All Episodes
Previous Next
Dec. 31, 2015 - Rush Limbaugh Program
36:43
December 31, 2015, Thursday, Hour #1
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Welcome to today's edition of the Rush 24-7 podcast.
Indeed, Buck Sexton here in for Rush today.
I'm also the host of the Buck Sexton Show on the Blaze and a CNN contributor.
I'm here to help you ring in the new year.
So as you're making your preparations, whatever they may be, hope I can keep you company for at least a bit of it.
What better way, perhaps, to ring in the new year than to wade into the depths of corruption together.
Let's talk a bit about that, shall we?
It's been a year where we've seen more than our fair share of political corruption, no doubt about that.
You've seen a lot go on here, mostly dealing with Hillary Clinton, the Clinton emails, but I could tell you now a tale of two corruptions, if you will, that I think will show us what counts as corruption for a Republican versus what counts as corruption for a Democrat, or rather what the Democrats say counts as corruption for a Republican.
You might have seen this piece in the Washington Post, how Rubio helped his ex-con brother-in-law get a real estate license.
They're not being subtle here.
They're going right for it.
Oh, ex-con brother.
They're going for the whole thing, trying to make it very clear there must be something really sinister afoot.
There must be something going on that should give any God-fearing American pause.
What has happened here, sir?
Rubio helped his ex-con brother?
Oh my gosh.
Good heavens.
And they're, once again, the same people who gave us Rubio boats.
Remember the super high-speed luxury speedboat?
You really had the theme to Miami Vice playing in the background when you read that initial story.
You could just picture the Rubios lighting cigars, perhaps even Cuban cigars, with $100 bills in their super fast speedboat.
And then we found out, and then we found out, and then we found out that it was an $80,000 fishing boat.
It was a nice boat, but it was just a fishing boat.
Rubio boats, though, was something we talked about.
And some did the numbers on this.
They crunched the numbers.
They said, well, how many Rubio boats could one buy with an hour or so of Hillary Clinton's time giving a speech or Bill Clinton's time giving a speech?
It was several, of course.
So Rubio boats didn't seem like such a big thing.
Now we have Rubio Brother, which is really an old story, by the way.
We've been told this before, but they're bringing it up yet again.
At this point, I think there are some out there who believe that the biggest stamp of approval that Marco Rubio has going for him, if you are a conservative, would be that the media seems to hate him and to dredge up these stories that are total non-stories.
There were the credit card expenses that weren't in any way anomalous or weird.
There was the Rubio boats fiasco, which when people saw pictures of the boats, they said, eh, nice boat.
And then, of course, now we have the Rubio Brother.
Let me give you some of the details of the Rubio Brother story here, and then we'll get into the Clinton version of corruption.
And I'll just let you do the compare and contrast in your own head, because why not?
So Rubio helped his brother.
This is what happened.
Marco Rubio, according to the Washington Post, was a 16-year-old high school junior in 1987 when his brother-in-law, when Cecilia was arrested in one of the largest drug cases in Florida history, Cecilia being the brother-in-law here.
There has never been any evidence that Rubio or his family knew that Cecilia was dealing cocaine, although Drug Enforcement Administration surveillance records show Cecilia stored cocaine from the drug ring at his home a few miles away from where Rubio and his parents lived.
So the proximity to this illegal activity is apparently noteworthy here, that it was miles away.
That's what you would call a pretty slimy insinuation, isn't it?
This coming from the Washington Post.
Well, this criminal activity happened.
Marco was 16 years old.
He was a high school junior, but, you know, he lived pretty close to this.
So let's just put that in there because there's a bit of baseless innuendo here, but that's what the point is.
It's just a smear marker, Rubio in this case.
He wrote later on when he was in the U.S. when he was representing his constituents for the state of Florida, he wrote that, I have known Mr. Cecilia for over 25 years.
This was to the real estate division of the Florida Department of Business and Professional Regulation.
I recommend him for licensure without reservation.
You see, this is what happened.
Marco's brother-in-law got caught up in a drug ring, and he served 11 and a half years in prison for this.
And when he came out, Marco was a politician.
He wrote a letter to the board that gets to decide on a case-by-case basis, and which does not prevent one from becoming a real estate broker in the state of Florida because of a felony conviction.
Marco wrote a letter of recommendation.
And they're now trying to make this into a case of, oh my gosh, this is so bad.
He didn't tell the real estate board that he was the brother-in-law of this individual.
He didn't tell them.
This is the big problem as they're showing it to us here.
Now, they're trying to make a big deal out of this, but let me just step back for a second.
First of all, the Washington Post, the Democrats are the ones who are constantly telling us.
In fact, this has been a huge push over the last year.
A huge push to make it easier for ex-cons to find ways for those who have served their time, paid their debt to society, make it easier for them to become productive citizens again.
This has become a major push.
The Obama administration, President Obama himself, they've been very involved in this process, trying to find ways, or at least saying they're going to find ways, right?
It's fun to talk about, hard to do.
And they're going to find ways to make sure that if you've served your time, you can become productive, because of course, what you don't want to have happen is someone to be, one, either entirely dependent on the state or two, and perhaps by the numbers, one of the biggest issues, you don't want recidivism.
You don't want someone to reoffend.
You don't want someone to have to go back.
So you want them to become a productive member of society.
This guy serves his debt 11 and a half years in prison.
What's really the answer here?
What does the Washington Post think is supposed to happen?
That Marco Rubio's brother-in-law is never allowed to work again?
That he should just starve in the streets.
Notice how liberals are all about reintegrating former convicts back into society, at least in theory.
And yet, here you have a minority in this case, a Latino who has paid his debt to society, and yet the left wants to hold him up and smear him.
And, of course, Marco Rubio in the process.
Because this is the worst thing that they can find on Marco Rubio, which I think tells you a lot.
So he had this conviction.
He then got.
He did get the real estate license, by the way.
And Marco then used his brother-in-law to help him get a piece of property later on.
Okay, so that's the Rubio version.
That's what we're supposed to consider corruption, according to the left, according to the Democrats.
That's what they say it is, right?
You write a letter for your brother-in-law.
Heaven forbid they find some letter that, I don't know, maybe Ted Cruz or Jeb Bush or you name your candidate wrote trying to help a friend's kid get into preschool.
I mean, the amount of influence that's being wielded here is just astonishing.
They might have had somebody even write a letter of recommendation for a friend's kid applying to college or a country club golf membership somewhere or something.
The Washington Post is on it because this is the corruption that's supposed to affect your life.
This is what you're supposed to care about.
That's one version.
Here's the other version, which I think is worth spending a moment on.
According to the Wall Street Journal, $8 million went to the Clintons from people with business before the State Department.
Wall Street Journal pulls this all together.
The numbers are pretty astonishing.
She had promised at her confirmation for Secretary of State that she would take, quote, extraordinary steps to avoid even the appearance of a conflict of interest.
And yet, as I said, according to the journal here, later, more than two dozen companies and groups and one foreign government paid former President Bill Clinton a total of more than $8 million to give speeches around the time that they had matters before Mrs. Clinton's State Department.
Now, let's be clear: $8 million to the Clintons is like the stuff they find in the couch cushions, right?
That ain't no big thing to the Clintons that have $8 million lying around.
This is not a big deal for them, right?
They've got a lot more than that.
But it's a lot of money.
But more importantly than the fact that it's a lot of money, right?
We're capitalists here.
We're okay with people in the free market, but we're not okay with influence peddling.
And we're certainly not okay with corruption that involves foreign governments as well as U.S. and foreign-based companies paying the Clintons with the hope of there being some more favorable outcome in policy.
I mean, this is pretty much the definition of corruption, isn't it?
Isn't this exactly what you would expect?
If you were to try to figure out, well, what would corruption be?
Yeah, I think giving a lot of money to the Secretary of State's husband when the Secretary of State is making decisions that will affect in some way or could be construed as affecting, because remember, in many cases, even the appearance of corruption is enough.
There does not have to be a quid pro quo standard.
Let's ask former Virginia Governor Bob McDonnell about that one.
They just think it looks bad enough if there's influence peddling going on, anything like that.
And you might, in fact, face criminal charges, but not if you're part of the Clinton machine, of course.
That doesn't, it doesn't count.
So for a criminal prosecution, quid pro quo corruption is not necessarily even the standard.
And yet here you've got companies.
Oh, no, I should give you some details.
You can't just throw out these wild and baseless accusations about the Clintons essentially selling the highest diplomatic office in the United States to the highest bidder.
I mean, they would never, oh, they would never do that, right?
Mr. Clinton, for example, this is coming from the journal again, collected $1 million for two appearances sponsored by the Abu Dhabi government that were arranged while Mrs. Clinton was Secretary of State.
His speeches there came during and after the State Department and the Department of Homeland Security were involved in discussions about a plan to open a U.S. facility in, oh, that's right, Abu Dhabi, in Abu Dhabi airport to ease visa processing for travel to the U.S. The State Department supported the facility in the face of substantial opposition from unions, members of Congress, and others.
Oh, you mean to say that the Clintons were taking cash from people who had, remember, it was one thing when we were just talking about the fact that he's getting foreign government money, going to the Clinton Foundation, or going to bill directly, personally, while his wife is Secretary of State, right?
That was, but now we're actually cherry-picking specifically cases where there are large chunks of change, serious cash infusions coming either to the Clinton Foundation or to Bill Clinton specifically while his wife was making decisions that were very relevant to the sender of those funds in some capacity or another.
If that's not corruption, I want to know what corruption really is.
If that doesn't count, someone's going to have to explain this to me.
But this is illustrative of a broader point, really, which is that we're dealing with the Clinton machine.
I'm sure some of you are fans of the timeless classic Terminator.
There's a quote from that that I think applies here.
Change it a little bit, though.
Understand that the Hillary machine is out there.
It can't be bargained with.
It can't be reasoned with.
It doesn't feel pity or remorse or fear.
And it absolutely will not stop ever until she is president.
Corruption's not going to get in the way.
The law is not going to get in the way.
An email server is not going to get in the way.
But hey, she didn't try to get her ex-con brother-in-law a real estate license.
Buck Sexton here in for Rush today, 800-282-2882.
Back in a minute.
Buck Sexton here in for Rush Limbaugh.
You can send me your thoughts on Facebook at facebook.com/slash BuckSexton.
You can also tweet at me at BuckSexton.
I live tweet and Facebook throughout the show.
The number here is 800-282-2882.
We'll be taking some calls in just a minute.
But I want to remind you, as we go into this new year, that more or less, if you've got the cash, you've got the Clintons.
They are very much for sale.
What's that old quote?
I'm not even sure it's more or less, I'll give you a rough approximation, that the Clintons are so corrupt that they would gladly pay for the pleasure of selling themselves.
That's really the sense that you get, that they actually take some joy in this.
And really, the whole Clinton Foundation, the slush fund that it is, right?
What percentage does it actually give away to charitable causes again?
Oh, yeah, that's right.
This is sort of the work of a political evil genius.
I will give them credit for that.
I will give them credit for that.
They've polluted charitable giving and have been selling influence at the highest levels of government for decades now, but hey, at least they're good at that.
I just want to give you a few more from this Wall Street Journal report so we're all very clear on exactly what's going on here.
Oracle, Samsung Electronics, and Microsoft, they had all suggested, for example, eliminating the Visa cap.
And they paid Mr. Clinton a total of $1.1 million for speeches during Mrs. Clinton's tenure.
So they give Bill a million dollars.
They want to get rid of a visa cap because they want more H-1B workers to come in because, as you know, they say that this is for highly skilled workers that can't be found here.
That is not true.
H-1B workers are paid less than their American counterparts for a number of reasons, not the least of which is that they can't really leave the job they're brought in to do.
It's much harder for them.
But that's business before the State Department, is it not?
That would seem to matter.
And there's this other one.
You have the Obama administration attempting to reset relations with Russia, and the Russian government was opposed to a certain kind of sanctions that was coming on, of course.
Mr. Clinton received a substantial payout, according to the journal here, in 2010 from Renaissance Capital, which is a Russian investment bank whose executives were at risk of being hurt by possible U.S. sanctions.
So there's sanctions on Russia.
You've got a Russian or sanctions forthcoming against Russia.
You've got a Russian investment bank that's sending the Clintons money.
I don't understand.
If you are the spouse of a very powerful government official and you're a Democrat, you can accept anything, I suppose.
No one's giving Bill Clinton $800,000 for a speech just because, I mean, he's so charming.
He's just the best.
It's worth every penny.
No, it's for the access that it buys.
It's just a matter of time, I think, before we're going to have Bill Clinton at some point, maybe even ask under oath, and he'll have to say, I did not have financial relations with that dictatorial regime.
I mean, he did, in fact, consider at one point.
He did, in fact, at one point consider giving a speech to North Korea and to the Congo.
That was a little far.
They stepped back off of that one.
Figured maybe, just maybe, that was pushing it even for the Clintons.
By the way, in case you were thinking to yourself, and you could not be blamed for doing so, because it would be entirely rational for any reasonable and ethical human being that if this came out, you might at least consider stepping back a little bit from this.
But according to the latest we know on this, no, Bill's not going to, why would he stop now?
The precedent has been set.
He's able to get all this money.
It all comes into the Clinton Foundation.
And he's not even sure that he's finished with this stuff yet.
When he was asked by NBC back in May if he would remain on the speech circuit, guess what?
He said, oh, yeah, I got to pay our bills.
Wow.
With the $100 million plus they've made giving speeches since Bill was in the Oval Office, apparently not enough.
There's more influence to sell.
There's more impropriety to push all around.
He's given mixed signals, is what the journal here says, whether he would have been in the paid speaking circuit if his wife becomes president.
So she may be the president, and Bill Clinton may be going around giving speeches from foreign governments, corporations, whatever, for enormous sums of cash.
As I've said before, if you are the wife of a governor or the husband of a governor, you should just take up finger painting and have any donors with business before you just pay you like $100,000 for all your finger paintings.
That's what the market will bear, right?
I mean, you can set it at whatever you want.
I mean, this is utter and complete nonsense.
I think that this is even more astonishing in its own way than the email controversy, which I have to say at this point, the fact that the Clintons have outrun that, yet again, there's almost a grudging respect for how outlandish a bunch of outlaws we're talking about with the Clintons here.
I mean, there's just nothing like it.
There's no precedent.
People say, oh, this is all the right-wing machine.
All they're going after the Clintons.
This stuff doesn't exist to this level with anybody else, left or right.
No, no, it's specific to the Clinton machine.
It's specific to the way they conduct their business.
As you know, their business just means there's a price tag for everything.
This is now your eventual Democrat nominee.
Those of you who are listening and who vote on that side of the aisle, I don't know how you can hold your nose and go forth with this, but I guess many are going to.
Many are planning on it.
800-282-2882.
This is Buck Sexton in for Rush Limbaugh.
We'll take some calls, and maybe we'll get into the Clinton War on Women in just a minute.
Yes, it is Buck Sexton here.
More on me at facebook.com/slash BuckSexton.
You can also check me out at theblaze.com/slash Buck Sexton.
Please do.
We've got people who want to talk about the Clinton war on women as well as other things Clintonian and Clinton-esque.
I think that sounds like some fun.
So why don't we take some calls?
We have Greg in Reno, Nevada.
You are on the Rush Limbaugh show.
You are speaking to Buck.
Hey, Buck, mega Sexton Dittos, surfer Greg here in Reno.
Thank you, sir.
Hey, listen, Buck.
This the old saying, good for the goose, good for the gander, obviously goes out the window.
The left is going to be the left.
I mean, I appreciate the Democrats.
At least they stab us in the front.
You know, I had a disagreement with several quote-unquote conservative talk show hosts who seem to think that it's okay if our elected conservatives vote with us 90% of the time.
And, you know, my disagreement is that the 10% that they don't are these very crucial votes like the omnibus, amnesty, Planned Parenthood.
And, you know, I hate to quote my favorite president, but when he was asked if he was going to run as a third party, he said, why don't we start with two parties first?
Well, look, I think that the point about the votes that have been taken by Republicans in the aftermath, particularly of the last midterm election, is well taken.
It's not hard for Republicans to go along with certain things.
They risk nothing with certain things.
And if 90% of the time you're passing bills or you're voting in such a way that you're not going to catch any heat, it's not going to cause any problems to the Democrats.
I agree.
That can be irrelevant.
And on the more important issues, for example, passing the omnibus, it does seem like, well, it doesn't seem like they're selling out the base time and time again, which has led to the rise of several political candidates right now within the GOP for president.
And I think that's what we're seeing.
But I also, did you have a point about Bill Clinton and the hypocrisy of the left I see here?
Yes, sir.
I got so excited I skipped over it.
And, you know, the Bill Clinton versus the Bill Cosby, you know, Bill Cosby's already been painted as guilty throughout the media.
Whereas Bill Clinton, you know, several, the Clintons in general, several hundred allegations.
And, you know, I read the first paragraph or two of the Clinton cash, and I just had to put it down.
I was nauseous.
It's just that hypocrisy.
On the left, not guilty.
On the right, or even Bill Cosby, as an example, not guilty automatically.
Right, let's get into this for a second.
Greg, thank you for calling in.
So I've heard it said before that the definition of chutzpah is killing your parents and then asking for the court's mercy because you're an orphan, right?
This is an old saying.
And for Hillary to say something like, any woman who accuses a man of sexual assault has a right to be believed, I think you could say that's an astonishing statement.
That is chutzpah.
That is gall.
That is brazeness, given the allegations against her husband, which are not as numerous as those against Bill Cosby, but are, in some cases, as serious and are quite numerous, especially for somebody who not only is a former president but could be the future former or future first husband, rather.
That would seem to be something that we could spend a little bit of time and attention on.
Also, by the way, this notion that anyone has a right to be believed, any accuser has a right to be believed in any context is contrary to our sense of the legal system, justice, your right to due process and the trial.
I mean, this is nonsense.
But Hillary goes with it because she thought it sounded good at the time.
And now she's opened herself up.
And Trump has weighed in on this one.
And he has said that women don't like Hillary.
I see it all the time.
Well, we'll see.
We'll see what the votes turn out to be in that context.
But the Clinton war on women, I think, is going to become a much bigger deal because the Clintons have opened the door.
Hillary has opened this door by going after Trump and others, but specifically now Trump on the issue of sexism.
But Bill's pass doesn't seem to be an impediment to Hillary's future.
It's pretty astonishing.
It's a pretty depressing commentary on the state of the American electorate.
This is the best that we can do, or at least that many think we can do.
It's not the way it's supposed to be.
Let's take Lewis in Tulsa.
Lewis, you're on the Rush Limbaugh Show.
You're speaking to Buck Sexton.
How you doing?
Good, sir.
Well, on this Rubio thing, it's total hypocrisy.
First off, Clinton, he, if you look back at everything that he's done, and first thing is Chinagate, everyone around him went to jail except for him.
He gave the Chinese our technology, and that's even missile technology, which wasn't very bright.
And because of this, they have now erected a stone monument over there in China for Bill Clinton and whoopsie China.
My question is, how come we don't have a stone monument in China for Reagan?
Well, that's a question that I can't answer, but I think your point here about Clinton's past and the things that he's done.
Part of the problem is that I think, and Lewis, thank you for calling in.
Part of the problem is that you're overwhelmed.
When you begin to dig into the malfeasance of the Clintons, you really have to sort of have a Ph.D. in Clintonian corruption.
You have to become a scholar of these things because there's such a large canon.
There's so much information.
There's such a body of evidence out there from the past, stretching all the way back to the Whitewater days and Rose Law Firm, all this stuff.
And as some are pointing out, by the way, there are many.
who will be of voting age, many who are voting now in this upcoming election, who have basically no recollection of any of that stuff.
And unless the media makes it an issue, it won't be an issue.
Look at what happened with the email server.
I mean, they came out with this, they came out with this non-explanation explanation, which is that the stuff that she sent was not classified when she sent it.
That doesn't fly.
That's not how it works.
Any of you who have served the military or the intelligence community or anywhere where you've held a security clearance, you know that.
We all know that.
The standard is not, well, it didn't have a big red top secret stamped on the top, so I figured I could just post it to Facebook because why not?
That would get a normal person fired, investigated, maybe prosecuted.
But the Clinton machine is out there.
It can't be reasoned with.
It feels no pity or remorse, and it will not be stopped until she is president.
That's how it works.
That's what they're trying to do.
Let's take Harland in Virginia.
Harlan, you're on the Rush Limbaugh Show.
You're speaking to Buck.
Thank you for calling.
Hey, how's it going there, Buck?
Good, sir.
Thank you.
Hey, I really appreciate you filling in for Rush Limbaugh.
You're doing one hell of a job, and I like you on the radio.
So I just got a question about Hillary Clinton.
I'm going to get right to the point.
What does she need to do to get prosecuted?
I mean, does she need to do a Frank Underwood kind of a situation where she's caught murdering somebody?
She needs to go to jail.
That's all I got to say about that.
Well, if there's, I can say this, and Harlan, thank you for the kind words and thank you for calling in.
If there is any room at all for prosecutorial discretion to be applied for a Clinton breach of one kind or another, there will be no charges brought.
It would have to be something so brazen and so outlandish and so completely beyond the pale.
And look, I mean, she's not going to do that.
He's done a lot of stuff, but no, there's not going to be something that gets her prosecuted.
Those who think that there's going to be some revelation from this FBI investigation, the emails, by the way, I think you're going to be very disappointed.
Just as I said early on, you're likely to be quite disappointed if you think that the Benghazi investigations are going to uncover anything other than the Clinton and really Clinton and Obama slow roll on that, which is what they did.
But that was all they had to do.
By the time we found out that, yeah, they'd made the stuff up about the video and it had all passed.
Obama had been re-elected.
And as you see, not that many people really seem to care.
Not enough people care, I should say, for it to matter, which is, again, not a good commentary.
I promise.
We'll get into some happy.
It's New Year's Eve coming up.
We'll get into some happy stuff soon.
It's got to be, well, actually, I don't know when that's going to happen.
Maybe third hour because we're going to be talking about Islamophobia coming up here in just a few minutes.
A bomb in Illinois.
You're on the Rush Limbaugh show.
You're speaking to Buck.
Hey, Buck, thanks for taking my call.
I do enjoy it when you sit in for Rush.
You basically just hit the nail on the head.
Our present injustice system is never going to do anything.
You know, we've been trained.
I've been listening to Rush for 25 years.
We've been trained over the years that if you're expecting the Democrats or the press to side with the Republican, you're going to be waiting until you die.
But my concern is the upcoming election, whether Jonathan Gruber is going to take the stage by saying that the only way they passed Obamacare is because of the stupidity of the American people.
So we've got it on the Democrat side because they're the ones who voted for Obamacare and only Democrats in the Congress and Senate voted for it.
So it's all Democrats who are the stupid ones, according to Jonathan Gruber.
And now we have an election coming up where we have, I'm a Ted Cruz guy, and we got Donald Trump running around.
But if Ted doesn't get the nomination, I'm voting for Cruz.
I mean, if Ted Cruz doesn't get the nomination, I'm going to vote for Donald Trump because we have no other choice.
Half a Republican is better than no Republican at all.
At least he stands for some of the things we stand for.
And if we don't do that as Republicans, we're going to be the ones who are going to be stupid in the next election.
All right.
Thank you very much for calling in, Bob.
I appreciate it.
I appreciate the kind words as well.
Yeah, no, the Hillary machine, it's chugging along.
There was that moment where people thought that Bernie Sanders was going to derail it, but that only lasted about a moment.
That was not going to happen.
It's not slowing Hillary down.
Although Bernie's pulling in some cash, we can talk about that.
We will also get into the latest cases of Islamophobia.
Terrifying stuff.
800-282-2882.
Buck Sexton here in for Rush Limbaugh.
Much more coming.
Don't change that.
Die.
I'll be back in just a minute.
I know that she has a really impressive resume, but Hillary Clinton's more celebrity than politician, at least in the traditional sense of the term.
Buck Sexton here in for Rush Limbaugh, by the way, just jumping into things because they get so excited about it.
So she's a celebrity.
I don't really care what fancy jobs she's had.
She's not really a public servant.
That's not what we're talking about here.
Obama's also a celebrity, first and foremost.
And someone actually called him out for that earlier on in the week.
It didn't get as much attention as I thought it should.
You have David Spade, who's a Saturday Night Live alumni.
And he said that the president was thirsty for attention.
As I said, I criticized Obama because I thought, you know, a president should have a little more dignity than, I mean, I realize Woodrow Wilson went on Dancing with the Stars once, but what president's doing reality shows, it just sounds weird to me, you know?
Yes, yes, David.
I know.
I agree.
I hope this doesn't dramatically impact your career in a negative way, to speak truth and some honesty here.
But yeah, President Obama goes out with bear grills to eat various grubs and tree bark and whatever else they do on that show.
I think he's also doing comedians in cars drinking coffee with Jerry Seinfeld.
That's also happening.
Now, I'm not somebody who thinks the president can't have a little fun, can't let loose once in a while, but I think some of this stuff, especially because Obama's only got one more year in office, maybe he could push this off just a little bit.
Former presidents, yeah, dancing with the stars, hanging with bear grills, whatever you want to do, sure.
Current president, still embroiled in a couple of wars, real problems facing the American people, real division that feels like it grows day in and day out.
I think we could ask the president to show a little more, a little more deference to the office, a little more respect for the office.
That doesn't seem to me to be so outlandish.
And we'll see if it's very different with a Hillary Clinton if she becomes president.
I can tell you that I think there'll be a lot of reality TV show stuff there, too, because the Clintons love attention.
Obama loves attention.
I know that to be in this business of being a national-level politician, you have to essentially have a streak of narcissism.
Is it benevolent or malignant narcissism, though, is really the question.
Are you going to do good things with this power?
You have to love yourself enough that you're willing to put yourself out there and subject yourself to, well, if you're a Republican, subject yourself to even lies and slanders meant to destroy your character.
If you're a Democrat, you'll get a lot of, you know, you'll get a lot of leeway.
You'll get a lot of second chances.
Plenty of that handed out to you.
By the way, if you thought that any of this would slow down Hillary, you would be mistaken.
Her campaign has raised $100 million, has reached its $100 million goal for its first three quarters, and it will go into 2016, having surpassed what they had set out to raise.
I will point out, though, that Bernie Sanders has also, according to CNN here, received more than $1 million in donations in the fourth quarter, a pace faster than what Sanders raised in the third quarter when the candidate brought in $26 million.
So Bernie's making some cash.
Maybe it's Bernie's night and the mood is right for socialism.
Why do pennies turn blue?
I will investigate.
Bernie Sanders has got all kinds of stuff ready for you.
You guys vote for Bernie Sanders.
It's going to be interesting.
It is a fair question.
Why do pennies turn blue?
Why is it that when you're at, well, actually, we could have Bernie ask, why is it now when you use a credit card, there's a chip reader and a swipe thing.
I want a swipe or I want a chip reader.
I don't want both.
It's a fair point.
Just in CVS the other day, he will investigate.
Bernie Sanders has got stuff he's looking into.
He's got stuff that he's going to be doing.
So he's going to raise some cash for socialism.
He's still in this because it's a little too early for them to just bring out Hillary with the full coronation to pull her out and say, hey, she's going to be the nominee.
They had a good moment there.
They had that moment of pretend where all of a sudden Hillary was, you know, yeah, sure.
She was having to fight it out.
That last debate, by the way, was fascinating to me.
You had, first of all, they held it on the Saturday night.
Nobody was paying attention to it specifically.
They really should have had it on New Year's Eve if they were going to be, if they were just going to go for it at this point, which they more or less have.
I think the DNC should be holding the debate tonight.
Tonight, right?
They should start at 11 and see how many people tune in.
Martin O'Malley on the corner there, looking like an actor rehearsing his lines.
Would you like wine with dinner, sir?
I mean, why that guy even shows up, well, well beyond my reckoning or understanding, but he's still there, still fighting for it.
Although we did see the Pataki drop this week.
Without Pataki, where will we go?
Where goeth America?
It's a fair question to ask.
Not sure even Pataki's asking it, but someone somewhere might be.
800-282-2882.
Buck Sexton, fill in for Mr. Rush Limbaugh today on the EIB.
I've got a break, and then I'll be back.
Buck Sexton here in for Rush Limbaugh.
Here's a shock, a little bit of breaking news for you.
The State Department's going to miss its target in the Clinton email release.
Yeah, we knew this was going to happen.
It was a court-ordered release, and they're not going to do it in time.
No surprise there.
Let's take Hannah in Colorado.
Hannah, you're on the Rush Limbaugh show.
You're speaking to Buck.
Shields.
Hi, Buck.
Hey, how are you?
I'm doing fantastic.
It's my birthday tomorrow, and I'm calling in because I started listening to you when you subbed for Rush this time last year.
Oh, great.
Well, thank you.
I have a birthday present to myself because I'm a huge fan.
I'm a card-carrying member of the Freedom Hut, and I just wanted to thank you so much for your integrity, your vocabulary, your love of history, your humor, your intelligence.
I wanted to thank you for making the world a better place.
My mom and I listen to you.
We love your show.
My best friend and I listen to you all the time.
With an engineering heritage and an English background, I have to say that your kicking at the load-bearing walls of civilization metaphor is beautiful, sir.
Well, thank you very much, Hannah.
And if you're ever in Colorado, my family, and I would love to host you and cook you gluten-free goodies and bacon.
And listening here in this idyllic little part of the Freedom Hut are waiting with bated breath.
All right.
Thank you, Hannah.
Thank you very much.
The diverts like, I don't even know what to say.
I've got more coming up on Islamophobia.
▲
Export Selection