All Episodes
Previous Next
April 4, 2016 - Rush Limbaugh Program
36:47
April 4, 2016, Monday, Hour #1
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Welcome to today's edition of The Rush 24-7 podcast.
No, no, I'm just sitting here wondering why the ditto cam is at a 45-degree angle.
When I sit here and face it, I mean I look fabulous.
I look absolutely great.
I mean, I don't look bad like this either.
I mean, I'm just wondering why we've always I've never seen a TV camera aimed at 45% angle at anybody except me.
Well, I'm thinking, why isn't it right in front of me?
I don't know.
I mean, it probably because I've never really cared that much, and so for the convenience of the installers is where it's been.
Uh is that right?
It makes it seem like it's less focused a TV show if I think, well, it could be anyway.
Hi, folks, how are you?
Great to have you here.
Another week of broadcast excellence off and running the Wisconsin primary tomorrow.
And we are all over the place on polling data on Wisconsin.
Wisconsin is notoriously tough to poll.
You remember all of those Scott Walker recall elections that he ended up winning handily.
And I don't think my memory is such that he wasn't he wasn't leading in any of the pre-election polls except the last couple, you know, before each election.
In those, what were there, two recalls and uh uh the standard uh calendar re-election for Scott Walker, the governor of Wisconsin.
And every one of the polls showed him losing.
And yet he ended up winning all of those recalls and his own calendar gubernatorial re-election handily.
Wisconsin has, in terms of the conservative movement, it has just a kick-ass conservative movement Wisconsin, even though it is notoriously been a blue state.
Uh the Republican Party contingent in Wisconsin is profoundly conservative, which would argue for a massive Ted Cruz win.
Now the latest polling data we have out of Wisconsin has crews up by five.
There are a couple of polls that show crews up by ten, and then there's a public policy polling poll.
Uh the last one I saw has uh one of the two up by one uh in a in a margin of error poll.
But we've got all kinds of new things happening.
Trump is back down a couple things.
He has uh for him done a Meia Culpa on the Heidi Cruz photo retweet.
Throughout all of this, interesting survey data as well from people who are not happy with these results.
None of this has hurt Trump with his core supporters.
None of this, according to uh pretty good research data, but that doesn't tell the whole story.
You know, I I've said from the beginning, when this all started that nobody can destroy Trump except Trump.
Nobody's gonna be able to separate Trump's voters from Trump except Trump.
And it looks like his core supporters are hanging in with him.
And I think that's uh uh largely uh about what his campaign represents to people, in addition to whatever uh personal connection Trump has with people.
His campaign's much bigger than him in terms of the support that he's getting and what people have invested uh in it, as you as you well know.
Meanwhile, it's it it it's kind of I it doesn't really blow my mind, but I think it's worth pointing out.
I mean, the Republican race is getting covered, and it should, understandably, there's all kinds of excitement in the Republican race.
There is all kinds of drama.
You never know from hour to hour what's going to happen in the Republican race.
And the media is uh collectively doing gangbusters ratings-wise, covering anything and everything to do with the GOP.
So you can understand.
Normally that doesn't happen.
The Republican primary coverage is uh mostly limited uh to horse race characteristics, and it is dominated by the drive-by media doing their best to destroy whoever the front runner is, unless the front runner is who they want us to nominate, and then they end up supporting it.
Uh but that this is unprecedented.
On the Democrat side is where it's kind of interesting.
The lack of coverage of Hillary Clinton and her problems and travails.
And you might be saying, what do you mean Rush, they're talking about the email?
No, no, no, no, I'm not talking about that.
I'm talking about the fact nobody likes this woman.
I'm talking about the fact that her numbers with women put her in the cemetery.
Do you know that Trump does better with women than Hillary Clinton is doing with women?
Damn straight right here in these stacks of stuff coming up.
Not only that, Hillary Clinton has lost her last five primaries.
And it looks like she's down eight to Crazy Bernie in Wisconsin.
She might lose again in Wisconsin.
She's being investigated by who knows how many FBI agents.
We are told that the director of the FBI, James Comey, is going to actually do the interviewslash interrogation of Mrs. Clinton vis-a-vis whatever's going on with this email business.
Her approval rating has fallen to the basement.
And as I say, it's even lower among women than men.
And she's supposed to be cleaning up with Hillary Clinton is supposed to be a magnet for women.
Women are supposed to be automatically drawn to Hillary because of all the things.
feminism, uh, undeniable truth of life number 24.
I mean, any number of reasons women are supposed to be flocking to her, and they aren't.
A national review poll, in fact, has found that Hillary has a negative approval rating with practically every group except black women, Black women, she's holding her own.
But that's probably because her husband was the first black president.
And everybody in the midst of Hilly, Hillary Clinton's campaign, really, I mean, I know I know the fix is in, as far as the Democrats are concerned.
I know the media knows the fix is in.
And the media realize she's going to be the nominee.
No matter what happens here.
No matter how many states Crazy Bernie wins.
No matter what happens, Hillary's going to be the nominated.
That's what they think.
They think it's fixed, that it gets rigged, that it gets done, super delegates, what have you.
Crazy Bernie just in there as a placeholder for whatever reason.
And so it's understandable, I guess, that there wouldn't be a whole lot of coverage.
Plus, what is there to say about her?
I mean, every interview she does looks horrible.
Do you see this last interview she did on NBC?
Not just what she said, but what she the way she did, it just isn't working.
There's a reason why there's no excitement on the Democrat side.
There's a reason why there's no eager anticipation.
There's a reason why there's no momentum.
At least that is rooted in Hillary.
You could say there's some of that stuff with Crazy Bernie, meaning the cycle that draws his crowds and so forth.
But in the Democrat primary writ large, it's uh it's a funeral procession.
So in that sense, I can see the media ignoring it because they think Hillary is a done deal.
But there's another reason that they're ignoring it is because it's so bad.
Hillary's candidacy and her campaign.
I'm I'm gonna tell you, folks, if it weren't for the way the Electoral College falls out, and the fact that she has a D next to her name on the ballot.
I mean, that is her strength.
That's her primary strength.
And that strength is no better than if the nominee were Biden or Crazy Bernie.
It's the D next to the name that shores up the nominee strength in the electoral college.
But it does show what the media can do when they want to either promote or protect a candidate, what they can do when they want to demean and destroy a candidate.
We are watching textbook examples of both processes underfold uh unfolding right before our very eyes here on a daily basis.
Then you go to the Democrat, the Republican side and these stories on all the horse trading going on with the uh with the delegates, and how Cruz is Outsmarting Trump.
Trump doesn't know what he's doing state to state in securing delegates.
All of that matters for the second ballot, which everybody is intent on producing, at least at the Republican establishment level.
So we have a lot to unwind here today, a lot to drill down on and explain.
It turns out that my analysis of Trump's answer to the Chris Matthews question on abortion served as a major element of several Sunday shows yesterday, in terms of both questions Republicans and Democrats got, as well as cable news prime time programs.
But before we get into all that, before we go to the break, I have a see I told you so that I want you to hear.
Don't doubt me.
It's another explanation of and illustration of what it means to be here on a daily basis and on a cutting edge.
Meaning you will know long before things actually happen what they're going to happen, what's going to happen, what's going to be, simply because I will tell you.
Using my instincts, my intelligence guided by experience.
I want to take you back to August 18th of 2008.
About just a little over seven and a half years ago.
This is before the 2008 presidential election, which of course is the election that gave us Barack Hussein O as president.
This is before that election, August 2008.
I was talking about then Senator Barack Obama.
Hang in here with me.
This is Obama to then say that our own actions in combating evil have led to evil is nothing more than saying Islamic terrorists are somewhat justified.
At least we can understand why they hate us because we've done things to make them hate us.
We have been evil ourselves, and we are evil, and that justifies them being evil.
And that's, by the way, at the root of their perverted, convoluted thinking on places like Abu Ghraib and Club Gitmo.
They think we, it's no secret that the Democrat Party considers the American military to be the focus of evil in the modern world.
So anything the American military does to eradicate evil makes the evil that we're eradicating understandable and justified.
This is sick.
It is maddening.
It is sick, and it is not presidential.
This is not the kind of guy we want in the Oval Office leading this country.
We do not want somebody who doesn't like his own country for whatever perverted, convoluted, stupid reasons.
I was reacting to something Obama had said that our own actions combating evil have led to evil.
This was a discussion during the 2008 campaign about terrorism.
And after 9-11, the State Department convened that now famous symposium on why do they hate us?
What did we do to make them so mad?
And I was trying to convince everybody back in 2008.
Do not elect this guy.
This guy does not have respect for this nation.
This guy thinks this nation is ill-conceived, immoral, unjust from the days of its founding.
He thinks that we have created most of the problems of the world.
We are not the solution, that we are the primary problem.
And I was begging people to listen, but see at the time, Obama was a blank slate.
Obama was hoping change.
Obama was a blank canvas.
but it could make him be what they hoped and dreamed the next president would be.
The media had done a gang-up job of driving up hatred for George W. Bush and his presidency, particularly the Iraq War.
But I remember this like it was yesterday, because Obama's still doing this.
He goes down to Cuba, and Raul Castro sits there and rips us for racism and all this, and he agrees with him.
And he goes to Argentina, and the same thing happened.
So it's apologizing.
He's still doing it seven and a half years later.
So I made this observation before Obama was even elected, and I pointed out that the drive-by media and the Democrat Party think that the United States military is the focus of evil in the modern world.
So we say, okay, so what's the big deal?
Well, I'll tell you what the big Deal is.
Friday night on the Fox News Channel did a special.
Rising threats, shrinking military.
And there's this little quote from former DIA, Defense Intelligence Agency Director, Lieutenant General Michael Flynn.
I think that he sees the military actually as something that is more dangerous to the world.
I think that he looks at the United States military and sees it as a threatening application around the world than actually as a useful tool.
Well, I saw that about holy smoke seven and a half years later, and I am being confirmed.
He's talking about Obama.
This guy ran the DIA, the Defense Intelligence Agency director, Lieutenant General Michael Flynn, and he is he's being asked about Obama and the way we're running the military and how it's being used, and he said, hey, he sees the military as the problem in the world.
Sees the U.S. military, sees it as a threatening application.
I folks, I know these pieces.
The point is, when I tell you about liberal Democrats, you know it's a it's a practically become a compulsion of mine because I think they represent the greatest threat we all face and the country going forward.
Nobody on the Republican side, the greatest threat we face is anybody, the Democrat Party puts up, because that view is held by Hillary Clinton.
That view of the military being the focus of evil, the problem, not a solution.
Joe Biden thinks the same thing.
They all think it.
John Kerry thinks it.
They all do.
Whoever they would nominate think this.
And you can see this belief in Obama foreign policy and military strategy in practically every application.
Okay, that's that.
It was a C I told you so.
It sets the table.
We'll take a break and come back and resume right after this.
Everybody speculating about the GOP convention in Cleveland in July.
What's going to happen?
Is it going to be open?
Is it going to be brokered?
Is it going to be contested?
If it is, who's going to rule the roost?
Will the donors rule the roost?
Who is going to end up being nominated?
Will the establishment choose somebody that has not even run?
All of these questions are being asked.
But there's other stuff going on that nobody is even talking about.
Except for now.
I've mentioned to you in the past that it appears the politico is the place where establishment Republicans go to leak news that they want out there.
I mean, every newsmaker does it.
I mean, every office, every president, every issue organization, they all have a process for leaking things.
It's a way of obtaining coverage, either for yourself or opposition research on an opponent or something.
But my point is that the GOP establishment has chosen Politico as their go-to place for such leaks.
And here is a story about the party platform.
See, nobody's talking about, because everybody's still focused on who's going to be the nominee.
Nobody's talking about the party platform except the people working on it.
And they are busy little beavers, and they're working under cover of darkness, and they're hiding behind a cloak of invisibility brought on by the coverage of the horse race.
The politico says that Republicans, already girding for their most tumultuous convention in decades, now have another fight brewing, a divisive battle over gay marriage on the party's official national platform.
You want to talk about throwing a wrench into your own campaign.
So here are a bunch of guys on the platform committee, and they're being led by the donors.
The donors are demanding that the Republican platform, as I cut to the chase here, essentially accommodate, if not accept, same-sex marriage.
Obviously, it's an issue that drives intense passion.
It's one that splits the mainstream and the evangelical wings of the GOP.
Conventions in July.
Both sides are mobilizing in anticipation of a bitter clash over whether the party should embrace this.
Now look, platforms are only relevant for the period of time they're written, and maybe during the convention, they're thrown away.
However, just like Trump's answer on abortion, what happened to this platform is going to be news for the rest of the year.
Whether it's accepted, whether it's voted on, and even if it's forgotten, once the nominee is chosen, his agenda becomes the platform.
But the donors are attempting, some of the biggest financiers have been helping to bankroll the American Unity Fund, a group that has launched a well-organized behind-the-scenes effort to lobby delegates who draw up the platform to adopt language that would accommodate, if not promote same-sex marriage, in the party platform.
And they hope to have this done in time to basically force this on the nominee whoever it is.
I tell you what, folks, this story of the politico about the platform committee writers being heavily influenced by the donors to accommodate same-sex marriage if I'm not mistaken in the party platform.
If I, if I'm not mistaken, the Republican platform in 2012.
And look, I know after the convention it's it's pretty meaningless, except to be used as a bludgeon by the drive-by media if there's anything in it they think is advantageous to Democrats.
But in terms of affecting the next administrator, really is that doesn't mean much.
It never has.
But seems to me that in 2012, the Republican platform had a clause opposing same-sex marriage from the platform, 2012.
We reaffirm our support for a constitutional amendment defining marriage as the union of one man and one woman.
That was in the party platform in 2012.
So opposition to gay marriage.
Back then, Lindsay Graham and Jeb Bush were pushing to have that plank removed.
Among others.
Back in 2012, many in the establishment didn't want that plank in the platform.
They wanted accommodation for same-sex marriage.
And as you think about how the establishment is attempting to manipulate this convention to get a nominee they want, somebody not currently running, they give you an idea of what they want this party to be once they finish running a convention with results they have engineered.
And it would not look anything like what the Republican Party has appeared to be during this campaign.
Safe to say, I bet you within the bowels of the GOP establishment, this campaign, everybody in it is embarrassing.
The donors or are troubling them, maybe not embarrassing some of them.
But it is an ill illustration of just how quickly things can change.
Culturally, four years, and we're going to do a 180 on this.
Also, yes, I've seen this is kind of uh ironic to me.
Barack Hussein oh is out saying that Donald Trump can't be trusted with nukes and foreign policy, that he's simply unskilled, uneducated, uh, unaware, he's not had the experience, doesn't know what he's doing, it'd be dangerous.
Obama really?
From the guy who has seen to it that the Iranians are going to be able to nuke up.
You know the real question.
What is it between Obama and Iran?
That's the question we all ought to have.
Because it sure seems to me like Obama's got some sort of affection for that nation.
It doesn't make any sense.
In addition to that, he's choosing a side between the the uh the Shiites and the Sunnis by by backing Iran.
I mean, that's choosing sides in the great arguments, the Middle East, which we're supposed to be a nonpartisan broker, right?
So he's choosing Iran.
He unfreezes or thaws the funds that we had frozen as part of the sanctions.
They now have a hundred and fifty billion dollars to spend on revitalizing their economy or sponsoring terrorism.
And he's out making all of this possible.
It's irresponsible as it can be from somebody who's supposedly super educated, super competent.
I mean, a guy's been to the Ivy League, he's been the president for seven and a half years.
Nobody questions Obama's intelligence, right?
Nobody questions Obama's temperament.
And yet we need to redefine SMART when talking about things Obama does, because in my world, he doesn't do smart things.
He doesn't do intelligent things or wise things.
He's doing destructive things.
There is no I can't, I can't conceive of a of a of a satisfactory answer to the question, why are we enabling Iran to become a Middle East equivalent of a regional superpower there?
I do not understand it.
Doesn't make any sense.
And when that happens, then you start looking for explanations elsewhere, and they aren't pretty.
Because I don't think it has anything to do with Obama's incompetence.
And I don't think it has anything to do with Obama's idealism.
I don't think it has anything to do with Obama thinking this would be the best way to show them respect and showing them respect would be the best way for them to stand down, showing them we mean them no ill intent means they'll back down and stop terror.
That's not what's going on here.
What's going on is far worse than that.
So, you know, I I think anybody currently running for the presidency on the Republican side by default would be a huge improvement or over Obama in every area, including foreign policy and the use of the military.
Now, I want to go back to last week and my reaction to Trump's interview with Chris Matthews, that rapid fire interview on what Trump would do in that hypothetical he created where abortion is illegal.
What would you do when Trump, you know, had three different answers over seven or eight different hours.
And I I was hugely disappointed by that because that was just another attack on the entire Republican Party.
It was not just an attack on Trump and an attempt to characterize Trump.
That was Chris Matthews acting as a Democrat Party.
Whether he knew it or not, the point is that that question, that subject, all ties in to a major effort of the Democrats, it's war on women business to try to convince people the Republicans don't like women, want to punish women, think of women as second class, whatever it is.
And so in my explaining what happened, many people, there he goes again, defending Trump.
He defends Trump.
And I was not defending Trump, but I was trying to do, and I'll say it again.
Trump or Cruz, one of these two guys, more than likely is going to be the nominee.
And I'm not, at this point, I don't want to sell out either person and do whatever might be done to damage them.
But the larger point is that that whole question.
Democrats are never asked questions like that.
The Democrats never have hypotheticals created like that.
Even on things they approve of, even on things they want to do.
They are never ever put in position like that.
The reason Trump was asked that is because they know he's a novice.
They know that Trump is not studied on this.
They know that Trump is not a traditional insider politician who doesn't look, therefore, at issues the way insiders do.
He he's an improv guy.
He knows what he knows, he believes what he believes, he believes in the force of his personality, but he's not, you know, he's the best way to describe it, he's not an ideologue.
He doesn't look at life that way.
And as such, when he hears a question like that, it becomes a law and order proposition to him.
And he said, You've got somebody, you're asking me what to do when somebody breaks the law.
Well, you punish them.
The fact that it was abortion was incidental to him.
I'm not defending it.
The point is that that was not just a question about Trump.
That was a question designed to further diminish, demean, impugn, characterize, attack, whatever, the entire Republican Party.
That whole line of questioning was designed to buttress Hillary Clinton, the Democrat Party, and demean the entire Republican Party.
And that's why I kind of didn't like everybody jumping all over Trump on this.
And there's evidence to prove, well, evidence to indicate that I was right.
Because next up was Maureen Dowd.
Did you hear about this?
Given his draconian comment, sending women to back alleys.
What what is that?
Who said anything about back alleys?
Nobody.
It's my point.
This is what the Democrats get to do.
Nobody's talking about sending women to back alleys.
There's nobody I know in the Republican Party that wants, there's nobody I know in the pro-life movement who actually wants to solve the issue this way as a matter of criminal behavior.
They do want to make it illegal and all that.
But it's about changing minds and hearts.
But the Democrats don't care.
They want everybody, as many as possible, thinking that every Republican only wants to put women in jail.
Period.
Just like they wanted old folks to think Republicans were going to kick them out of their houses, just like they wanted seasoned citizens to believe the Republicans were going to cancel their Social Security.
The Democrats have nothing going on.
They have a moribund slow-motion, unexciting, drab dull campaign.
This is the kind of question that can incite their base.
This and the race card are the two things that the Democrats know to play when they get in trouble.
So Maureen Dowd says, given the draconian comment, sending women to back alleys, I had to ask Trump.
When he was a swinging bachelor in Manhattan, was he ever involved with anybody who had an abortion?
Trump said such an interesting question.
So what's your next question?
So he dealt with it correctly there.
He basically told her to go to hell.
But that's not the point.
Now you know what people throughout the media are reacting.
Why would Maureen Dowd do this?
This is crazy.
What do you mean why would Maureen Dowd do this?
This is just the beginning of it.
This is my whole point.
This isn't going to go away.
The Democrats think they can score too many points with this.
You know what else is fascinating to me about this?
Audio soundbite support coming up.
By the way, today's program, I forgot to mention this.
Today's program is dedicated to those of you who had promised never to listen to this program ever again.
Just want to say hi.
No, you know what this episode?
This whole Trump Chris Matthews abortion, you know what, you know what illustrates to see if I can make this point.
The deeply this demonstrates how deeply ingrained establishment insider political procedures are.
and how everybody thinks you have to fight them.
What do we have in Trump?
Stick with me on this.
We have an outsider.
By definition, somebody who's not elected.
He hasn't been in Washington, he hasn't been doing his business there as an insider.
We all know what this means.
He's not establishment.
I know people try to say he is because he's done business with them over the, but he's not.
And his supporters agree, which is the important supporters know he's an outsider, believe he's an outsider, and all that.
So here comes a typical insider subject, abortion.
This is an establishment issue.
The Democrat establishment uses this against the Republican establishment as often as they can, no matter what the Republicans do or say about it.
The media willingly accomplice the Democrats in this effort to once again portray the Republicans as hateful and mean-spirited toward women, any chance they get.
So here comes an outsider Getting this question from an insider perspective.
And the outsider was not equipped or skilled to give an insider's skilled answer.
He answered like an outsider.
You're asking me if we have a future where abortion's illegal, what do I want to do with people who break the law?
Punish him.
Yes, per it's a perfect outsider answer.
And look at the universal disgust there was with Trump.
As an outsider, he was essentially penalized for not being an insider and not knowing how to deal with this as an insider.
That's how deeply ingrained the establishment way of doing things politically is with a subject like this.
Instead of his answer being a feather in his cap, because he's an outsider, he's not supposed to know how to do this kind of stuff.
It's a trick question.
It's a typical Democrat Party trick question.
And he's an outsider.
He's not skilled on this kind of insufficiency.
Instead of being maybe not hailed.
And so everybody came down on him as though he is an insider who doesn't know what the hell he's doing when that's not who he is.
And so now Trump is out there saying, well, you know, politics is uh there's a learning curve.
Uh he's gotta be real careful with that.
That learning curve in politics is a lot of people don't want him learning that learning curve.
Others do.
But you start learning the learning curve, and what are you doing?
You play by the club rules.
Who sets the learning curve?
Who sets who is it that decides what you have to know, when you have to know it, how you have to say it.
The establishment does.
Anyway, be right back, folks.
Gonna get started on the phones with Bruce in Rockville, Maryland.
Great to have you on the EIB network, Bruce.
Hello.
Hello, good afternoon.
Just wanted to let you know, Rush, that I've been a lifelong Democrat.
Uh, have to admit also that I had voted for Obama twice, but as of last week, I changed my party affiliation to Republican so that I could vote for Donald Trump in the Republican primary coming up in Maryland.
Well, welcome home, sir.
It's uh it's great to have you with us.
Well, I've been listening to you for years.
I don't always agree with uh much of what you say, although I am getting more and more into it, but it's always been great entertainment.
The reason I'm I'm for Trump is basically Albert Einstein says the definition of insanity is doing the same thing over again and expecting different results.
We keep electing these politicians and these uh whether they're Republican or Democrat, and we keep ending up with the same thing, or in the case of the last eight years, nothing.
So it's about time, let's try a business person.
I am a very small businessman.
I started my business, bought a franchise here seven years ago.
I work very hard and very long hours for my customers to make them really excited, and I think that uh what I see from Donald Trump is a businessman who gets people excited.
All right, the question I have for you the question I have is only because we're we're we're time is dwindling here.
You've been listening for a long time, you've been in politics a long time, Trump comes along, Trump's been around six, seven months.
Why only last week, or whatever it was, did you change your mind?
What was what was a catalyst?
I saw all the noise that's going on.
If people don't want Trump because they don't think he could be a good president, that's one thing.
But all this other stuff that's revolving around, I decided that I needed to make my voice heard to say that stop listening to all of the other stuff and uh like what other stuff do you think you mean people nitpicking at Trump over tweets and this kind of stuff?
Is that what you mean?
Yes, sir.
And the abortion thing, so he didn't say it politically correct.
His whole thing is I may not be politically correct, but I can help this country.
Yeah.
See, that's what I thought.
I I think many Trump supporters did react to it that way.
Many Trump supporters this is this is this is uh not what's animating them.
These are people haven't had a raise in fifteen years.
By the way, do you know I some of the things being written about Trump supporters now?
It It is some of the nastiest stuff I have, and it's being written by conservatives.
I'm gonna cut them some slack and not mention their names, but this stuff is outrageous what they're saying about your average white Trump supporter, the way they're being characterized.
It's man, there's a lot of fear out there.
That's all what it has to be.
Now you've got some conservative bloggers writing about white Trump supporters as they deserve to fail, they're losers.
The fact they haven't had a raise in 15 years is their fault.
They deserve to die.
I mean, this this anger is like they're taking support of Trump personally.
It's the strangest thing.
▲
Export Selection