All Episodes
Previous Next
March 9, 2016 - Rush Limbaugh Program
32:12
March 9, 2016, Wednesday, Hour #3
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
No, no, no, it's not complicated.
What it means is that not every evangelical thinks alike.
There's all kinds of different evangelicals, and they have different interests and they have different priorities.
Just like no two women, no group of women all think the same thing on everything, no group of men, white, black, whatever.
But this is what the left has done.
The left categorized it puts everybody in groups and then assumes that the group is monolithic, and then they set out to attack the group or to appeal to the group on that basis.
There are no individuals.
Everybody's a group, and everybody's a member of groupthink, uh, and particularly on the left, and it's so wrong.
It is, it's a it's it's demeaning, and it gets everything.
That's why all of these different groups on the right are categorized and then misunderstood and routinely dis disrespected and impugned.
Look at the exit poll.
By the way, welcome back, Rushlin Baughir at 800-282-2882.
See it then.
Exit poll data, Democrat Republican voters worry about the economy.
I I cackle listening to these people analyze their exit polls.
And they're the same exit polls.
Every network gets the same data.
There's a it's a consortium of the networks.
They get together, they pay the polling company to go do the exit polling, and they all report like it's unique, but they've all got the same data.
They've all got the same analysis, because it is the same data.
So, while everybody's thinking that what Trump's primary support group is based on is immigration, immigration issues, amnesty, and so forth.
These people are shocked.
When they look at the exit poll data, both Democrat and Republican voters, number one's concerns the economy.
Doesn't surprise me.
This economy's a miss.
This economy is a disaster.
There's 94 million Americans not working.
But if you live inside Washington, you don't know that.
You think the unemployment rate's 4.9% because that's what the government figure puts out is.
And they think that uh in in Washington, the unemployment rate's 3% per capita income average around 200 grand.
Housing prices are high.
I mean, everything's fine in Washington, D.C. All the economic indicators there are fine.
The government's own numbers on the economy are also good because they're made up.
And then they see the exit poll data and they expect the people to be off the charts angry about immigration, but instead up at the top there's the economy.
Well, you can't separate the two.
But see, they think the immigration, the anti-immigration people are racists, and that's why they're anti-illegal immigrant.
They think they're bigots.
They cannot fathom that people who have a problem with illegal immigration.
Primary concern is what it's doing to the economy.
Now, immigration does show up as something voters say they're upset with, and it shows up at like number five or six in the most recent exit polling.
And so these wise men and the analysts at the media that drive by as they sit there and they wring their hands and they they they don't understand.
And they think, by the way, they misinterpret this, and they think, well, maybe Trump's not as strong as we thought, because we all thought that people glommed onto Trump because they're, you know, they're racists and they're bigots and they're anti-people of color and they're anti-Mexicans and so forth.
And and and maybe there's an opening.
Maybe, maybe most people upset about the economy.
We have an open.
They don't understand that the two are related and that people are sophisticated enough to understand why.
But look how easily they f they toss off the number one issue of voters worrying about the economy.
Oh, well, that's no big deal because the economy's fine.
They'll figure it out at some point, say the official analysts and media people.
The economy is not fine.
There's nothing about the economy that's fine.
The jobs that are being created are not career-oriented jobs.
They're 30-hour, 39-hour, 29-hour a week jobs.
Many of them do not include health care.
Those perks and benefits are dwindling.
But the masters of the universe have no idea.
Because in their world, everything's cool.
Everything's fine.
In their world, the economy's rebounding.
Yeah, we got a solid one percent growth in the GDP.
That ain't negative, they say.
That's doing good.
We're coming back.
Never mind the fact that even Joe Biden said all the way back in 2009 that in order to replace the jobs lost in the recession, we would need to create five to six hundred thousand jobs a month for a couple or three years.
We're nowhere near it.
Wages are not going up.
People are being kicked out of their jobs for cheaper labor at high tech businesses.
The old H1B visa story.
Of course the economy is not.
The problem here is that in this exit poll in the presidential race in 2012.
I don't even want to remind you of this.
I knew it was over at the five o'clock wave of exit polls when I saw that 60% of the people still blame Bush for the economy.
So that's it.
And a lot of Democrats still do.
The limbaugh theorem is still in wide and thorough use by the Democrat Party.
Everything going wrong, Obama's still not blamed for it.
Whatever it is.
He's not even blamed for screwing up the health care system.
You know how I know that?
Hillary and Crazy Bernie are running for the presidency.
The Democrat nomination on what a mess the health care business is.
How in the world can they be doing that with any credibility?
Unless Obama is not being blamed for it.
And he's not.
Obama's getting credit for trying to fix it for taking the first necessary steps, but Bush and the Republicans previous made it so bad.
This is the way they look at things.
But we know that is Obama policy, Democrat Party policy, that's responsible for these messes that we are in.
And so do our primary voters.
And therein is the problem, I say over and over again.
Republican voters do not think their own Republican elected officials see it that way.
Hello, Donald Trump.
Even if you're evangelical, evangelicals do not want to live in poverty.
Evangelicals do not want to not have jobs.
Evangelicals want to have careers.
Evangelicals are not throwing down prayer rugs ten times a day and throwing it all open to God.
Evangelicals are self-reliant people.
They want obstacles taken out of their way.
Yeah, they go to church now and then.
So what?
They're not oddballs, they're not kooks.
And they certainly aren't responsible.
They're not racist, they're not sexist, they're not bigots, they're not responsible for what's gone wrong in the country.
But everybody wants to blame them.
And then everybody wants to be afraid if they ever get anywhere near close to power.
So we have to tar and feather them, we have to mischaracterize them, we have to impugn them to the point that people have no idea who they are.
And then when it's discovered that some of them are voting for Trump, a majority in Mississippi?
Mississippi?
What?
Mississippi?
You mean a person of God voting for Trump in Mississippi?
It's not a stunner to me.
It's only a stunner if you have a distorted, totally incorrect bigoted impression of evangelicals.
And I guarantee you that everybody who doesn't know what an evangelical is, that's involved in politics, particularly on the Democrat side, but even some in the Republican consultant class have no idea who they are.
They have bought into this manufactured image.
Don't want them anywhere near power because they're going to turn everything over to God.
Okay, well, let's snur I thought the South was supposed to be a lock for Ted Cruz.
See, this isn't the I can't do anything but hurt myself in answering this one for you, but I'll I'll give it a shot.
Well, let's let's why isn't Ted Cruz just dominating with evangelicals when he has an attitude and a message that seems to be exclusively tailored to them.
That's your question, right?
I mean you try.
Why is it?
Here comes Trump, you know, who probably he brags, he belches, he uh, but you know Trump doesn't drink.
He never has.
He doesn't smoke, he never has.
You didn't know that?
He doesn't, he has no vices other than he's a braggart.
I don't know his vices, he doesn't have any vices.
But I don't even know that they know that.
That's not the point.
Why isn't a message exclusively tailored to evangelicals by someone who is ostensibly an evangelical himself, Ted Cruz?
Why is he not cleaning up of the evangelical vote?
Why did he not win a majority of it in Mississippi?
You have an answer?
Do you have any theories at all why this might be?
You what you need to ask yourself before you answer that, you need to add, why do I think that all evangelicals will only vote for an evangelical?
Why do I think that only women would vote for other women?
Why do I think that men would only vote for other men?
Why do I think that blacks would only vote for other blacks?
Why do I think that Hispanics will only vote for people who want illegal Hispanics to be able to come to country?
Why do I think these things?
You need to answer those questions before you get to, why are some evangelicals voting for Trump?
Well, those other questions you realize not all men do think alike.
And not all women are alike.
And not all blacks are alike.
And not all Hispanics are alike.
All vets are not alike in terms of the way they think.
So why do we assume that evangelicals are?
And why do we then assume that the area of interest of an evangelical is so narrow that it only involves God, church, prayer, scripture, and no fornicating.
Why do we think that?
And then why do we think that an evangelical would not support a divorcee?
Why do we think an evangelical would not only not support one, but would condemn what?
Why do we think that there's no way an evangelical could possibly support anyone who has been in the gambling business for profit?
Why do we think that?
My only point is here, evangelicals are individuals just like everybody else is.
They have individual concerns, but somehow people that think that the fact that they're evangelical and therefore believe in God and are devoted to God, think that they have abandoned self-reliance, they have abandoned responsibility.
I guarantee you that many of the people we're talking about honestly believe that Hispanics get up every day, if they stub their toe, God willed it.
If they cut themselves shaving, God willed it.
One of the reasons why look at what television shows do, the way they caricature various groups of people that they mock or make fun of.
How many times have you seen one of these latest the medical creation?
Chicago med code black, you can make book on the fact that in at least two episodes, one of the sick or injured is going to be a religious person who refuses medical help, called, God's gonna fix it, you get that scalpel away from my daughter.
God's gonna kill.
I won't want no part of your drugs on me.
You can make book on it.
How often is that really happen?
So few times you could put them in a thimble, and yet look at how many people think that's who they really are.
Because they just don't know.
My point is it doesn't surprise me.
I know a bunch of evangelicals, I and evangelicals.
Look at the Hutch.
You remember the Hutch, the late great Hutch, pastor of his own church.
If you ran into the hutch on the streets of Seattle, you would no more think this guy was uh an all-God minister until the subject came up or until you asked the right question.
And then if he thought God was the answer to a problem, he would tell you.
But he didn't get out of the car saying, I am Minister Hutchinson, you are a sinner, and I am here to tell you where you're wrong, and if you don't believe me, you're condemned to hell.
You would never hear that from him, unless you went to his church and asked him about it.
He would not impose.
But that's not what people think.
They don't think evangelicals are regular people.
They're not normal people.
But evangelicals laugh.
They get amused.
They find admirable qualities, admirable qualities in everybody.
Most people think an evangelical looks at a one sin, and that's it forever condemned, want nothing to do with them, get them out of my life, don't let them near power.
So many misconceptions.
But it's not just evangelical.
This folks, this is what the left has done to conservatives in general.
It's what they're trying to do to white men right now and white women.
I mean, there is a an all-out.
The culture war is really rooted around restructuring the power base.
And that's what people are reacting to in many ways.
There are a lot of evangelicals.
Hey don't want the Democrat Party to redo the societal structure.
They don't want liberals in charge of all this.
And if Trump's gonna stop him, well, gotta make compromises, gotta make sacrifices.
Maybe you have to look the other way on certain things, but it's more important to save America right now.
They're entirely capable of having that point of view.
They can and do put their country first, just like the rest of us do.
Be right back.
Don't go away.
I'm holding here my formerly nicotine-stained fingers a piece...
And I've had it in the snack here for a couple of days.
And it's got buried over here by other things.
But why evangelicals support Trump?
It's by Steve Mitchell, CEO of Mitchell Research and Communications of East Lansing, Michigan.
It's published at Real Clear Politics.
Now it's in depth, and we will link to this page at rushlimbod.com.
Let me give you the highlights as I deduced them from reading the piece.
First, and they they did a poll.
They surveyed evangelicals all over the fruited plain, and they admit to being shocked at what they found.
Results are fascinating, they say.
First, we found out that one of the major religious political figures of the time was very unpopular with evangelicals.
In fact, for every evangelical who had a favorable opinion of him, two had an unfavorable opinion.
The credibility of the survey was validated when we shared this information with one of the major presidential campaigns, and this leader voluntarily stepped down as the spokesperson for the Christian right.
Second, we found that abortion was not the prime motivator for evangelical Christians.
In fact, of the 400 people that we interviewed, about one-third were pro-choice.
Something we all found surprising.
And probably the reason the results of this study were never released to the public.
One-third of evangelicals are pro-choice.
You want to talk about something not computing.
With uh take near anybody in the average Democrat Party and a lot of Republicans.
Third.
We found out what did draw evangelicals to politics.
It isn't issues.
Strong, decisive leaders.
Evangelicals got involved in politics for the same reason they got involved With their church because they were looking for someone to help show them the way.
Evangelicals were drawn into politics by strong, decisive, confident leaders.
Fighters.
Again, it's in real clear politics.
They say here, working with Christian conservative leaders in a northern city, we designed a questionnaire to get to the heart of our presumptions.
The filter questions went through long and careful steps to assure that the only people we surveyed were absolutely evangelical Christians.
We didn't want any pretenders or frauds getting in this survey, so we had our way of qualifying them.
The poll was designed to find out what contemporary political and religious leaders they liked or disliked, what issues were important to them with emphasis on abortion, other than issues what else might persuade them to get involved in politics and finally who they were demographically.
And the results were fascinating.
We found out that one of the major religious political figures of the time was very unpopular with the evangelical.
Well, they don't identify who it is.
They they just said that they were stunned, and everybody loved this person.
They found out the person was not popular, and they informed a political organization, and this person voluntarily stepped down as spokesman when they found out that he had no credibility.
He had been fooled everybody.
But they don't name who it is.
Anyway, that's enough of that.
We'll be back with more.
We get a lot of scuttle bit about this last night.
Apparently, Debbie Blabbermouth Schultz was on the Fox News channel, and Meghan Kelly destroyed her on the concept of uh of Hillary and Trump.
Let's set it up.
We have two sound bites here.
Uh Brett Baer is also in the mix, and he says to Debbie Blabbermouth Schultz, who runs a Democrat National Committee Look, when you see Bernie Sanders succeeding in Michigan, what do you think?
On the Republican side, we have uh Donald Trump who says that we should ban an entire religion, we should build a wall, that we should deport 11 million immigrants and who are talking about small hands and their manhood.
I mean, really, we need to make sure that the Republicans at their next debate put a parental advisory warning on the screen before it starts because they certainly aren't talking about the issues that are important to the American people.
And they're being pretty vulgar in the process.
Right.
So Megan Kelly, uh, you know what the response to that is on the other side?
Yeah, it's vulgar, but no one's facing the threat of indictment.
There's no one facing the threat of indictment on our side either, Megan.
Right.
Let's not be melodramatic.
We have that melodramatic.
Those are the facts.
So there's no one on the GOP side who's under threat of indictment.
You notice the I call it a trick or whatever.
Debbie Blabbermouth Schultz is asked, what do we make here of Bernie Crazy Bernie winning Michigan?
And she knows that it doesn't matter because the delegate game is rigged against Crazy Bernie.
She can't say that, so she just launches into an attack on the Republicans.
And uh in normal media circles, that would be allowed to happen.
They'd accept her answer and move on.
And then they hit her with the uh indictment question.
And I did watch it was a beautiful thing to watch.
Uh Debbie Blabbermouth Schultz had deer in the headlight eyes uh during this whole thing.
You know, their turnout on the Democrat side remains pathetically low.
There isn't any influence, and by the way, Drudge just posted a story recently, and it's always the headline behind the headline that interests me.
The headline of this story, FBI boss becomes political problem.
Well, the FBI boss, James Comey.
James Comey was one of John Ashcroft.
John Ashcroft was evangelical, by the way.
Did you know that?
John Ashcroft was an evangelical, and he was a regular guy from Missouri.
I happen to know him.
Anyway, Comey was uh one of his top aides.
James Comey to this day has a reputation that is sterling.
And so now we've got a story in the Hill.
I think it's the Hill.com about what a problem Comey is becoming to the regime.
And two stories are cited.
The fight that's being picked with Apple over encryption of smartphones and the Hillary Clinton email story.
And it is apparent from reading the story that many in the regime thought the Hillary story would have faded away by now.
But it isn't fading away.
And in fact, it may be intensifying what with the continued release of data and emails and the knowledge we are gaining about her trafficking and now originating classified data.
Up to now, we've been told, we're sure Mrs. Clinton was trafficking, but it wasn't classified at the time.
She didn't know it didn't have a stamp on it.
The response was, well, but she should have known because anything going back and forth is going to be classified at her level.
But now we find out she was originating emails, documents that were classified and sending them all over Kingdom Come.
So it's I still don't see an indictment.
I just, like I said yesterday, I think the Clintons have got information on anybody, including Obama.
And it wouldn't take, you know, much but three or four holes in a golf game.
Bill Clinton to put his arm around old Barack.
Hey, buddy.
Back in those days, Ted Kennedy, I thought you were a waiter.
You want those days to be real, because let me tell you something, but you try to take her out, you try to do some damage, and I am going far back.
We got stuff on you you don't even remember you did.
And if you want everybody to know about it, you just go after it.
And I guarantee you something like that has happened.
That's how the Clintons operate.
That's how they've remained, quote unquote, clean and pure as the wind-driven snow all these years.
Back in a moment.
Don't go.
Farmington, Missouri, next.
This is uh this is Chris.
Yeah, great to have you.
Hey, uh, Chris, when I was growing up growing up, Farmington had a home for the criminally insane.
Is it still there?
Uh, we still have the mental hospital here, yes.
Yeah, for a state prison.
No kidding.
Well, well, I just wanted to make sure I remember nice to know it's still the way it was at home.
Thanks, Chris, for the call.
What's up?
Uh, my thought is that the establishment is desperate.
They they have hit the last their last chance to kill Trump's campaign.
They've had Bush crashed and burned, they started edging up to Rubio, he's going down in flames.
The only way to kill Trump's campaign is they have to endorse Donald Trump.
They are so hated they need to take advantage of this if they truly want to kill Donald Trump's campaign.
They have to endorse it.
Yeah, you don't seriously think that would happen.
This is a clever thing to say, but you really don't think that'd be the result.
If they if the establishment endorsed Trump, that that would be the end of Trump.
No, I I think if that happened, if that happened tonight on TV, Trump would do a two-hour press conference claiming it only took one day to unify the party after his Trump stakes, Trump vodka, Trump wine, and Trump Water Show, that he was able to unify the party in one press conference.
That's what would happen.
And then the establishment guys doing it as a trick, hoping it would destroy Trump would blow its guy high by getting mad as hell when it didn't work, and they would abandon Trump again.
But they're desperate.
They they're they have no other choice.
Uh yes, they do.
They still have a not a choice, they have an opportunity in their minds, and that's the convention.
They run the convention.
They can change the rules of their convention by by virtue of the rules they've written.
The governing rules of the Republican convention right now are written in 2012, and they were written to to handle circumstances they anticipated happening this year.
The circumstances they anticipated have not happened.
Who could have anticipated Trump?
What they wrote the rules to head off in this year.
They wrote the rules assuming Romney would be elected.
Romney would be president right now.
We're going into the Republic.
They wrote the rules that exist today to deny Rand Paul and Ron Paul a shot at winning the Republican nomination, either in the primaries at the convention.
And it's all there in Rule 40.
Rule 40 as constituted at present says that even in an open convention, no candidate can receive the nomination unless he or she has received a majority of delegates in eight states.
Can somebody tell me, does anybody other than Trump right now qualify under Rule 40?
Has Trump won a or as Cruz won a majority of delegates in eight states?
Well, we know that Rubio hasn't, and we know that Kasich hasn't, and we know none of the others have.
So they're gonna have to change that rule right away.
And the Republicans are having a meeting in April.
And I guarantee you that Rule 40, and that eight state requirement is going to be redone to like one state, or two states, or who knows whatever other rules they write in this thing.
And the way the rule is written, they can change the rule the day before the convention.
You know what?
It's a long document.
I it's it's a it's it's found on the Amazon servers where it's stored.
And I could link to it uh maybe I don't know if I if it's a slog getting through this thing, and Rule 40 is really where the gold is.
But my my point is they run the convention.
Trump is not gonna run the convention.
The risk the Republican Party, the RNC and related figures run the convention.
And that is going to be their last gasp effort.
Now we've been through this, and if if Trump wins a majority delegates or plurality but doesn't get to 1237.
Here's here's getting too much in the weeds, I don't have time to go there, but let me put one thought in your head.
The first ballot, delegates are pledged to vote for the candidate who won those states.
So let's let's say, let's use Florida.
Florida is a winner-take all this next Tuesday, 99 delegates.
So in the first ballot, all those 99, those delegates chosen by the state, they're not chosen by Trump people.
They're just they're chosen delegates to the convention from the state.
They have to vote the way the people of Florida voted in the first ballot.
But if the first ballot doesn't get them a nominee, and it goes second or third ballots, then hello, that's what they call brokered or open or what have you.
Well, what happened if in those 99 delegates, 80 of them are actually for Rubio in their personal preference, which in the second ballot they can vote?
Or what if 85 of them are favoring Cruz?
The first ballot, they are pledged to vote the way the people voted.
After that, they can be bribed, they can be bullied, they can be bought.
I'm being ceased, of course.
That's where the horse trading begins.
That's what the party has remaining to it, in terms of options, because they're not going to be able to we'll we'll know a week from today, you know, when when Florida and Ohio, we're gonna know whether first ballot we have a winner or not.
And if we do, if Trump gets over 1237, time to go to convention, all this that we're talking about, it's academic, it doesn't happen, unless they change the rules.
So if they do that to deny Trump even after he's won it, then they can create total chaos.
They can cause the whole party and everything else to blow up.
You know, and if some of these people out there promising to vote Hillary, you got to be very concerned here that there are some Republicans who might totally lose control.
This is going to be fascinating to watch all the way through the process.
Make no mistake about.
No, no, that's my point.
Trump does not think he's the second most presidential guy since Lincoln.
Just like he doesn't think the Art of the Deal is the second best book to the Bible.
He's putting people on when he says that, and his audience knows it and they're chuckling, but the offended think he's serious and get outraged over it, and that's why everybody's laughing at it.
▲
Export Selection