All Episodes
Previous Next
Feb. 18, 2015 - Rush Limbaugh Program
26:58
February 18, 2015, Wednesday, Hour #3
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Did you know that there's something called the Rush Limbaugh primary?
You didn't?
Yeah, there's a New Hampshire primary.
There's the Hawkeye Caucy.
And then there's the Rush Limbaugh primary.
It says here, Mark Halperin on his Bloomberg TV show.
Soundbite details coming up.
Great to have you, Rush Limbaugh behind the Golden EIB microphone.
America's real anchorman, America's Truth Detector and the Doctor of Democracy, meeting and surpassing all audience expectations every day.
And it's a thrill and a delight to have you here.
The telephone number, if you want to be with us, as always, is 800-282-2882.
And the email address, lrushbo at EIBnet.com.
One in three millennials still living with their parents.
It's actually a little less than half.
30% of 18 to 34-year-olds are living with a parent, according to data from the Census Bureau.
Data comes from a census release called Young Adults, Then and Now, which illustrates characteristics of the young adult population at age 18 to 34 across the decades using data from the 1980, 1990, and 2000 censuses and the 2009-2013 American Community Survey.
In 1980, 23% of the population 18 to 34 were living with a parent.
In 1990, the percentage living with their parents increased to 24%.
So big whoop.
23 to 24%.
That's one percentage point 10 years.
Big whoop.
In 2000, the percentage dropped.
Back down to 23%.
In 2009-2013, it reached the highest level recorded in the data set ever.
Once again, news that is not good, news that is not flattering, news that is not portentious in a good way occurring during the Obama administration.
30% of millennials living at home.
There's also a story in the stack here today.
You could almost call it a companion story, and it is about millennials ditching their TV sets at a record rate.
It's in the New York Post.
The biggest drama among millennials is playing off screen.
So far this season, young viewers, comma, the most important audience for advertisers, comma, have ditched their TV sets at more than double the rate of previous years.
This from Nielsen.
And it would be their business to know.
Traditional TV usage, which has been falling among viewers 18 to 34 at around 4% a year since 2012, tumbled 10.6% between September and January.
In the era of smartphones and Netflix, it's no surprise traditional TV losing relevance for younger viewers.
But the sudden acceleration is alarming to even the most seasoned analysts.
So the way to read this is the experts are surprised again.
The experts are shocked.
It's not that the millennials are not watching.
It's just they're not watching television in homes.
More and more of them are watching video on their smartphones or on iPads or whatever other tablets people use besides iPad.
Do you use anything besides iPads?
There are.
I mean, they're not worth a darn.
Wow, pardon me.
But I just use iPad in a generic sense.
I mean, if you use some piece of trash or some other thing, fine.
I'm not making a judgment on it.
Just I'm not insulting you if you use something that's not an iPhone.
When I say iPad, I mean tablet.
Anyway, these millennials, cord-cutting, they hate cable.
They despise cable.
They hate cable customer service.
They just despise it, I'm told.
They can't wait to get a rickety cable.
Satellites next.
They love streaming.
They love streaming.
They love on-demand video.
They love being able to go to YouTube or Netflix and watch whatever they want to watch when they watch it.
And in some cases, these tight ones will even pay for it.
But most of them want it for free.
I guess it's true that most people want as much as they can get for free, right?
Well, that's because people, I know, they don't have jobs.
They don't have any income.
And television is an escape.
Hey, hey, maybe, maybe if we can't find ISIS jobs, this is it.
Give them cell phones.
Is that allowed?
Give them smartphones, give them iPads, and have them start watching Netflix.
I mean, that's the best recipe for putting people on their rear ends, and I know.
Give them free this and free that.
Have them watch whatever they want to watch.
It's what the millennials are doing.
And they're proving you don't need a TV set in the tent or the cave or wherever.
You can carry it with you.
It's just another idea.
Throwing it out there, trying to be helpful to the State Department.
Now, the Rush Limbaugh primary, this is Mark Halperin.
Mark Halper and John Heileman, they are authors, they're journalists.
And we like them here.
I don't want anybody to misunderstand.
Halperin has been everywhere.
ABC, he's been, well, I don't think he's been at CBS or NBC, but he's been at ABC.
He's been around for a long time.
And he's an analyst.
He's a journalist.
He's a good liberal.
He does it all.
And he's got a new gig.
He and Heilaman follow candidates around during a campaign and they learn all kinds of exciting stuff.
They learn really inside stuff during a campaign and they don't use it.
They wait until after the election and they put all of that that they learned in a book.
It comes out months after the campaign, months after it might actually be useful to the voting public.
It's a new technique.
Well, I don't know how new, but it's becoming more popularized.
And these books that these guys have written have become somewhat popular.
So Bloomberg gave a TV show.
And the name of the TV show is called With All Due Respect.
And Cookie will go anywhere she can to find video since I have this ban on MSNBC.
So this is one place we get it.
CNN is another place we get it.
It's not that we're showing favoritism to Heileman and Halperin.
It's just that our choices are limited.
CBS, NBC, CBS, but I mean the nightly news, there's not much.
I mean, the stuff that's happening there is old news whenever it does happen.
So it's pretty much if we're going to have audio of liberalism, it's going to happen on CNN or this place, maybe C-SPAN sometimes.
Last night on Bloomberg TV, with all due respect, Mark Halperin spoke with his co-host Heileman about the 2016 presidential race, the primary elections, and this is the conversation starter from Halperin to Heilaman.
There are a lot of primaries for those who want to run in 2016.
There is the New Hampshire primary, the Steve King primary, the Rush Limbaugh primary, the BuzzFeed primary.
So, John, of all the Republicans who are going to run in 2016, which one or ones have a chance to win the pop culture TV primary?
That's another primary.
So, you got the Rush Limbaugh primary, you got the New Hampshire primary, Steve King primary is Iowa, and then there is the pop culture TV primary.
And here's what Heileman said in response: One of the things that we've noted in the past is that the past presidents, Barack Obama, George Bush, Bill Clinton, could all do Monday Night Football, could all do Saturday Night Live, could all do Oprah.
There's not a single Republican in that league.
I don't see anyone who can play at the level of our last three presidents in the pop culture ride.
Okay, now what put Bush in there?
Bush in the pop culture victory column they called Bush the dumbest guy in office.
He was a cowboy.
He was a hick.
He was a haste.
Bush, Oprah?
Bush could do Saturday Night Live.
Bush could do Oprah.
Now, we know Clinton and Obama, this is interesting to me because this is that's right, but that was during that was before the 2000 election, right?
That was during the run-up to that election.
Yeah, that's, yeah, okay, that's what he did, Oprah.
Okay, take it back.
But he didn't do Oprah again.
Well, but the overall point here is the pop culture primary, as these guys are calling it.
And it's relevant.
It's relevant.
That's what we're all up against here.
It's what Andrew Breitbart was trying to do when he started Breitbart.com was capture some of the pop culture for conservatism.
Obama, Clinton could all do Monday night football.
What?
Anyway, I get their point.
I'm not sure I followed the examples.
Halperin then said he agreed.
I agree.
The fact is, none of them have a young hip, new media sensibility sense of humor, at least not that I have seen.
You look at the three young senators, Cruz, Rubio, and Rand Paul.
They are not laugh riots.
You might think, well, who cares about that primary?
That primary matters not just for each of young voters, but it sends a signal to the public.
If you've got a sense of humor, the other person we didn't mention who can win that primary, Hillary Clinton.
She's already proven she can do it.
This is just too much.
There's the automatic inclusion.
Liberals are just automatically included in the pop culture.
Hillary Clinton is one of the biggest dry balls to ever come down the pike.
Hillary Clinton is as far away from funny and humorous as anybody I can imagine.
Hillary Clinton's Nurse Ratchet.
What in the world is funny about Nurse Ratchet?
I mean, even that Arkansas broadbeam laugh that she has.
There's nothing funny about the woman.
There's nothing hip, except her hips.
There's nothing cool.
I don't know she gets automatically included in that simply because she's a liberal Democrat.
I don't know why she didn't track better against Obama if she's the youth vote, the humor vote, the comedy vote.
So there's the comedy primary.
There's the humor primary.
There's the pop culture primary.
And isn't it interesting?
There's not a single Republican that these guys can think of that could make people laugh.
But boy, Hillary Clinton, what a laugh riot she is.
We now go back to the phones, ladies and gentlemen, and we have I'm just overwhelmed by all that.
We have an eight-year-old.
Now stop and think of this, an eight-year-old calling the Rush Limbaugh program.
And her name is Heidi, and she's in Lexington, Kentucky.
And Heidi, I welcome you to the program.
I'm glad you called.
How are you?
I'm very good.
Thank you for asking, Bo.
Sorry, right.
Bo was the person I talked to last time.
That's right.
I understand you're nervous.
A lot of people get nervous talking to 20 million people.
I sometimes do too.
So don't let it intimidate you.
You don't sound like it would anyway.
So, there was a question I wanted to ask you.
Okay.
With the way that our country is going and the way Barack Obama is taking us, do you think kids my age will still get very good jobs when we're older?
Okay, you're eight, and how many more years will that be important to you for you?
See, eight, ten, eighteen, ten years.
Yes, I well, if let Heidi, let me answer it this way.
And I'm going to just be brazenly honest with you since you asked, because I think you're mature enough to deal with it.
If things don't change in the country, it's going to be harder to find jobs that are associated with careers, which is what this country has always been known for.
This country has always been known for if you want to do something in your life, if you have a dream to do some kind of job or to perform some kind of service for people, that's been the greatness of this country.
That if you want to try for it, you have that opportunity.
And that the American economy or the marketplace is wide open for creative and ingenious people to try to go out and make their mark.
Now, that's always going to be the case, Heidi.
No matter what happens, there's always going to be room for the absolute best.
And that's defined in a number of ways: actual testing people the best or who's got more ambition, more desire.
So that I think is always going to happen.
It's always going to be there.
But if things don't change, I think the opportunities will be less for people.
And I don't want to scare you with this.
I mean, you asked, and I don't want to lie to you.
That wouldn't be nice.
But a lot of people are worried about it.
Are you?
Is that why you're asking?
Actually, no.
I just wanted to know if anybody had the answer or wanted to tell their honest opinion about it.
Oh, you mean if you want to hear other people calling in, answering that question, not just me?
Yeah.
Well, frankly, what they think doesn't matter, Heidi.
This program is about what I think.
And I'll be glad to open it up to what other people certainly look.
Heidi, I'm going to tell you, the best way to address this is: if there are more people like you who care about this kind of thing, there's always going to be opportunity for you.
I think we're going to recover from this.
We're going to come out of this.
I've always believed it.
I think the country is going to recover.
I think the people are going to wake up and recover.
And I think that what's always been known as the American dream, I think it's going to be there for you and other people your age.
It's going to be there for the taking.
It's never been easy, but it will be there for you.
I have, there's so many people, Heidi, that you don't know who care about making that happen for you and other people your age, their own kids.
There are people who are giving everything they've got in their lives today to try to make sure that your future is as rosy as theirs has been, if not better.
And I have full confidence that those people that are striving for that future are going to succeed.
Thank you for your honest opinion.
That's exactly what it is.
I wouldn't tell you otherwise.
But you're not worried about it.
You're just curious.
Yes.
It's interesting, you're not worried about it.
Is it because it's so far off for you, or is it because you're confident that you're going to do okay?
So, anyways, I was calling about your books, anyways.
Yeah, well, we should get to the books.
What do you want to say about the books?
They are absolutely phenomenal.
I've read the first one, and I've read half the second one.
I have the whole series, and I absolutely love the ones I've read.
Well, I can't tell you how much I appreciate that.
You have made my day.
Now, I want you to hang on because I want to send you some CDs, the audio versions, so you can listen to the books too and enjoy them that way.
Here's Tom in Philadelphia.
Tom, glad you waited.
You're next on the Rush Limbaugh program.
Hi.
Hi, and thanks for taking my call.
I've been listening to you since 1988.
I was in a client's office, and they had you on their radio, and that's how I just discovered it.
Well, you're a lifer.
I mean, that's 88.
That's the first year for this program, so thank you very much.
Yeah, I've enjoyed it.
I enjoy what you do.
Thank God there's a voice out there in the wilderness.
Anyway, I was watching the five last week.
I think it was Thursday or Friday.
And I know how you always say about the liberals, it's always their intentions account, not the results.
Bob Beckel was there, and he started to, it was his turn to speak, or he just interjected it, but he said, we had the best of intentions in the 1960s.
We wanted to give these people money to pay their bills.
We wanted to give them food stamps.
And he kept lamenting that they had the best of intentions.
I thought he was going to cry.
And then he finally said at the end, I guess we miscalculated.
We have to find how to maintain the family unit.
But he went on like four to six times saying how they had the best of intention.
I just laughed at one of your words.
Well, it just confirms something.
Look at that has been their stopgap.
That has been the none of what they've done has worked.
The great society, we wouldn't be where we are if that stuff worked.
The point is, it's never worked.
The great society was just socialism on steroids.
The war on poverty, ditto.
All of this LBJ stuff.
FDR's New Deal.
None of it works.
If it did, the country would not be in the condition it's in.
We've done nothing but this since the 1960s.
We arguably have had eight years, maybe 12, where we tried to arrest the movement towards socialism in this country.
And in fact, this may be a good way to look at this, folks.
You go back, let's start with LBJ.
Let's start in 1964.
Modern era, most people listening today were alive then.
And if you weren't, it's close enough.
Great society, war on poverty, all that stuff.
Socialism on steroids.
We had the two terms of Reagan and maybe one term of W.
Well, George Bush 41, maybe his term, because he did campaign on the as the third term of Reagan, but he did raise 10.
Let's just stick with the, let's stick with 12 years.
Two years of Reagan, one term of the bushes.
Other than that, this country's been on an inexorable march to the left.
And the eight years of Reagan were basically putting the brakes on, which is about all we've had time to do because the left is relentless.
They don't stop.
Every day, they just pummel this country with more of this incessant, destructive belief that they have.
Be it cultural, be it economic, you name it.
It's not worked.
The country would not be in the situation it's in.
Why is everybody so mad?
Women are upset.
Gays are upset.
The people that are not religious are mad.
Everybody's mad in this country.
Everybody's filled with rage.
Everybody's got a grievance.
Everybody's feeling discriminated.
The only people that are halfway decently happy and content are the people paying for all of it.
The people on the receiving end of all this largesse are the most miserable.
The people getting food stamps, the people on the welfare rolls, the people on the end of a federal subsistence check are the most unhappy.
Everything liberals have promised about this has been an abject failure, and it's not theoretical.
It's right in front of our eyes.
We have just had six years of uninterrupted socialism on massive IV steroids.
And look at the degree of discontent.
Look at how many people are not working.
92 and a half million and climbing.
The world outside the U.S. is on fire.
We don't seem anymore to be able to do anything about it.
We have a regime that doesn't seem to care to do anything about it.
We have decided that the United States borders on the southern border may as well not exist.
We are flooding this country with people who are not citizens and many of them not coming here to experience what traditionally has been the American dream.
We have a president who is doing as often as he can things outside his authority under the Constitution.
Why aren't everybody, why aren't everybody happy?
Why with all of this socialism, all of this equality, all of this fairness, all of this transform, how come the rich are getting richer if we've had all these years of socialism to take it away from them?
What is socialism other than redistribution of wealth?
From those who can to those who can't, however you want to use the phrase.
From each according to his means, to each according to his needs, whatever, that's the precept.
Yet the rich, who've been the focus of evil since 1964, are getting even richer.
The conservatives aren't responsible for it.
We haven't been running the country but maybe eight years out of the total number since 1964.
Why isn't it working?
Other than the fact it never has.
Why aren't the people on the receiving end of all of this compassion?
Why aren't they happy?
You run around the country, you're going to find the most miserable people, the unhappiest people, the angriest people, are the ones who have turned to government to fix everything.
I don't care what it is, a social issue, an economic issue, a political issue.
The people relying on government to make it right for them are miserable, angry, and unhappy, and no end in sight to it.
Now, the people paying for all of it, they're angry and upset too, but they are at least a little bit more well-adjusted.
They have some self-respect.
They're angry they're paying for all of it, but they're also mollified by the ability they still have to do so.
But they're about reached their breaking point.
They're about tapped out and may be and may have been tapped out for a while and doesn't stop the socialists from coming at them for more.
Doesn't stop the socialisms from demonizing them even more.
The people get up and go to work and try to accept the responsibilities of life continue to be portrayed as the enemies of average ordinary people.
Why hasn't it worked?
1964 to the present has been almost all a march towards socialism.
With people running the government, all of these good intentions, all of this compassion, all of this love and devotion for the minorities, the discriminated against, whoever it is that's been getting the short end of the stick.
All of these people turn to government to have these grievances addressed, and they're madder than they've ever been.
They're unhappier than they've ever been.
And there have been some legitimate things that have made progress.
Civil rights has made progress in this country.
You wouldn't know it if you looked at people today.
But it's much better in that regard than it has been.
But aside from all that, why isn't there all this happiness?
Why don't all these good intentions matter?
The bottom line is liberalism doesn't work.
Socialism doesn't work.
It's an on display in front of our face failure.
And the only excuse-well, at least we're trying.
We love people.
We're compassionate.
We're trying to do something.
Our intentions with the great society were to wipe out poverty.
Our intentions with the war on poverty, wipe out poverty.
Well, you failed.
Well, yeah, but we're not supposed to look at that because my intentions are what counts.
But I think it's very plain as day.
It's one of the sources of my frustration because none of this is theoretical anymore.
We don't have to rely on theory to tell people this doesn't work.
We've been living it since 1964.
Actually, prior to that, I just chose 1964 as the beginning timeframe because that's Johnson's great society.
But it actually began long before that.
FDR.
Doesn't matter how far you go back.
It doesn't work.
It never has.
And we have the living proof right on our TV sets every day.
Back after this, folks.
Don't go away.
I'm going to tell you something.
The Great Society has led to an ungrateful society, if you ask me.
And it has led to an unmanageable society.
All of these good intentions.
And all they did was literally steal people's identity and dignity and self-worth.
And I don't think that is even arguable.
And that's one of the reasons why there's so much anger and dissatisfaction.
See you tomorrow, folks.
▲
Export Selection