Rush Limbaugh Program - October 20, 2015, Tuesday, Hour #3

All Episodes

Previous Next

Oct. 20, 2015 - Rush Limbaugh Program

30:44

October 20, 2015, Tuesday, Hour #3

Large

Audio Only |

Scroll

Time	Text
	Greetings, my friends, welcome back.
	Great to have you, Rush Limbaugh.
	Meeting and surpassing all audience expectations.
	Every day.
	We are sizzling.
	We're on fire today.
	Happy to have you with us.
	Telephone number if you want to be on the programs 800-282-2882 and the email address.
	Lrushbo at EIBNet.com.
	Okay, let's talk about the media here for just a couple of minutes.
	We actually talk about them every day anyway, but let's let's focus on them.
	Um yesterday I I was threatening to uh talk about the wait a minute.
	This is Tuesday.
	So yeah, yesterday was uh an object lesson in how the media operates, given how Dan Rather and Mary Mapes are trying to rewrite history about that whole boondoggle of theirs, where they either accepted forged documents or actually participated in the forging of documents in order to try to prove that George W. Bush copped out of his National Guard service,
	which he only got because his daddy was big and powerful, and his daddy wanted to keep him out of Vietnam, so George got the National Guard, but never showed up.
	And Dan Rather had breaking news, and they had this dubious source, this lunatic named Bill Burkett.
	Look, no need to rehash the whole story.
	The point is that it was exposed as a fraudulent story, and that the documents were forged, and none of it was true.
	CBS fired both of them.
	Dan Rather sued, his suit was thrown out.
	There is no doubt in anybody's mind that these two people made this story up or accepted a forged bunch of documents that contributed to being a story because they wanted to affect the outcome of the 2004 presidential race.
	And so there a movie has been made, recounting the entire episode based on a biography written by Mary Mapes.
	Now the reason for this, the movie is very sympathetic to Rather and Mary Mapes, and leaves open the possibility that they're the ones that got screwed, that they really were on to something.
	The reason this is done, again, just to remind you, it's not just to save or protect or or maybe reconstitute the reputations of these people.
	It is for people who are not born yet.
	The movies, once it's made, it's out there, it's in the box office, it's going to be on Netflix forever.
	And people who were too young back in 2004 to remember what happened are going to see the movie, and they're going to believe what the movie says about this.
	So they're going to think that Dan Rather told the truth that George Bush copped out of National Guard Service, and it's just another in the long litany of things that Bush lied about.
	Bush was dishonest about whatever.
	And it's part of the ongoing leftist effort to continue to keep minds corrupted and distorted and filled with lies.
	Just like HBO is in the process of producing and filming a movie now about the Clarence Thomas and Eda Hill hearings.
	That happened all the way back in 1990.
	A bunch of people today were not alive then or were too young to know what's going on.
	And Clarence Thomas beat it back then.
	Clarence Thomas was confirmed, and it was made apparent that the charges against him were bogus, but that won't do.
	The left has never accepted that.
	They say Clarence Thomas got uh confirmed despite being uh sexual harassed Nita Hill, so they're making a movie for future generations to know who Clarence Thomas, quote-unquote, really was.
	And this is how they corrupt popular culture.
	Well, the same thing is happening here with this movie called Truth.
	Now, the way Mary Mapes and Rather are now going about the rehabbing of their reputations and the rehabbing of this story is to change the focus.
	No longer is the focus on was Burkett full of lies and were the documents forged.
	The focus now is, hey, we were just asking the question.
	Hey, we were just engaged in the process.
	And I Dan Rather, I fully expected CBS to back me up.
	CBS had always backed up their anchors.
	Cronkite and me, I was flabbergasted when CBS wouldn't even let me ask the question.
	They didn't just ask the question.
	They asked and answered it, and then they convicted George W. Bush, and it was all lies.
	So now what they're out doing is suggesting that all they were doing was raising a question.
	And that's all any journalist ever really does is raise questions.
	And so we were just engaged in a normal journalistic process.
	We were attempting to track and follow a story to where it took us, and we were cut down.
	We were cut down by powerful forces who did not want us to get to our answer.
	And that, folks, is a derivative of what we all recognize now as another journalistic technique.
	The seriousness of the charge versus the nature of the evidence.
	I first heard about that in the Clarence Thomas Anita Hill hearings.
	There was never any evidence that Clarence Thomas had sexually harassed Anita Hill.
	It was he said, she said, and they dragged her into this at the tail end of the hearings when it looked like he was going to be confirmed.
	We learned all kinds of things that she followed him everywhere he went in his career.
	And so they asked some big important feminist leader during the midst of the hearings.
	Why are you pursuing this?
	The seriousness of the charge.
	But you don't have any evidence.
	The seriousness of the charge is such that the nature of the evidence is not important.
	We must track this down.
	We have a serious charge here.
	Well, actually, that's the second time.
	The first time I heard about this serious of the charge business was 1989-90, when a book was written by a Columbia professor named Gary Sick, aptly named,
	I think, in which he alleged that George H.W. Bush secretly met with the Iranians in Paris in 1980 and struck a deal with them to release the American to keep holding the American hostages in Tehran throughout the campaign, so as to look bad for Jimmy Carter, and then release them when Ronald Reagan won.
	Gary Sick writes a whole book about this.
	There's no evidence for Gary Sick even said that Bush was flown to Paris on SR 71.
	Nobody knew it.
	Very fast plane get over there and back before anybody knows what happened.
	And Thomas Foley, who at the time was the Speaker of the House.
	It's a very serious charge.
	We must investigate this.
	And this was during the re-election campaign for George H. W. Bush, like in 1991 or 92.
	It was part of this was 12 years later.
	And there's Foley saying, well, the nature of the evidence is such the uh seriousness of the charge here, such we must investigate here in the House.
	And they did.
	There was a full-on house investigation, where of course no evidence was turned up because it was all made up.
	Totally fabricated.
	Once again, the fact there wasn't any evidence didn't matter.
	It was the seriousness of the charge.
	So here we have Mary Mapes and Dan Rather.
	And in there was an article in the New York Times about the people in the movie, stars and so forth.
	And James Coblin, who is the Times reporter, quotes the director and writer of the movie, James Vanderbilt.
	He says, Mr. Vanderbilt said that he did not want to impose a specific point of view in the movie, but instead wanted to simply raise questions.
	Of course they don't want a specific point of view because the point of view is that rather in Mapes made it up.
	So they're changing the whole focus to, no, we just wanted to raise questions.
	That's all good journalists do is raise questions and follow the answers.
	As a filmmaker, said the director, I'm not interested in re-prosecuting something.
	B.S., Mr. Vanderbilt.
	As a filmmaker, I'm not interested in re-prosecuting something, so much as this was a fascinating story.
	And telling it through these characters' eyes was the most interesting way in.
	At the center of it all he said are these documents.
	And there's an unknowable mystery about them.
	No, it's not unknowable.
	We know everything about them.
	They are forged.
	But no, it's an interesting process.
	Mary Mapes in the movie, Kate Blanchette as her playing her character in the movie and at the Times, definitely she shouts loud and clear, they don't get to do this.
	They do not get to smack us just for asking questions, talking about CBS.
	So Mary Mapes is the producer of the 60 Minutes Piece, Rather was the anchor.
	And they're going after him on the documents or forged.
	The whole thing's been exposed as bogus.
	But in the movie rewrite of history, they don't get to shut us down just for asking the question.
	All we're doing is following the process.
	We're journalists.
	We're just asking questions.
	They do not get to do this.
	They do not get to smack us just for asking the question.
	So this is the way the media, when they're caught trying to implement their agenda and establish their narrative.
	In this case, they were trying to beat George Bush and elect John Kerry in 2004, and they had a story that Bush faked his National Guard life, never showed up.
	It was big power.
	Big Daddy got him into the guard.
	Bush never went, and they were going to try to discredit him as a phony president, a phony patriot, and all of this.
	And when that was exposed, no, no, no, no.
	We don't know where to conclude anything.
	We're just asking questions.
	They can't do this to this.
	They can't smack us for asking questions.
	At a symposium at a forum to discuss the movie, Mary Mapes said that the movie provides us a wonderful opportunity to discuss issues of class and privilege in the Vietnam War.
	Really?
	That's what you get to do here?
	This whole thing.
	Your attempt to destroy George W. Bush now is nothing more than exploring issues of class and privilege.
	So that's how they do it.
	This is the object lesson.
	When caught, they revert to, hey, hey, we were just following the evidence.
	We were just asking questions.
	We were just engaged in the process of putting together a story, and you shut us down because where you were afraid it was going.
	And to this day.
	What Dan Rather says is, even admitting that the documents something's wrong with them.
	He says it doesn't matter because the story is true.
	Our mistake might have been in using some of these documents, but the story is true.
	And that's what they hang their head on.
	They go to their graves saying the story is true despite the evidence that has shown it was all made up, or 90% of it, and featured for uh tort uh forged documents.
	Well, doesn't matter, it's true.
	We just we didn't have enough time to actually assemble all of the conclusive evidence.
	And that's how the media circles the wagons.
	And after this happened, don't forget that they had an award tonight, set up a brand new award, never been given to anybody before.
	For rather, it was Tom Brock and Peter Jennings arranged a giant awards dinner because they have to circle the wagons around each other because they're all in the same business.
	They're all liberals.
	This is about liberalism.
	This is about advancing a Democrat Party agenda, and rather got caught.
	And rather than Dan Rather going down and take everybody with him by association, they arrange a big dinner to give him an award for doing such a great job on the story and standing up to the big devils at CBS News.
	And that's how they do it.
	I mentioned the other day, ladies and gentlemen, that National Review had asked me to write a small essay for their 60th anniversary issue coming up.
	And that I I uh I did it.
	I'm not gonna tell you what the essay is.
	It's it's it'll come out at some point.
	I've got I've got to add a couple more things to it that I thought of after I submitted it, which I will have time to do, because they have to send me the edited version to get me signed off on it.
	One of the things I left out of the piece that I want to put in it is when the Wall Street Journal asked me in January of 2016 to write 400 words on my hopes and expectations of the Obama administration.
	I said, I don't need 400, I can say it in four.
	I hope he failed.
	You know, the bruha that caused.
	Now I have been born out.
	I mean, everybody, and they knew what I meant then anyway.
	But now it's it's unarguable why I said what I said.
	I didn't want any of this to happen.
	That's what I meant by I hope he fails.
	But in the piece, one of the things that I point out, they asked, what what are your assessments here in the last 28 years, AM talk radio effect on politics?
	I said the big deal is that we destroyed the mainstream media monopoly.
	The mainstream media had a monopoly.
	When I started 1988, this is all there was ABC, CBS, NBC, three networks, the evening news, and CNN.
	And that in broadcast was it.
	That was it.
	I came along, and I was the only national conservative broadcast out there.
	And shortly after my first guest host, then they began to be offered their own shows, and that grew then let's put it this way.
	When I started this program, there were 125 radio stations doing talk.
	You know how many of them there are today?
	How many stations you talk today?
	Over 12,000.
	Over 12,000.
	125 in 1988, 88, over uh 1,200.
	Not 12,000.
	You didn't mean 12,000.
	1,200.
	I guess actually closer to 1,500 stations.
	It may be more than that, but it's massive.
	And the vast majority of them are conservative hosts.
	Then the blogosphere got kicked up with the internet when that broke out, and then Fox News came along in 1997.
	Their monopoly is gone.
	And they've never gotten over it.
	And folks, I believe that the mainstream media losing its monopoly is the reason for the hyperpartisanship in our country today.
	The mainstream media used to hide their bias and their liberalism behind a a wall of objectivity that was automatically assumed and granted them.
	They didn't have any competition.
	And that's key.
	But ever since the monopoly fell, they've got competition.
	And the competition has brought them out of the shadows.
	And they are, and they have been for not 20 plus years, admitting and demonstrating who they are and what they've always been.
	They used to own it, folks.
	They used to own what was news, what was thought about the news, what was not reported.
	They owned it all.
	And now they don't.
	And they haven't recovered from it, and their behavior sense is the reason for the hyperpartisanship.
	And I've got a soundbite coming up that will partially demonstrate this.
	Don't go away.
	Sorry, I think it's soundbite number 20.
	This is last night on the Charlie Rose show.
	The guesser, Arizona State University, Cronkite School of Journalism Professor Eric Newton, the Arizona State University, Cronkite School of Journalism Dean Chris Callahan, and Steve Capis, who says here CBS Evening News.
	I thought he was MBC.
	Anyway, he's he's one of the two.
	And during a discussion about how TV news has changed, Newton, Capus, and Callahan.
	Remember, two of these guys are from the Cronkite School of Journalism at Arizona State.
	One runs a network news division, listen to this little exchange.
	Basically, they admit, folks, I'll tell you what's good.
	They admit that when they had their monopoly, they had no regard for what the audience thought.
	What the audience thought what the audience wanted was irrelevant to what the news was.
	We come from the 20th century when the television networks were the giant gatekeepers, and nobody was a bigger gatekeeper than Walter Cronkite.
	And now the fence is gone, the gate is gone.
	Now it's a two-way street.
	For all the years when Walter was doing the broadcast, the broadcast networks had this attitude that we were about to present the news, and now the news and it was a one-way street transmitted from CBS and the other networks, and the audience was told to kind of respect it because it's the network programming.
	And they didn't really care as much about what people were saying about what we were doing.
	But you better care right now.
	One of the things that we're trying to teach is audience matters.
	An audience matters in a way that maybe it didn't matter 20 years ago.
	Do you realize, folks, the importance of that 20 years ago, it's actually 25, 28 years.
	Audience didn't matter.
	You call and complain about what's on the news or what's in your newspaper, and they'll tell you you don't understand the business.
	You know, you the news business was the one business I knew of which held its own customers in contempt.
	No other business could get away doing it, but they had a monopoly.
	There were only three stations you can tune to to watch the news plus CNN for those who had cable.
	And now the audience matters.
	And they the the what's unstated here, there is a resentment for that that you can't believe, and they are so ticked off they lost their monopoly, and that's why they hate us.
	Here's Cliff and Pleasant in California.
	I'm glad you waited.
	Cliff, you're up next.
	Hello.
	Yeah, hi, Rush.
	Uh, good to talk with you.
	Thank you, sir, very much.
	Yeah, I'm watching Bill O'Reilly's political analysis last night, and he's he's basically concluding that the Republicans very well may not be able to settle on a candidate and there'll be some kind of an impasse.
	And he's and he's he's suggesting there's a reasonable chance that they may turn to Mitt Romney.
	And the reason, as he puts it, is because Mitt's got the support of the establishment.
	And I'm and I'm watching this, and I'm thinking he's not getting it.
	That's if anything, that's the reason they would not go with Mitt.
	And I'm wondering when are they going to realize what's happening here?
	Oh, what a position sometimes I end up in on this program.
	You have you have uh I mean, there's a simple, simple answer to your question.
	But I have nothing to gain by providing it to you.
	Nothing whatsoever.
	Uh let me just make sure I understand that you saw this right.
	Are you is it your testimony here at the Limbaugh Institute that last night on the O'Reilly factor, Bill O'Reilly actually forget actually, Bill O'Reilly suggested Mitt Romney as a compromise solution to the problems that exist in the Republican nomination process, because he is an establishment candidate.
	He is an establishment Republican.
	That's that's what you heard last night.
	Uh almost word for word.
	And as I sit, as I said, it I uh it's almost like they're not getting it.
	And I uh and that's what I don't understand.
	This is a professional pundit, obviously, uh one the leading one of the leading ones, and it and it seems to be it's such odds.
	Well, now wait a minute.
	Well, what I don't know why you're so shocked at this.
	I I would think at a certain point, they would start to wake up and say, hey, this is this is not because it's uh Rush, it's more than anti-establishment.
	It it it echoes what your previous caller was saying.
	It's the frustration with the establishment's failure to fight for what we want.
	I got all a wreck.
	The point is, you're talking about where w I folks, I'm uh I'm gonna know when here.
	Um I don't want to name other names, but but Bill O'Reilly is not the only person on that network who is a representative of the Republican establishment.
	I mean, Carl Rovas in that network, and Carl Rove is from the Bush camp.
	Uh and if Romney is n is i i uh look, this is not the first time Romney's name has come up.
	I mean, Romney's name came up a few weeks ago, again, as a sort of a fusion candidate solution to the fact that Jeb just wasn't getting it done.
	They look the establishments put all their marbles on Jeb.
	The donor class has put all their marbles on Jeb.
	And it's not happening yet.
	And so they're actively looking for substitute.
	In fact, the name now, even beyond Romney is Rubio.
	Rubio is said to be among commentators discussing this.
	The new establishment choice.
	They haven't thrown Jeb overboard, don't misunderstand.
	But there's utter panic.
	I mean, they're looking for salvation here.
	They're looking for ways to save their campaign.
	I mean, the establishment wants to win this as much as they've ever wanted to win.
	And if their guy Jeb is not lighting fires right now, they're looking at somebody else, and I've told it was Romney a couple three weeks ago.
	The name was bandied about.
	And he even reacted to it.
	Uh by saying, hey, you know, if the team needs me, well, then I might consider it.
	But look, there's a there's a there's an answer to what you saw last night.
	I just I'm just not the guy to say there's nothing, I have nothing to gain by answering.
	I really don't.
	Uh I'll see if I can do this in code.
	Um, there's all kinds uh you know, some people in the media want to carve out niches for themselves where they believe nobody else in the media is so that they can be said to be the only occupant of a particular point of view.
	Does that help you understand what might be going on there?
	So is it a an agenda thing?
	No.
	No, I'm talking about professional positioning.
	So they're speaking to positioning that they would like to arrive at rather than their true analysis, their true feelings?
	Name me anybody else who's touting Romney.
	Can't think of any.
	There's your answer.
	Interesting right.
	Well, I appreciate the call out there, Cliff.
	Uh more than you know.
	Okay, I just got a note from somebody who said that is not what Bill O'Reilly said last night.
	So I didn't see it, so I don't know what was said.
	They have a caller who says that O'Reilly thought that Romney would be good, establishment candidate and so forth.
	Somebody says, somebody I know.
	That's not what happened.
	So I'm at a loss.
	But you heard me.
	I repeated, just to make sure for clarification, this is what you think you heard.
	And he said, almost word for word.
	This is another thing I've found, by the way.
	It's not that the caller is trying to be wrong.
	People think they hear things when they don't all the time.
	It's communication is a challenging and frustrating thing sometimes.
	I mean, I I oftentimes I will say exactly what I mean in as simple a way as I know how.
	And people misunderstand it and think I said something else.
	Hmm?
	No, no, no.
	I'm not, I'm not talking about media matters or any of that.
	I'm not just talking about uh friends, family, whatever.
	And it doesn't have to be on politics.
	It could be anything.
	Communication is a really challenging thing.
	That's why I, you know, believe brevity is the soul of wit and all that.
	So I guess we'll get clarification if we if it matters.
	I want to hold up a picture here on the ditto cam.
	So we talked about the media a little bit here.
	I'm going to zoom in real close.
	Uh, here, folks.
	I want to show you this picture.
	Do you see.
	You're not watching a dental cam, obviously you can't see it.
	For those of you who are, see that picture.
	Snurley, do you have any idea what that picture is?
	That's exactly right.
	You must have seen this picture in the story.
	That there are one, two, three, four, five, six, seven, eight, nine, ten, eleven, twelve, three, four.
	About two women in this picture, folks, taken in Las Vegas before the Democrat debate.
	Twenty-two women, not a single man, not a guy.
	There's not a guy in this picture.
	And what this picture is is the Hillary Clinton Press Corps.
	This is it.
	Turning a ditto cam off because it's zoomed in real tight.
	It's exactly right.
	Wait a go.
	Snerdley, you're on a bullet.
	Chication of the news is exactly right, and this is the epitome of it.
	If you wonder why, the Hillary news coverage is the way it is.
	You simply have to look at that picture.
	You simply have to find out who it is covering the news about her.
	And it will tell you everything you need to know.
	And this is done, by the way, on purpose.
	The chicken of the news is made up of many facets.
	One of the facets is that men really can't be fair to women.
	Not that they try to be unfair, but they just can't fully relate.
	It takes a woman to understand a woman.
	It takes a woman to get deep with another woman.
	It takes a woman to understand.
	And so that's the press gaggle that follows Hillary Clinton around.
	Print, online, radio, TV, you name it.
	And it's better than anything anybody can ever say to explain the type of and the nature of the sympathetic coverage that Hillary Clinton gets.
	Hillary Clinton is perceived to be a victim.
	She's always playing the victim card.
	She's always whining about being a woman or making a point of being a woman, as though that's somehow an obstacle and it's punishing in our unfair society.
	And as a way of equalizing it, everybody covering her also happens to be female.
	Look at this major Teamsters Pension Fund to slash recipients' benefits.
	I meant to get to that today, but that's a good enough tease.
	You pent uh Teamsters' pension funds benefits are about to be slashed.
	Yeah.
	Maybe the Democrat Party give you back some of your dues that you paid, make up the difference for this.
	Okay, what O'Reilly said was that the Republicans could turn to Romney because he got so many votes last time if they can't come up with a candidate that wins the primary outright this time around.
	Best I can figure.
	Anyway, have a wonderful rest of the day, folks.

▲