Rush Limbaugh, the EIB network, the Limbaugh Institute for Advanced Conservative Studies, where among the many and varied things that we do each and every day here is happily pursue happiness and happily find happiness and happily behave in happiness without any guilt,
unlike our Democrat idiot friends.
Live from the Southern Command in sunny South Florida, it's Open Line Friday.
Yesterday, 800-282-2882 if you want to be on the program.
And remember, Open Line Friday, there are scant restrictions.
Very few restrictions on what you can talk about.
Not like there are Monday through Thursday.
Monday through Thursday, you don't even know what the restrictions are because it just happens.
That's the brilliance of how we put this together.
But Friday, calls can be all over the ballpark and not seem to make sense whatsoever because whatever people want to talk about is fair game.
Sticking with the Democrat side of things here for just a little longer.
And I want to back up some of what I have said so far with some sound bites in this thing last night.
Because if I had to watch this thing, you people are going to have to put up with some of it too.
And this was the first one, I must be honest, the first one I actually sat down and watched and tried to look at it as if I were a Democrat voter.
And it takes a lot of effort, folks, because we are not who they are.
I am not kidding.
Watching this thing last night was an out-of-body experience.
I really felt like I was in a foreign country listening to a foreign language.
Not, obviously it was English, but it was so alien from the beginning to the end.
From the attitudes of the moderators and the questions, the answers, the just the whole atmosphere, it didn't feel like my country.
It was, obviously, but it didn't feel like it.
When it was over, Rachel Maddow gets up and starts hugging.
She walked over, hugged Hillary, hugged Bernie.
She got and hugged her grandparents.
It was really, really striking.
It was just two grumpy old white people.
Like, I know everybody loves their grandparents, but there are times, you know, your grandparents, these people were just get off my lawn miserable kind of dour.
Hillary tried to jazz it up with a lot of makeup and smiles.
And look, speaking objectively, Bernie Sanders can't hold a candle to her.
I don't care what you all think.
If you've heard any discussion today about how Hillary was weak here or weak there, she stomped all over the guy last night.
From my perspective, not probably from theirs.
That's the key.
Bernie's rising in the polls.
They're really worried.
The Democrat establishment is going to do to Bernie what they've been trying to do to Trump and trying to do to Cruz.
They are scared to death on the Democrat side of Bernie Sanders.
Because in their own odd way, they don't understand it, even though they, just like our establishment, are the sole reason why there is a Bernie Sanders on their side.
From theHill.com, Sanders nearly tied with Clinton nationwide poll.
And this was known last night.
I think this is another reason why Hillary was even more hostile.
And she was generally a raging mess last night, but that's to us.
She was far more professional at the same time, far more seasoned.
She was clearly, I mean, so many times Bernie turned to her and talked of his respect and admiration.
It was clear to me that when this is all over, Bernie Sanders has been a placeholder.
From the Democrat establishment point of view, they may be in the process of having screwed themselves because Democratic presidential hopeful Bernie Sanders has dramatically cut into the nationwide lead of Hillary Clinton, according to a Quinnipiac poll.
The poll finds that Hillary leads the race 44 to 42.
That's margin of error.
So you could say that they're tied.
The last Quinnipiac poll in December, Hillary led Bernie 61 to 30.
That's a 29-point margin that has been reduced to a two-point margin since December.
Now, what has happened?
What has gone on over there in that party to bring this about?
My contention is none of us know.
These two people to us are the same as they've always been: odd, dangerous, genuine weirdos.
But for the people in the Democrat party, the middle class, lower middle class, Bernie Sanders has become a hero.
And once again, what's being demonstrated, something that you'll never get a picture of in the drive-by media, is that Hillary Clinton is not highly admired, revered, loved, and adored by the Democrat Party base.
We're seeing it again, just like we saw it in 2008.
Tim Malloy, the assistant director of the Quinnipiac University poll, said, Democrats nationwide are feeling the burn as Senator Bernie Sanders closes a 31-point gap to tie Hillary Clinton.
The poll also finds that Bernie Sanders matches up better with top Republican candidates than Hillary Clinton does.
The Quinnipiac poll found that Hillary has a 17-point unfavorable rating.
That's only better than Trump in that category, whose unfavorability rating in this poll is 25 points.
Sanders has a nine-point favorable rating nationwide, only trailing Rubio, who is seen favorably by a 14-point margin in the Republican side.
The survey sample was 484 Democrats, and the margin of error is 4.5%.
Now, Hillary and Bernie both last night started dumping on Wall Street and Goldman Sachs and any other big bank name they could think of.
And yet, Goldman lobbyists, Goldman vice presidents, Goldman CEO and a CEO wife are all Hillary donors.
And they prop up the Democrat Party.
Hillary Clinton said Wednesday night of Goldman Sachs, they're not giving me very much money now.
I can tell you that much.
No, no, they just paid her $685,000 to speak.
When she was asked about that, she said, well, that's what they offered.
It turns out, no, that wasn't true.
These people lie all the time.
Their base doesn't care, folks.
To their base, Hillary or Bernie lying, if that's what it takes to beat us back, we are the focus of evil, and therefore there are no rules limiting what they can do to beat us.
So if they have to lie, all the better.
And if they're good at it, that's even better.
They're not worried about the morality of their leaders, obviously.
They're not worried about the character.
All they want is somebody who is going to say things to let them know that they agree that these people have been shafted.
They've been shafted by an unfair, unjust America with powerful forces that are denying them everything in life.
And Hillary and Bernie come along and promise to make up for it by giving them what they have been denied by these powerful forces.
And if they have to lie in order to get there, that's fine.
Turns out that this $685,000 feet is not what they offered.
Her speaking agency, she's got a speaking of the Harry Walker agency.
Everybody that does public speeches has an agent that goes out and gets these things.
I, of course, have never had an agent because my phone rings.
But I don't do any that I charge for.
Never have.
That's nothing that burns me.
Hillary Clinton built in $685,000.
Her normal price, the normal cost to get Hillary Clinton is $200,000 to $250,000.
And I run around and I do these things for nothing when I used to do them.
Maybe for a little take of whatever ticket action there was, but nothing like this.
It turns out that the $685,000 is not what Goldman Sachs offered.
It's what the Harry Walker agency negotiated.
Now, in the debate last night, it came up that Hillary was asked if she would release the transcripts of some of these speeches that she's made, and she wouldn't do it.
Let me find the audio soundbite here that grab number 13.
From the debate last night, F. Chuck Todd, have you noticed the comb over there?
I haven't seen Chuck Todd in a while.
It must be getting bad up there.
Well, I know.
It's not relevant.
It doesn't matter.
I just, I hadn't seen Chuck in a long time.
And it looked like a Kia Pet growing.
Well, anyway, Chuck Todd, moderating the debate, said, Madam Secretary, are you willing to release the transcripts of all of your paid speeches?
We do know through reporting that there were transcription services for all of those paid speeches.
In full disclosure, would you release all of them?
I will look into it.
I don't know the status, but I will certainly look into it.
But I can only repeat what is the fact that I spoke to a lot of different groups with a lot of different constituents, a lot of different kinds of members about issues that had to do with world affairs.
I probably described more times than I can remember how stressful it was advising the president about going after bin Laden.
Oh, oh, we can just imagine the stress.
Oh, my, can you just, oh, what is a stress reliever?
What do people take to get rid of stress?
They're probably had five bottles of the stuff, whatever it was.
The stress of advising, on one hand, I might be able to be convinced that there was stress getting Obama to go get Osama because Obama would rather play golf.
In fact, didn't they have to drag him off the golf course to get in there to watch the actual raid?
Anyway, she won't release the transcripts of her paid speeches.
Can you imagine that question even coming up?
Now, why do you think she won't release the transcripts of paid speeches?
I'll tell you why.
I'll tell you exactly why.
It's not because there's anything classified in them.
It's not because there's anything embarrassing like giving out phone numbers to women to get to Bill.
There's nothing like that in there.
The reason she won't release the transcripts is because the speeches are so damn bad, because they're probably so boring.
They're probably so suck up.
Those speeches are probably, if they release the transcripts, it would be obvious why she's going out speaking to these groups.
She's sucking up.
She's promising them things.
They've just paid her a lot of money to show up and speak.
I'm sure she's telling them what all they can expect for it in a disguised way, things that she wants to do policy-wise if she's elected.
She doesn't want to give away the transcripts here because it would indicate there's a quid pro quo going on.
It would be an incredible embarrassment to boot to see how dull they are, just like a Hillary book signing is or your average Hillary speech.
See, Hillary says that when she goes out and speaks to these groups, that she is showering them with invaluable wisdom, like this reference to all the stress that there was advising Obama on getting bin Laden.
What she can't afford is for the transcripts to be released and people to find out what snoozers her speeches are, because then it's going to look like they're no-show speeches.
Just showing up maybe.
They might find out the speeches go 10 minutes, and she's still getting all of the money.
They're not going to release transcripts of speeches with Hillary lecturing Wall Street companies on stuff because she doesn't go lecture Wall Street companies on stuff.
She doesn't talk to the Wall Street companies in these speeches like she talks about them in these debates.
And that's why they will not release the transcripts.
Because if they did, these Democrat voters would find out she's in bed with figuratively speaking, of course.
It's Open Line Friday.
Oh, Rushbo would have my brain tied behind my back.
Just to make it fair, as we meet and surpass all audience expectations every day.
We go to Provo, Utah.
This is Chris.
I'm sorry, Richie.
Richie, great to have you on the program, sir.
Hi.
Hi, I'm McGee.
I was rush.
I have got a question coming on Trump, just kind of dismissing the primary discussion.
Yeah, but I see Trump as a drive-by candidate.
He fires a couple of shots at Cruz for being a Canadian, then steps back and says, Hey, yeah, it's not me.
I'm not sure about that.
And then he makes this stink and fires a whole bunch of shots at Cruz for stealing the primary.
And then today he steps back.
Oh, I'm fine with that.
It's water under the bridge.
But I think I know you're not in the tank for anyone, but I think your impartiality or friendship with Trump is kind of making you miss things like that.
Oh, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no.
In fact, I don't know how long you've been in hold.
I announced my theory for why Trump is doing what he's doing today.
But did you miss that?
I heard you say that he was kind of in the past.
No, it's because I yesterday chided all these guys for acting like children and to straighten up.
I mean, this is politics for crying out loud.
They get all we're on the verge here of wresting control of the Republican Party from the establishment, and we're about to open a circular firing squad here over a CNN tweet.
It was just silly.
But you know what?
I like your analogy here, Richie, that Trump is a drive-by candidate.
Let's explore this.
So your theory is that he comes out of Iowa.
He was expecting to win it.
13 polls had him winning it, but he didn't.
So he's naturally upset.
He's a winner.
He doesn't like losing.
And so he sees this thing happen to Carson.
He decides, you know what?
I'm going to glom onto that.
So he starts leveling all these allegations at Cruz and gets the media on it.
The media then starts focusing on Cruz, and then after a couple of days, Trump backs us up.
Fine with me.
Knowing full well the media is not going to give it up.
They're going to stick with it.
Trump can move on to other things, thereby satisfying people on his side, get nervous when he does that stuff, get back to the issues, the wall, whatever it is, while the media continues to take out Cruz.
That's your.
Exactly.
He knows that the media is not going to let it go.
He knows that Cruz supporters are not going to let it go.
And Trump supporters, his own supporters, are not going to let it go.
They're still going to attack Cruz for that.
And I think he can move on to other things.
He's done the drive-by candidate thing here.
Are you a Trumpster?
I am not a Trumpster.
Who are you?
I prefer Cruz.
Maybe Rubio.
Cruz or Rubio.
Okay.
All right.
Well, I like your theory.
As one who has invented the whole concept of drive-by media, I can see where you would pick up on that with Trump.
You may have a point.
There may be something to this.
The one thing we know that Trump is not insane.
He's not stupid.
He loves keeping people off balance.
He loves having people sort of on guard trying to predict where he's going next.
And he loves being able to fool people into where he's going next.
And he is a super pro at manipulating and owning the media.
So you may have a point.
I'm going to state again: I shouldn't have to do this.
Run the risk of doing this, and even sounding a certain way.
I wish sometimes you all could see the email that I get after any given show because it's routinely filled with people either thanking me or really, really mad at me for either being for their candidate or not being for their candidate.
And it changes day to day.
I can't tell you the number of people who are sending me notes warning me about Rubio.
But I'm also getting email from all over the world.
Hey, Rush, I like what you said about Rubio.
Tel Aviv, Jerusalem, San Francisco, San Diego, you name it, all over the place.
I haven't endorsed anybody.
All I am for very simple to understand me.
I'm one of the most easily understood because I tell you everything I believe and think.
I just don't believe in excommunicating people from our movement.
I have never liked this idea that we have this tendency to throw people out, throw people overboard, not just for a cycle, but forever.
I don't like it.
Talking about people on our side, we are not talking about reprobate ne'er do wells.
And I just Well, it just bugs me when I see otherwise.
We have an audio soundbite here from Obama on the press conference I mentioned an hour ago.
He went out there and he was praising his economy.
He was heralding first time unemployment rate at being under 5% for the first time in seven years.
That's essentially since he took office.
The first time.
When have you ever heard that referred to?
The first time unemployment rate is now at 4.9.
What's that?
Has anybody any memory of hearing the unemployment rate referred to as the first time unemployment rate?
Well, there's a reason he said it.
It's because it's the only way you can ignore the 94 million Americans not working, not in the labor force.
The first time, in other words, people applying for unemployment benefits for the first time, 5% added to the 15% who have been getting unemployment for four years and have run out.
He's not talking about them.
So this is a sleight of hand thing.
They did.
They released the numbers, 4.9% unemployment rate with 151,000 new jobs created.
This is an abject joke.
It's a total joke.
And it comes the day after Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders vie for the Democrat nomination by telling their voters they know how truly rotten this economy is.
And yet here's Obama out there heralding it today.
Very next day, less than 24 hours, there's Obama out there essentially contradicting everything.
His two replacements would-be replacements are out saying.
And watching CNN on this, this was interesting too.
After Obama finished and had told everybody how great the economy is and how great the jobs picture is, CNN cut immediately to a story on how the bottom's falling out of Wall Street, meaning they went straight from Obama to negative economic news on Wall Street, which they used to not do.
They would not do anything to contradict Obama.
If he's got there talking about how great the economy is, they would either follow up with something else or find something in the economy they could say was reflective of what Obama had just said or illustrative.
But he was answering questions, and there's a reporter from Fox News, Kevin Cork, said, Mr. President, how can you improve workforce participation levels?
See, I am convinced that the drive-by media before we started talking about the labor force participation rate had no idea what it was.
I don't think like baseline budgeting.
I don't think until we spent many days detailing here.
I don't think too many people really knew what it was.
Likewise, the unemployment rate, there are two numbers they release, U3 and U6.
And I think if the two confused, but U3 is what they talk about every day.
U6 is the real number.
U3 is the first time unemployment.
U6 is the sum total of everybody, even those who have given up looking for a job.
And that number's 15%.
African-American community, you know what that number is?
25%.
And if you even narrow it down to unemployed African-American youth, folks, it's so bad as to be obscene.
There isn't any robust economic news that Obama can talk about except, and not even now can he do that in Wall Street.
So anyway, Kevin Cork says, Mr. President, how can you improve workforce participation levels?
Because as much as people talk about the recovery, so few Americans are now, relatively speaking, in the job force, in the job market, especially compared to 2008.
It's amazing this guy got out of there without a black eye.
Because basically what this reporter said to Obama, you know, your first-time unemployment rate number doesn't mean anything because there's 94 million Americans not working.
What are you going to do about getting them back into the labor force?
And here's what Obama said.
We're still at a point where the labor participation rate is lower than it has been historically.
Some of that's explained by demographics.
The population's getting older.
And so you would expect that there is some decline, but it's not fully explained by Americans getting older.
Some of this is still the hangover from what happened in 2007, 2008.
I get a lot of letters from middle-aged workers who got laid off.
It's Bush's about their current skills.
And so have not yet re-entered the workforce.
They need to get retrained.
That's right.
It's Bush's fault.
Of course, that's why didn't we think of that?
2007, 2008.
Some of this is still a hangover from 2000.
Yeah, yeah.
All that labor force participation raid mumbo jumbo 94 million Americans.
That's Bush's fault.
Ever heard of Hurricane Katrina or Iraq war?
That's Bush's fault.
And you get your hands together.
If you're Obama, you leave the stage at another successful economic fraud press conference in the books.
Here's May, Jacksonville Beach, Florida.
Great to have you on the program.
Hello.
Thank you, Rush.
I've been listening to you since 1988.
Wow, you're a lifer.
That's year one.
Thank you so much.
Indeed.
Two points.
First of all, I was a little surprised that Bernie Sanders didn't attack Hillary for the Clinton.
I think it's what the community, you know, get a house with almost no money down thing from when Bill Clinton was president that kind of started the whole hedge fund thing that, you know, he did mention Soros contributing to her campaign.
And then the second thing, and I'm going to hush after I say this, is we have to get some of the lightweights out of the Republican campaign, or we're going to lose to either a criminal or a socialist.
And I do wonder what your thoughts are.
Well, wait a minute.
You need to name some names.
Who do you mean the GOP lightweights that we've got to go?
Lightweights.
You know, if you don't have 10%, you know, because our country, we really decide by March who the president's because.
So you think Christie should get out.
You think Jeb should get out.
You think Kasich should get out.
You think Fiorina should get out.
You think Rand Paul did get out since Warren Day.
Who's left?
Jim Gilmore.
You know, maybe after this week, Bush or Christie, probably Christie gets out.
He's at, what, 2% or 4% or something like that.
And all this infighting.
I just think it's terrible for our party.
There are too many candidates.
We need to rally together or we're going to have one of these idiots.
Let me give you a counter theory.
All of these lightweights, as you described them, let it be known that it was May, Jacksonville, Florida, described as lightweights.
The lightweights you're describing are all establishment candidates, right?
I don't mean they're lightweights.
I mean, percentage-wise they don't have very much.
Trey, they're bringing up the end.
They don't have a lot of support.
I got you.
I got you.
You don't mean they're lightweight intellectually.
You don't mean they're dumb people.
You're just...
Ned.
You mean the losers, the people in the trailing end.
Here's the thing.
What about this theory?
What about keeping them in divides the establishment vote and establishment money and keeps it from unifying around a candidate who I guarantee you you probably don't support?
I don't have a candidate.
I am a Rubio supporter.
I think I don't think that in all the times we've had a person running for president, that we've had someone be quite so insulting and digoted sounding and just angry like Trump.
I don't think he has.
I don't think he has a chance, but that's just my opinion.
And you obviously know a lot more than I do.
No, nobody knows who's going to win this.
Nobody knows.
Like the polling data that's out there now, you can believe it or not, going into Iowa, 13 of those polls were wrong.
The recent history of polling is its inaccuracy.
Remember, who was it, Gallup, that said they're getting out of the presidential horse race, battling because they've been so wrong?
Well, 13 pre-election polls, pre-caucus polls in Iowa were wrong.
13 of them had Trump winning by four.
He lost by four.
The same polls are saying that Trump's negatives are so high nationwide that any Democrat, Bernie Sanders or Hillary Clinton, would wipe the floor with him.
And then they say that Cruz's electability numbers are low.
The same polls that are wrong going into Iowa.
I look at those polls, particularly those polls, and folks, I have to tell you to me, they're meaningless.
We are barely into February, and we're supposed to make decisions here based on what polls tell us people will and will not do in November.
There's not enough data yet.
You can't say that whatever the number is, let's say it's Trump, his unfavorable or negative numbers 50.
Let's just make it up.
I don't know what it is.
It's 50.
It's not going to be 50 if he's the nominee.
When there's only Trump versus the Democrats, you've got to throw the number out.
You throw the number out for any of them, Cruz as well.
And some of this polling data serves a purpose.
Some of it's accurate.
Some of it isn't.
But this stuff that purports to tell us who doesn't stand a chance in November, isn't it interesting it's always the frontrunners that those polls are telling us that about?
I've always been suspicious of that.
In the current case, Cruz and Trump both supposedly have massively high unfavorable numbers.
And those numbers are being translated by polling experts as can't win a national election.
Hillary Clinton will mop the floor with either one.
Really?
Okay, so what are we supposed to do?
Well, Jeb Bush shows up best against Hillary in our poll.
Jeb Bush can't get beyond 3% in the primary.
Yeah, but when you get to November, Jeb Bush has got the...
Are you kidding me?
And they want us to make decisions now based on that?
Isn't it fascinating that our frontrunners, whoever they are, whoever the frontrunners are, happen to be, according to polls, the guys with the smallest or least chance of beating Hillary the Democrats?
I smell a huge rat with that stuff.
But May, I don't know any more than you do about what's going to happen.
Nobody knows what's going to happen.
I mean, there are educated guesses, wild guesses, but nobody knows.
I appreciate your call.
We'll take a timeout and come back and continue with Open Line Friday right after this.
People keep shouting this story at me, so let me do it.
Here's the headline: Hillary Clinton spending more on polling than six Republican candidates combined.
Hillary Clinton spending more on polling than six Republican candidates combined.
She spent $720,000 on polls last quarter.
That's as much as the top six Republican candidates combined.
About $477,000 of the $720,000 that was spent went to the firm of Joel Beninson, who's a pollster for Mrs. Clinton, Bill Clinton, and Barack Hussein.
Oh, oh, speaking, Snerdley, you got to see that there is a story in the politico today that just fires at Chelsea Clinton.
And why in the hell are we still treating 35-year-old campaign aide Chelsea Clinton like a protected 10-year-old in the White House?
I mean, it is a really, I won't say caustic, but man, you just don't see this kind of stuff about Democrats, especially the Clintons.
This would be akin to having the media back in the days at Camelot, you know, start jumping all over JFK and Jackie O for shielding JFK Jr.
I mean, this is really his headline.
Why are we treating a 35-year-old campaign aide like she's still a 10-year-old in the White House?
Why does Hillary Clinton's kids still get protected?
Why can't we in the media go after her?
That's basically what the story is about.
Anyway, this polling story here.
So the guy that polls for Mrs. Clinton and Bill Clinton and Barack Obama, Joel Beniton, gets $477,000 of the $720,000 she's spending.
Now, if you think that's something, in the previous quarter, so this would be Q3, 2015, she spent $1.9 million on polling.
Now, an Obama campaign veteran, some guy named Simon something or other, something or other, Simon, said this, there's no way.
There's no way to spend $700,000 in three states on polling, which is Iowa, New Hampshire, South Carolina.
It's got to be larger setup.
They're polling nationally already.
Let me tell you what they're doing.
$1.9 million.
They're spreading the wealth around here, folks.
The Clintons are keeping other people in business, for one thing.
But beyond that, I'll tell you what I think it is.
I think she is such a wet fish.
I don't think anybody trusts Hillary Clinton and her instincts in front of a crowd of people.
I think they pull everything from what she wears to her makeup to every word she says, her smile.
I think it's all polled because I think everybody knows, left alone, uncoached, untouched, she is a disaster waiting to happen.
And I think that's what this means.
Here is Sean in Laconia, New Hampshire.
Great to have you, sir.
Hi.
Hi, Rush.
How are you doing?
Very well.
Thanks much.
Yeah, I'm calling about you talking recently about the people who are collecting benefits and carrying on and not working a whole heck of a lot for it.
I'm a contractor up here, and it seems like the general consensus is we can't find help.
And in our area, there's a large number of people who aren't working.
Makes it awfully hard to get a job done.
Wait a minute.
If there's a lot of people not working, how come you can't find any to work?
Well, what it is, is that they're basically have figured out that they're making enough to survive, but not making enough, you know, to be able to take a job.
So once they take the job, they have to give up their benefits.
And so I've had multiple occasions.
I don't think there's any doubt about that with a certain subset of people you're talking about.
If you're talking about a difference of $4,000 or $5,000, maybe even $10,000 a year, it may be easier to get it sitting on your butt than to go out and work for an additional 10, especially with the mindset these people have that the deck's stacked against them anyway.
So you're not the first guy, by the way, I've heard with this problem.
We got to go.
The Carolina Panthers, according to the Huffing and Puffington Post, they are the most unapologetically black team ever in the NFL.