arrival of Obama and groups like Acorn.
The old Democrat Party, what Balls is writing here about how it's been hollowed out is typified by these aging Jurassic Park Democrats, including Bill and Hillary and Harry Reid, Nancy Pelosi, Barbara Boxer, all of these names, and they comprise what what, for lack of a better term, I would call the the union thug wing of the Democrat Party.
These are the old party bosses, the mayor daily types that would use muscle and intimidation, and they would engage in fraud and cheat whenever they had to, and it was not a game.
It was more than a way of life.
This was a it was a blood, but wasn't even a blood sport.
It was uh it was their reality.
And winning elections was everything, the only thing that mattered.
And winning elections was the only way the agenda could be advanced.
But but that group, while it still exists, is doing battle with another group within the Democrat Party, and that one's typified by Obama.
And that is this new, relatively new, at least publicly new.
Wacko, extreme left progressive Democrat Party, which is made up of community organizers, uh acorn, I mean, you you name it, groups like this and Obama, and they the point about them is they're just as left, just as leftist as the Harry Reid and Pelosi wing, but they have a different agenda about moving forward.
Winning elections to them is cool, but they don't have to.
They don't feel thwarted at all when they lose an election because they're working in parts of our society at various levels of the culture to advance their agenda regardless of elections.
And that group tends to be much younger than these old dinosaurs.
And the young progressive crowd is beginning to look at the Harry Reid and Clinton and all that era of the Democrat Party as the problem.
The old war horses that are They're the ones losing.
They're the ones being rejected.
They're the ones out of touch.
They're the ones that are not leftist enough.
They're not tough enough.
They're not smart enough, as evidenced by these last two elections.
And it's that progressive, young progressive wing that I think poses the well, they all pose a threat.
It's a minute difference in terms of which poses the greater.
But I have to stop because the time trips, don't don't go away.
There's more.
▲
Export Selection