All Episodes
Previous Next
April 14, 2016 - Rush Limbaugh Program
36:39
April 14, 2016, Thursday, Hour #1
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Welcome to today's edition of The Rush 24-7 Podcast.
Looky here, folks, right on time.
Right on time.
Maybe even a little early, but maybe you can't be too early with something like this.
I'm holding here my formerly nicotine stained fingers, a uh story from the New York Post.
And the uh the headline, why more women are letting their husbands cheat.
Who could this who could possibly benefit from this?
That's right, Hillary Clinton on the verge.
She's just she cannot keep up with Crazy Bernie in terms of crowd size, crowd energy.
Twenty-seven thousand people.
Did I read that right?
Bernie Sanders, 27,000 plus came out to listen to Crazy Bernie in New York last night.
And the Hillary people are saying, well, you know, she could be drawing crowds like that if she wanted to.
Ha!
There's fat chance of that.
Anyway, folks, great to have you here.
The telephone number if you want to be on the program, 800-282-2882.
And the email address Lrushbow at EIBNet.com.
It's a serious story.
Why more women are letting their husbands cheat.
And of course, you know, this is right along with the stories we got in the 90s.
About 1995.
Started seeing stories about how good lying can actually be for an entire society.
Right in the middle of Clinton's administration.
Yeah, telling lies.
It actually facilitated progress and it kept people's feelings from being hurt.
It was actually quite good.
Little white lies here and there were actually portrayed.
We were told scientific research that it was very, very helpful.
And it was timed coincide with the biggest liar ever been in the White House at the time.
And here we go.
It's it's like a repeating history.
Thrashing out the details of their new marriage contract with online relationship coach Susie Johnson, a wealthy couple who have been wed for 12 years, leave their hour-long Skype session feeling satisfied.
The husband agrees to go and have a fifth child while the wife consents to his infidelity in exchange for a fifth child.
See, he didn't want any more kids.
She did.
He said, okay, I want to be able to cheat.
She said, how often?
He said, well, a month.
Once a month, a couple times a year.
She says, no problem.
The deal was struck and often you know you may laugh.
I know.
I know a couple.
I think this is probably Jit.
I think this probably is popping up and happening all over the place.
There's so many cultural upheavals and changes going on out there.
I know a couple that they have a, it's not written, it's not in contract form, but they have an agreement that if either one of them ever had the chance to um uh spend some time with a specific person that they both dream of, then they permission has been granted.
In the guy's case is Jennifer Aniston.
If he ever has a chance, the wife says, okay, fine, in that one example.
And then she's got somebody that that uh he has agreed to.
I forget who it is.
I'm making it up.
But I mean, what better timing?
Why?
Story that's now scientifically proven that letting your spouse cheat can actually help your marriage.
You know the reason why they gotta do this, because Clinton out there can't control what he's saying anymore.
He's losing control.
I mean, it's it's a sad thing to watch.
It's a sad thing to see.
They don't know what's gonna come out of his mouth, they don't know what's gonna go into his mouth, and they don't know where he's gonna go when it all happens.
So they gotta cover their bases by permitting this kind of story, or actually having the story written.
Yeah, they agreed to a weekend amnesty where the guy can do what he wants for just one weekend a year in this case.
This babe that arranges these deals for couples is in Dallas.
And uh it's it's go asksusie.com.
In return, she gets the bigger family that she craved.
And the story features uh other examples, other couples engaged in the uh same kind of that taught Tom Jones and his wife Lyndon married 59 years, and he's a noted philanderer.
Uh But she got something out of it.
And Bill and Hillary are pictured here in the story.
So there's no doubt.
I just find it hilarious.
I just think it's the left will come up with science to validate and justify whatever destructive behavior they decide they want to make routine.
Folks, we're great to have you with us as always, the fastest week in media already at Thursday, the Colorado story will not go away.
And it is manifesting itself in fascinating ways.
The Colorado Republican GOP chairman.
They found an audio clip of this guy back on September 3rd.
His name is Steve House.
He was speaking at an August 11th Pueblo County Republican meeting.
He made some statements about the Trumpster at the meeting that were recorded.
One of the things he said that was overheard and recorded that House said, do I think Trump's going to be the nominee?
Absolutely not.
Do you know who he's taking away votes from?
Ted Cruz.
That's right, Ted Cruz, right?
Which is so hard to believe.
I think what happens to Donald Trump, he's going to get bored.
He's going to get bored.
He's going to get tired of the continuous questioning and badgering.
I'm really looking forward to having Trump and Fiorina on the same stage, because I think she will make him look bad.
I really, really do.
This was just instead, just a few days after the Colorado GOP decided to do away with the straw poll, which was last August when they made this change.
And the Republican chairman out in Colorado was quoted as having said this just a few short days after this.
So the intent here is to make it look like Colorado has been intending to screw the Trumpster ever since.
And they were.
What there's no mystery here.
The only thing that might be worth pointing out about this is the hypocrisy that exists.
This is the establishment doing what they do.
There's nothing unusual about it.
As you the point is, most people don't see this because primaries do not uncampaigns do not unfold this way.
Most of the time we get a nominee, long before we go to the convention.
The idea to contest the convention is not even considered in most years.
And so the sausage making is not seen.
So if uh a state decides to have a caucus rather than a primary, if a state decides to choose its delegates independently of the way the people vote, nobody knows about it.
Because it's never been a factor.
Well, now it's a factor.
And it's just what the establishment always does.
It's how they protect.
It's how they protect themselves and their institutions and who's allowed in.
And it may be the first time people are learning of it, so they're shouting and crying, my goodness, it's just infringement.
I thought we got to vote in so I thought it's not unusual.
And it's not unusual behavior.
Now, in explaining this, I find oftentimes that when I seek to explain things, people, and I can sometimes understand this, make the mistake of assuming I agree with whatever I'm explaining or support whatever I'm explaining.
And don't ever make that assumption.
I'll tell you what I agree with or disagree with.
But when I see people fit to be tied and angry and thinking they've been cheated, I want to try to arrest that because that's not what happened here.
Unless you want to look at the establishment and everything it does to protect itself as essentially cheating or rigging things.
But uh just because I'm trying to explain to people who may not know how things happen and why that I agree with them, like I'm not in favor of people not being able to vote.
I don't support anything like that.
And that's not the point, but I'm trying to explain it to you because I think it'd be a lot better if people cooled down a little bit and stopped getting so mad over things instead of in and have knee jerk reactions and instead understand what happened.
Now there's a little hypocrisy on this, too.
Because there are people in the conservative media, some that are in the establishment, some that are not.
That when this kind of thing was done to people they support, oh, they hated it, they thought it was bad, they thought it was rotten.
But when the establishment did this kind of stuff to stop Tea Party people, those same people applauded it.
When this kind of stuff was done to say stop uh Sharon Angle, or uh what was it, Christine O'Donnell, or to take take any any Tea Party challenger.
Whenever the establishment did what it does and made it impossible for challengers, particularly the Tea Party, because they hated them, to come in and either win a primary or to win an election or what have you, and the elect when the establishment arranged the chairs, making that pretty much impossible.
There were people who are complaining and whining about what happened in Colorado, who back then supported the essential what is happening in Colorado.
So there's a lot of hypocrisy to go around here, but this is not and you can sit there and say the rule's bad, we need to change the rule.
Yeah, but that's not gonna happen this year.
Colorado's over, it's come and gone.
Might say, okay, down the road, future we have changed.
This happens every year, too.
It's just the establishment's in charge of it.
When things happen that they don't anticipate, like I guarantee you, the establishment is going to be trying to rewrite all kinds of rules based on what happened in this campaign, so that it doesn't ever happen to them again.
That's one of the perks of running the show.
And that's why, and I told you yesterday, the nominee becomes a de facto head of the party.
It doesn't mean that the establishment just sits down and rolls over, they're never going to do that, is the point.
They're always going to try to protect.
One of the things that I think I've I've um detected here that surprised me a little bit, is how many people assumed that if Trump,
or anybody, but it's Trump who's done it in this case, if anybody really started putting together a massive amount of support, creating a massive amount of energy, creating all kinds of new people coming to the party.
The fact that so many people expected the Republican Party to embrace it and welcome it and join it.
And as I my email from a Trumpster the other day said, he was stupefied when he he thought the party would address and embrace Trump if for no other reason that Trump's the first guy that's coming along and been able to shellack the media.
And he said he was stunned that the party didn't embrace Trump for that reason alone.
Well, folks, the media is part of whatever we're calling this, the establishment, the people that run Washington, whatever they are part of it.
That's that's precisely why they're treating Bernie Sanders the way they're treating him, as as an outcast as an oddball as a cook that doesn't have a prayer.
They have every bit the same interest in preserving the structure of the establishment as elected officials do in it.
And the Republican Party per se is if if they don't like Trump, they're not going to like Trump, period, no matter how well Trump skunks the media.
But it's a shock for people to learn that the Republican Party at large doesn't think the way they do.
It's I guess it's a combination of uh the mentality that goes on with Civics 101, that everybody is at least has one thing in common, and that's beating the opposition.
And we can't even rely on that.
But you have to, instead of all that Civics 101 stuff, what you have to get straight, what you have to never forget is that however you define this group of people that we call the establishment, They are out for self-preservation first, second, third, fourth, and on down the line.
The Republican Party doesn't exist to beat the Democrats.
There are a lot of other things they have to do first before they even think about that.
And the first one, self-preservation, holding on to what they think they've earned and achieved, holding on to their power, holding on to their precious positions, holding on to their networks, holding on to their connections, holding that's objective number one.
Not beating Hillary.
But so many people who donate and vote think that the Republican Party is just like them, that the objective here is to beat Hillary.
When they find out that's not the case, they get confused, angry, or what have you.
What's happening makes complete total sense if you understand who we're dealing with.
So in the case of Colorado.
This guy is admitting it.
The chair is admitting that everything they did was to deny Trump the state of Colorado.
They did it.
That was their purpose.
That was their objective.
That's not democratic.
That's unfair.
Wrong way to look at it.
Maybe unfair, maybe undemocratic.
It may be disenfranchising so forth.
But the objective here then has to be to change this going forward next time around, which means getting control of the institutions that have the power to do all these.
And that's going to be a massive undertaking.
And it's one of the things that's playing out each and every day here, in addition to the campaign that's taking place.
Now there are stories out of Colorado that this guy has had to go into hiding because Trumpsters are threatening him.
Trumpists are threatening his family.
Colorado Republican chairman Steve House getting threats from Donald Trump supporters, this according to ABC News.
Emails obtained by ABC News sent to Colorado Republican chairman Steve House, tell him to quit whining about all the threatening calls and emails he's receiving.
Another email tells him to pray he makes it to Cleveland and instructs him to support Trump or quote, you are done, unquote.
One email, provided to ABC News tells this guy House to hide his family members.
So he's out saying that Trumpists are threatening him, and they are threatening his family, and he's thinking that he's got to go into hiding, and he'd better not show up at a convention or else, or else what?
Well, something might happen.
He might not get there.
Well, why?
Well, who knows?
The plane might have a mechanical.
It might have a flat tire on the way in from the airport.
Anything could happen, trying to create this.
Aura of fear.
This does not have to do with Trump.
This has everything to do with the people having a chance to vote, one email says to Mr. House.
Hey, don't think we're doing this because of Trump.
Trump's not behind this.
Trump didn't even know we're doing it.
We're doing it because you denied us the chance to vote.
I take a break here, folks.
Hing tough.
We'll be back in just a second.
Don't go.
Meeting and surpassing all audience expectations.
Every day.
Rush Limbaugh behind the golden EIB microphone.
Look, folks, there's a there's a point about this Colorado business that I was not aware of, and this gets kind of convoluted in the weeds.
I'm going to try to make some sense of this because that's what I do, make the complex understandable.
The executive committee of the Colorado GOP voted unanimously to scrap the straw poll.
Just think of it as the primary.
Think of it as as elections.
The Colorado Executive Committee is made up of the chairman, the treasurer, the secretary, and the vice chairman, as well as all of the chairs of the 64 county party organizations in Colorado.
This vote to scrap the straw poll was done unanimously after something else happened.
This vote to scrap the straw poll in Colorado Was done unanimously after the national GOP changed a rule that would have required Colorado to bind its delegates according to the straw poll.
So yesterday I was in error.
Imagine that.
When I said that the straw poll would not have mattered anyway because the delegates would have been unbound.
The GOP apparently changed a rule to make delegates bound to the straw poll, and Colorado wanted to maintain delegate independence.
That's why they did what they did.
And because they wanted to maintain delegate independence.
Look, this is all about the GOP trying to the Colorado GOP building a firewall to stop Trump.
It happens last August when the fevered pitch, all the energy and momentum is with Trump and the Republican establishment scared to death, just like they remain scared to death today.
Anyway, I got to take a break here, but I will uh I'll continue with this when we get back.
Okay, I'm gonna start at the beginning of this so as not to be interrupted to lose train of thought, because it does.
Again, Fog, just because I take the time to explain something to you does not mean I am endorsing what I'm explaining, agreeing with it, supporting it, or whatever.
I'm just trying to take something muddied and complex and boil it down to its essence so the people understand it.
And there was uh uh something that happened that I didn't know.
It was an error yesterday talking about this whole straw poll versus caucus versus delegate selection process in Colorado.
And I didn't know it until today.
The executive committee, the Colorado GOP voted unanimously to scrap the straw poll straw poll.
Um this was done again unanimously after the national GOP changed a rule that would have required Colorado to bind its delegates according to the straw poll.
What Colorado wanted was unbound delegates.
And that's what they had in previous years.
Then the GOP, the national GOP came along and changed a rule requiring Colorado to bind its delegates according to the straw poll, which would have been an election, either statewide primary or delegates at the convention voting in a straw poll,
much like they have a straw poll at CPAC, but it would have involved actual votes, not just uh convention of delegates uh being wind and dined by candidates deciding who they're going to support.
So I was wrong yesterday when I said that the straw poll wouldn't have mattered anyway because the delegates would have been unbound.
And I illustrated the situation in Pennsylvania, which still remains true.
71 delegates in Pennsylvania, but only 17 of them are tied or bound to the election results of Pennsylvania primary.
54 are unbound.
So Colorado wanted to be entirely unbound.
The GOP came along and passed a new rule saying, sorry, your delegates will be bound by the results of your straw poll.
So this Steve House guy, the Colorado GOP chair, posted back on February 27th special note from Colorado GOP chairman Steve House on the decision to eliminate the presidential straw poll.
This past week I have received many questions.
This is February 27th.
This past week I have received many questions about why the Colorado GOP eliminated the presidential straw poll at this year's caucus.
There are several important facts and considerations taken into account.
At no time prior to this year has a straw poll in our state bound delegates to specific candidates.
Many people thought that the 2012 straw poll bound delegates to the winner Rick Santorum, when in fact it did not.
This year, Republican National Committee requires that if a party conducts a straw poll, i.e.
a primary, it must bind delegates to the results.
This is first ballot stuff.
And they didn't want that.
Colorado wanted, for whatever reason, To maintain a system where its delegates were unbound.
And the only way they could do that was to eliminate the straw poll.
So essentially, the Colorado Republican chairman is passing the baton of blame back to Rince Previs and the boys at the Republican National Committee.
So everything would have been fine.
By the way, the delegates, no matter what, in Colorado were going to be unbound from last August on.
When the GOP came along and changed the rules, said, look, your delegates are going to be bound to your election results, that's when Colorado, okay, we won't do an election.
We'll screw you that way.
We won't do an election.
We want our delegates to be unbound because we want independence, and we want to be able to do with our delegates because of where they come in the process.
You know, normally, folks, in a in a standard normal every four-year presidential election cycle, by the time we get to mid-April like this, it's pretty much over.
And the states and their primaries that are occurring now don't really matter that much in terms of determining the nominee.
They do matter in the strength the nominee has going in.
You want a unanimous nominee going forward for the presidential contest when you finally face the opposition, the Democrats.
Their exceptions.
Romney didn't wrap it up until late May in 2012.
McCain had it wrapped up in March, for example.
Obama had it wrapped up for all intents and purposes in 2008 in February.
That's why we did Operation Chaos.
To keep the Democrat primary going, because the Republican primary was already decided.
It has been, I don't know how long it's been since California mattered.
I can't remember the last time Colorado mattered.
I don't remember the last time Wisconsin mattered.
I mean, in a sense that it does now.
I can't remember where primaries in April and May were looked as forward to as Iowa and New Hampshire.
I mean, by the time we get to New York and New Jersey, it's for the most part uh it's already known.
And to many people, it's already known now.
I would be remiss if if I if I didn't also point out that, and there's even a story here at the uh CBS website with CBS, CBS News.
This is the national, not a local.
Why the GOP cannot take the nomination from Donald Trump?
Let me read his opening line here and ask you if this is similar to the way some of you are thinking.
Is it just me, he writes, or does the argument that the Republican nomination can be taken from Donald Trump at a contested convention make almost no sense?
It's not that it would be unfeasible for Cruz or some other candidate to win a majority of delegates after the first ballot is cast.
If anything, it seems more and more likely that Cruz, given his shrewdness at delegate selection, would be able to pull this off as early as the second ballot.
But if Trump arrives in Cleveland having won the most votes, the most contests, the most delegates, all of which is very likely, does anybody really think they're going to deprive him of the nomination?
It would be unprecedented in the modern political era, this guy writes.
And doing so would likely end in disaster, not only for the GOP as a whole, but its anti-Trump wing in particular.
That represents a certain body of conventional wisdom.
Now, obviously, not everybody agrees with that.
There are a lot of people who say, oh, with that, we're going to second ballot, we're going to third ballot, we're going how far we need to go to get Cruz nominated.
The Cruz forces are not going to give away, they're not going to accept that.
Now, this is obvious CBS news.
This is I. And that's why, by the way, I had the story yesterday from the RNC member who was on MSNBC, who said, hey, you know what?
Trump shows up with 1100, that's it.
He's gonna win it.
And everybody misunderstood it at first to think that the guy was saying that there's been a rule change, and it's no longer 1237, it's now 1100.
And that's not what he was saying.
He was saying if somebody shows up at 1100, there's no way the guy can't come up with the fune he needs before the first ballot, whining and dining.
Because there's going to be all kinds of unbound delegates on the first ballot.
There's no way that Trump's not going to get that was his theory yesterday.
But you still have you have uh some of the establishment who are just gonna fight this tooth and nail.
There is a somewhat interesting development overnight.
And that is Carl Rove.
There's a new story out that Carl Rove and his pack are now beginning to warm up to Trump.
And when that hit, I mean, that stunned and shocked a lot of people.
And we haven't even gotten to what's going on in the Democrats.
Salon.com's out.
Sometimes I think, well, Salon.com, and we've had uh what's the other one?
Slate.com, and we get the Huffing and Puffington Post.
It's almost, you can make book on it now, at least two left-wing liberal democrat websites each week are gonna run lengthy stories on how Hillary can't win.
Or they're gonna run lengthy stories on how the Democrat Party is imploding.
The Democrat Party is headed to minority status because of what they're doing to Bernie Sanders.
There's at least two of those stories every week.
And now we've got one today from Salon.com.
I gotta take a break.
We'll come back and start on the phones when we get back.
Okay, we start on the phones in Hayward, California.
This is Bob.
You're up first today, Bob.
Welcome to the EIB network.
Hello, sir.
Thank you, sir.
It's an honor.
I appreciate that.
Thank you.
Hey, in regards to the Colorado situation, um, even in the general election, the Constitution does not uh afford the individuals the right to vote in a presidential election.
The states decide how the electors are chosen.
So while it's politically toxic, what Colorado did was perfectly within their rights.
And I think Cruz just took advantage of that.
Well, yeah, yeah, yeah.
All that's true, and you're absolutely right.
In fact, during the Constitutional Convention, the states were adamant that they control their own elections.
They didn't want the federal government having a thing to do with them.
The federal government set the date for national federal elections, of course.
Uh there's some caveats, but the states, like every state has its own closing time, for example.
Uh every state voter ID laws are state to state, so they can do what they want.
The thing that has arisen here is the rule any good.
Yeah, they can do the rule whatever they want to do.
They can write whatever rule they want, Colorado, any state, and they did.
But now what has begun is does anybody really want to defend these rules?
Does anybody really want to defend rules that deny the people of a state a vote in the presidential primary?
And that's what has evolved out of this.
I think as maturity sets in, and as the emotion wanes a bit, people agree with what old Bob here said.
They can do what they want.
And they set the rule, and everybody knew what the rule was.
And if you want to compete there, you've got to do it the way you have to do it, and Trump didn't.
And Cruz did.
More and more people are coming to accept that, understand that.
But now it has become, what does that rule make any sense?
Why in the world would anybody defend that rule?
I'll tell you How you defend the rule.
You don't defend the rule.
You defend the right of the people that run the organization to do it the way they want.
They're also elected.
The people that run the Colorado Republican Party.
And if they want to set their rules up for primary elections, let me let me share with you some more about what House said.
Back in February, Stephen House, Colorado GOP chairman.
Quote, some ask why the Colorado GOP doesn't just comply and bind all of our delegates proportionally to the results of a straw poll.
When you see straw poll, just think election.
Why don't we do proportion?
Why don't we do winners take all?
Why don't we do any of that?
He said there are a number of reasons the executive committee decided against the poll this year, and I won't go into all of them.
However, I want to share my most pressing concern with doing a binding preference poll.
There is no such thing as a binding preference poll because when you actually award delegates via a poll, it is not a poll.
It's an election.
The results could affect the outcome of the presidential race because this year the race is likely to be very close, if not unsettled at the National Convention.
So what's wrong with an election?
He continues.
Well, nothing if you're actually going to run it with all the precautions and security measures of an actual election.
In our case, we have over 2,000 precincts in 64 counties where there is no uniformity of ballots, no uniform credentialing training process, no clarity on who actually counts ballots, no clear answer to who controls the tally sheets, no uniform.
It sounds like these guys are totally unequipped, unprepared to run a statewide primary uh primary election.
Okay, now do not make the mistake of assuming, because I'm explaining this that I agree with it.
Do not start shooting me daggers in there.
I'm just telling you what this guy's saying.
And now we've arrived at the point.
This doesn't make sense.
It does equal disenfranchising people.
It does mean people can't vote.
And if these guys can't come up with a way to do it in Colorado like they can in every other state, then maybe it's time to get rid of these guys.
That pretty much sums up the current thinking of this situation here.
Look, these guys wanted to stop Trump.
Except, yeah, they wanted to stop Trump.
This happens in August.
These guys, every four years want to stop whoever is the insurgent.
It might be Ron Paul one year.
It might be some wacko Tea Party conservative the next year.
What these guys are doing is trying to make the hill unclimbable by anybody outside the establishment GOP.
Now he can dress it all up with language about how tough elections are and how different ballots are, and how there's new uniformity here or uniformity to there, but it's clear that in this particular case, what was desired and what was attempted was a way to stop Trump.
Now they didn't know in August that they would be relevant, meaning they didn't know in August that we might be close, and the number of delegates in Colorado could matter.
But they weren't going to take the chance that it didn't.
You never know.
Like I say, McCain had it wrapped up after Florida in 2004, sorry, 2008, which was February, March, as soon as he got an endorsement from the from the from the governor, it was over.
And it didn't matter that year what happened to Colorado or New York or California or New Jersey.
And they didn't know last August whether this was going to matter by the time we got to Colorado or not, but they weren't taking any chances.
I got to take a break.
Sit tight.
We'll be back after this.
Don't go away.
Okay, I called it yesterday.
Meghan Kelly was seen sneaking into Trump Tower.
Everybody was buzzing what's going on.
I said, tell you what it is.
She's up there, she's trying to secure the appearance of the Trumpster on this new Fox network Barbara Walters type interview show she's got.
And naturally that turned out to be pretty much it.
▲
Export Selection