All Episodes
Previous Next
April 15, 2016 - Rush Limbaugh Program
36:43
April 15, 2016, Friday, Hour #2
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Meeting and surpassing all audience expectations every day.
It's Rush Limbaugh.
This is the Excellence in Broadcasting Network and the Limbaugh Institute for Advanced Conservative Studies.
I know it might not have even been real room noise.
They could have they could have recorded any white noise anywhere and just run that audio instead of the crew's pony of my could have been anything.
I mean, you just never know.
Live from the Southern Command in Sunny South Florida.
It's open line Friday.
Okay, well, there were a couple of microphones last night that we could have done well with if they had been killed, but they weren't.
The microphones being used by Crazy Bernie and Hillary Clinton, a most amazing Democrat debate.
Here you have two people that are shouting at each other.
It got so bad that Wolf Blitzer begged them to stop shouting.
And they were shouting because they're mad.
And you really have to ask what did these people have to be mad about?
I mean you may have uh slight policy disagreements, but they're both on the same team.
They're both on the side of leftists and liberal democrats.
They're having overwhelming success in transforming the country and basically changing it forever.
To fit the socialist leftist or even worse statist image that they have for it.
I mean, they're they're literally wrecking it.
And it's something I've always noticed about liberals.
No matter what, they never laugh.
I never see a happy one.
I never see one even content.
They're always enraged about something.
They're always waiting to be offended or are offended.
Um it's the most amazing thing.
They just are incapable of being happy.
And of course, look psychologically, I know all the reasons why.
None of what they believe actually works.
There is no utopia.
There is no perfection.
The things that they dislike, they'll never be able to write out of human behavior.
They will never be able to eliminate.
And the ideas that they have for improving people's lives do not do that.
And so they're faced constantly with a reminder that what they believe doesn't work, but of course, they don't admit that to themselves.
They blame the fact that there's opposition.
No matter what it is they want, and even when they're winning it, slam duncan.
They still blame when it doesn't pan out, they blame it on their opponents simply for opposing it.
Whether the opponents have any success or not in delaying or stopping what the left wants to do, just the fact that there is opposition angers them and depresses them.
And it was on display last night, the Democrat debate.
It was uh it was in Brooklyn.
Crazy Bernie, when the debate was over, he got on a plane, flew overnight to go talk to people at the Vatican.
So we have some audio sound bites from it, and we'll get back to your calls as well.
Open line Friday means you can talk about whatever you want.
The numbers 800-282-2882, and the email address is L Rushbow at EIBNet.com.
If you if you hear one thing from last night's debate, it should be this exchange.
It sums up pretty much the whole thing.
It's too old people too decrepit, seasoned citizens to get off my yard, old people, bickering over who can give away more of other people's money.
Who's better at stealing other people's money and giving it to people?
Who has the better plan to get the most money out of working people's pockets and giving it to other people?
Wolf Blitzer got alarmed in the minute.
They tried to keep order.
Here's how it sounded.
Do we really feel confident about a candidate saying that she's gonna bring change in America when she is so dependent on big money interest?
I don't think so.
Well, let me let me just say, let me let me say Secretary, let him finish.
Senator Have you responded a moment?
Stand by Secretary, you will you will respond in A moment, but I have to follow up with Secretary Clinton.
I am sure a lot of people are very surprised to learn that you supported raising the minimum wage to fifteen bucks an hour.
No way and I have stood on the debate stage with Senator Sanders ate your time.
Excuse me, I have said Senator, please, if we can raise it to Clinton in New York for Los Angeles, Secretary, the viewers.
Let's do it.
If you're both screaming at each other, the viewers won't be able to hear either of you.
Wolf Blitzer, desperate to keep control of this.
It was a melee.
It was out of control.
And listen to what they're arguing about.
Who was first to suggest $15 an hour?
What is $15 an hour do as a minimum wage?
It loses jobs.
It is a job killer.
But these people think that all businesses are obscenely wealthy.
Small businesses, but corporations, especially.
But even small business, mom and pop storefront businesses, they believe all have a stash of money somewhere in the back, in the cash register, in the bank, and they are hoarding it.
They are not sharing it with their employees.
They're not providing them health insurance.
They're not paying them a living wage.
They're stealing the money and hoarding it for themselves so that they can go buy a yacht or go buy a boat or go buy a house that's bigger than they need.
And so these people come along like Hillary and Bernie and say, we're gonna take some of that horde that you are keeping from your workers and you are keeping from the government, and we are going to raise the minimum wage, and we are going to raise your taxes because it's obscene and unfair that you have that big meanwhile, these businesses are barely staying open.
They are all in hockey banks one way or the other.
They do not have a stash of money in the back from which they can just, oh, you you you tell me I've got a raise people up to 15.
Okay, fine.
Labor costs at most businesses are maxed out and they can't handle any more.
So what happens if the government comes along and raises the minimum wage, they fire people because the amount of money they spend on labor has got to stay constant.
And so if they have a staff to say a small business of ten people, and that staff of ten people cost them X amount of money, and that's all they've got.
And then those ten people all get a raise to fifteen bucks an hour, a couple or three of those people might have to get fired.
And that's how the minimum wage is a killer.
The minimum wage is an entry-level job.
It teaches people basic elements of employment, how to show up, which is 80% of things.
It is never intended to be a standard of living wage and is never meant to be a wage with which you forge a career.
It's entry-level.
It is for people who have no experience.
But it's been blown to smithereens with the with the perception that the minimum wage is something other than what it is.
And the evidence of what I'm saying is true.
You go to Seattle, state of Washington, where they have raised the minimum wage, particularly in restaurants, to 15 bucks an hour, and some restaurants, not just fired people.
They had to close.
A number of Washington restaurants have closed businesses all over the country this year.
But it doesn't matter.
It doesn't matter to the left because it's fair.
I'm going to give you a little example here.
And I don't this we might have this in the Soundbite roster.
I have not had a chance to read every transcript.
So you at the Soundbite crew up there, don't go and get offended if if you've got this in the roster and I haven't gotten to it yet, but it's pointed.
It is a transcript of something that was said in the debate last night.
It comes under the umbrella of no wonder young people love Crazy Birdie.
He sounds like every college professor they've got, and they all love their professors.
And so a question from the debate list.
I have a question for you.
You've said that climate change Is the greatest threat to our nation's security.
You have called for a nationwide man on fracking, Senator Sanders.
You have also called for phasing out all nuclear power in the U.S. But wouldn't your proposals of banning fracking and phasing out nuclear power.
Wouldn't those proposals drive the country back to coal and oil and actually undermine your fight against global warming?
And of course, the obvious answer is yes.
If you're going to ban fracking, if you are going to phase out nuclear power, and we're still going to have an electric grid, where are you going to get it?
You have to use oil.
You have to use coal.
To then, and to people like Bernie Sanders and a bunch of looney tunes on the left, oil and coal equal climate change.
You know what Bernie said?
Bernie said, no, no, no, no, no.
Getting rid of nuclear, phasing out nuclear and ending fracking, that wouldn't do anything you say.
Look, let me reiterate.
We have a global crisis, okay?
Okay.
Pope Francis reminded us that we are on a suicide course.
Our legislation understands that there will be economic dislocation.
It is absolutely true.
There will be some people who lose their job.
But we build into our legislation an enormous amount of money to protect those workers.
It's not their fault.
It's not their fault that fossil fuels are destroying our climate.
You know what Bernie Sanders is saying here?
Yeah, it's going to kill some jobs.
My economic and energy proposals are going to kill jobs.
And you better understand that, and you better like that.
That's what we have to do to save ourselves from climate change.
But don't worry because we are going to come up with a bunch of government programs, and we will pay you what you were earning when you were working.
We will make sure you don't suffer when you lose your job.
That's what we have to do to save our planet.
You most definitely, many of you might in fact lose your job.
But we build into our legislation an enormous amount of money to protect those workers.
Now, I want to go back, I want to share something with you from 2009.
Seven, six, seven years ago, Labor Secretary, former Labor Secretary Robert B. Rice.
The former labor secretary for Clinton was making a speech on health care.
And he said the same thing that Bernie Sanders said.
He said, look, to do health care right, it is going to cost you your job.
It's amazing what these people say.
Bernie Sanders, you ought to save the planet.
It's going to cost you your job.
It will.
We're going to have to close a bunch of industries to save the planet.
We're going to have to go backwards, though.
We got plenty of programs built in.
Here's Labor Secretary Reich.
Thank you so much for coming this afternoon.
I'm so glad to see you.
I would like to be present.
Let me tell you a few things on health care.
We have the only health care system in the world designed to avoid sick people.
That's true.
And what I'm going to do is I'm going to try to reorganize it to be more amenable to treating sick people.
But that means, particularly you young people, particularly you young healthy people, you're going to have to pay more.
And by the way, we're going to have to, if you're very old, we are not going to give you all that technology, and we're not going to give you all of those drugs for the last couple years of your life to keep you maybe going for another couple of months.
It's too expensive.
So we're going to let you die.
And the crowd applauded.
Also, I'm going to use the bargaining leverage of the federal government In terms of Medicare and Medicaid, we already have a lot of bargaining leverage to force drug companies and insurance companies and medical suppliers to reduce their costs.
Listen to this next.
But that means less innovation.
And that means less new products and less new drugs on the market, which means you are probably not going to live that much longer than your parents.
And he was serious.
So in Bertie Sanders, to save the planet, we have to change the energy industry such that many people will lose their jobs.
Labor Secretary Reich in advocating Obamacare.
In order to provide health care, we're going to have to let old people die.
We're going to take enough money away from drug companies that they can't innovate and come up with new technologies and new drugs, so there will be fewer new drugs on the market, which means you're not going to live much longer than your parents.
But we have to do that to rescue the healthcare system.
And the audiences of these people, particularly young people, applaud this crap.
You know, it used to be, folks, the left would never admit this.
They would never admit the pain and suffering their own policies would cause.
But starting with Obama, shortly after he was inaugurated, the left began to almost be honest about the pain and suffering that their policies are going to cause.
And in addition to being honest about it, they were telling us that we deserved it.
You deserve to lose your job because you working in the energy industry is causing climate change.
We are going to penalize the drug companies because we hate them.
They're too rich, they're too profitable, they don't care about people, so we're going to limit the amount of money they get for RD somehow, and we're going to have uh fewer new drugs, and there's going to be less technology, and you're not going to live as long, but that's what we have to do to bring these drug companies in line.
And both these guys sound like college professors.
Reich is one, and the audience is applaud.
And just tells people up front, and Obama did too, by the way, at that uh nationally televised health care event that ABC ran shortly after he was inaugurated.
The old woman stands up and asks if her mother, who's close to a hundred, can get a pacemaker, and Obama says, No, no.
Her will to live, her desire to live her spark, it doesn't matter.
We uh probably just ended up giving her a pill and saying, enjoy the last couple of months here, because we just I I I it it it boggles my mind that people like this are embraced and supported.
And this is what this whole Democrat debate last night was last was how painful fixing this mess is gonna be, and how you're gonna get hurt, and how a lot of people gonna some people getting hurt deserve it, and those of you who don't deserve to get hurt, we're gonna pay for it out of Federal Treasury when it's the most mind-boggling thing.
And in a sane political world, these people wouldn't get 10% of the vote.
We'll be back.
Don't go away.
It is open line Friday, L. Rushbow with half my brain tied behind my back.
Just to be fair.
And here's Patty in Naugaton, Connecticut.
Great to have you.
I'm glad you waited.
Oh, thank you so much for having me.
Uh for having me on.
I wanted to just discuss uh real quickly the audio uh for Senator Cruz.
Last time my husband and I were watching, and we knew immediately, because it was too long, sir.
My husband looked over at me and he said, I think this is intentional, and I nodded my head up in time and said, New York values.
It went too long without being fixed, and it had to be more than one person involved because nobody complained about it.
And with all due respect, I have to honestly say I hope people do not have buyer's remorse afterwards, because you don't get to go back and do this over again.
There are so many serious issues facing our country, and I personally believe that Senator Cruz has been a pillar.
I knew he would rise above this, and even if he thought it was intentional, he would get back to business of discussing the real issues this country faces, of which I think he has the best principles, values, and policies.
And on day one, he's probably already engineered in his brain how he would put things in place and be ready on day one to leave this country.
He has attributed enormous amount to this country already, even from his work in the Senate, and as to what he did before, he's preserved a lot of our uh our first amend our first amendment and our second amendment.
Well, wait, let me do you think his supporters though need some kind of affirmation, at least from the campaign.
Hey, look, we know our guy got shafted last night, he knows it, we gotta move on.
I mean, to ignore what happened last night, you you think that's wise?
I think the more attention you pay to something, the more it's a distraction it becomes a bigger issue.
They know it's not a surrogate's doing it, not him.
But you know what, Rush?
What's the point?
The point is really what it's all about in this election, and we need to keep our eye on the ball and never forget what's at stake for this country.
I know that, but if you let it stand that an entire audience at a party gathering was so bored that they got up and started milling around, that's not helpful.
America's real anchor man, uh truth detector, doctor of democracy, Rush Limbaugh here on open line Friday.
Grab audio soundbite number eleven.
This is interesting.
The people on the left know exactly what's going on our side.
You know, we had a we had a uh blurb yesterday that Carl Rove was warming up to the Trumpster.
Remember that.
And everybody said, Whoa, what's going on with that?
And Rove has now spoken, well, but I don't think Trump can win.
Meaning beat Hillary.
We have that coming up uh in due course.
But last night on Charlie Rose on PBS, David Axelwright.
You know, it's an amazing David Axelrot ran Obama's campaign.
And he is the fill-in host on PBS for Charlie Rose.
And these people maintain, no, no, no, no, no, we don't have any bias.
No, no, no, no, no, prejudice, we are journalists.
Axelrod ain't no journalist.
He's a political hag, sitting in for Charlie Rose.
This taints Charlie Rose, whether Charlie wants to admit it or not.
Anyway, Axelrod's speaking to Alex Wagner of MSNBC.
I hear from other Republicans.
Wait a minute.
I didn't say this.
I gotta set it up here.
And so they're talking about the Republican primary race.
About whether the establishment would prefer Cruz or Trump to be the party's nominee.
So this is Axarod who ran Obama's campaign with a uh uh commie babe practically from MSNBC, Alex Wagner.
And here is what the conversation sounded like.
I hear from other Republicans, you know, establishment Republicans, moderate Republicans, they would much rather see Ted Cruz lose in November because the implications for the party would be much clearer than if it was Donald Trump at the top of the ticket.
You have heard conservative Republicans say now for several cycles.
If we just nominated a true conservative and not one of these center right moderates in their view, John McCain, Mitt Romney, that we would win.
The notion of Cruz gives them a pure test of the city.
Well, these guys, what this guy's going on to say here is that according to the Republican establishment types that they're talking to.
The theory is that they want Cruz to be the nominee.
The Republican establishment wants Cruz to be the nominee because they're convinced Cruz is gonna lose.
And if they're gonna lose, they want a rock-ribbed conservative to lose.
So that they can then blame it on conservatism.
Because if conservatism is on the ballot and conservatism loses, then the Republican establishment We told you, we've been telling you there is no way we can ever win with a conservative on the ballot.
So I think that's what they're hoping.
But for Cruz to get the nomination, it appears to be a long shot.
On the second or third ballot.
So the establishment saying she's the most important thing.
And then we'll go on to lose.
It's a reality.
Because they have a runner I can say you've got to be able to do that.
Okay, we ran the best conservative.
People said we had the guy got stunked.
That's why we can never nominate another conservative over that.
So you know I have no doubt.
That is what they're trying to do.
No doubt.
Yeah, it's a very good thing.
Can that go on Abraham Lincoln in the United States?
And I'm just last night because I have to amend something that I said yesterday.
Something I said yesterday was that if Cruz somehow gets a nomination away from Trump, I said the establishment will then do everything they can to take Cruz out.
But I have to amend that now because I think if they let Cruz get the nomination and then hope that Cruz would then lose to Hillary, and then they could say, see, conservatism loses every time it's tried.
We got you guys, we got the nominee.
You said Cruz is the best conservative since Reagan and Cruz goes up there, and if Hillarita win, that'd be the end of conservatism in the Republican Party.
And that's what these people on Charlie Rose were speculating.
And I I can't discount that, folks.
I mean, I think they may have a point with that.
So I'd I'd have to, again, revise my theory from yesterday, maybe it was a couple of days ago, that say if the establishment succeeds in thwarting Trump at a contested convention, and if it if Cruz happens to pull off magic here with this delegate uh battle that he's waging and would happen to win the nomination in the second or third ballot, I said it wouldn't get that far because the establishment would move in and try to next sabotage uh Cruz.
But maybe not.
You already get Republicans out there saying they'd prefer to vote for Hillary than Trump and Cruz.
So it is something to keep in mind that the establishment, if Cruz were to be the nominee, might lay down and not offer him that much help, hoping that he'd lost so they could forever be rid of conservatism in a Republican Party.
So then it would come down to okay, whatever polling data do we have, can Cruz or Trump which of the two beat Hillary?
What are the polling data say?
And there's there's polling from Fox News today.
Strange that you should ask the question.
Let me.
Oh, yeah, Trump has this op-ed in the...
This is going to be...
This is going to be tough when I get to that.
Cruz has an op-ed in the Wall Street Journal...
Trump does, Trump does.
That's uh Well, let me just hear, since I have it in my formerly Nick State ticketing stained figures here.
On Saturday, April 9th, Mr. Trump begins in his op-ed in the Wall Street Journal today.
On Saturday, April 9th.
Colorado had an election without voters.
Delegates were chosen on behalf of a presidential nominee, yet the people of Colorado were not able to cast their ballots to say which nominee they preferred.
A planned vote had been canceled.
And one million Republicans in Colorado were sidelined.
Now, I hate to do this, but that just isn't correct.
There was never going to be an election, a primary election in Colorado.
And this op-ed gives the impression that Colorado was going to have a vote.
They were going to be a primary and people were going to vote like they have in other states.
And then at the last minute, change their mind.
There never was a planned vote.
There was never a planned vote that was canceled in Colorado.
Colorado was always, from last August, going to be what it was.
A series of conventions where delegates would be chosen to the convention by Republican attendance at these various county conventions, and then at the big state convention, but there was never going to be a vote.
And this op-ed, you know, I asked a question two days ago, and I asked it again yesterday.
And that question was why didn't Trump call attention to Colorado not having an election beforehand?
Why did he wait until Colorado's process was complete to lodge a complaint about it?
And this op-ed gives us the answer.
You know what we have here?
Trump and Colorado is a classic lesson in winning by losing.
How to win by losing.
It is apparent to me now that the Trump campaign was fully aware that they were going to lose Colorado this way and had found and discovered a way to turn that to their advantage by claiming that Colorado had cheated, by claiming that Colorado was disenfranchised, disenfranchising people, by claiming that Colorado was gonna have a vote and then change their mind.
But there never was a plan to vote.
So I've answered my question.
Trump waited till after Colorado to exploit the fact that there was not an election there.
And it helped his point if he lost.
So for those of you devising campaign strategies in the future, file this one under the category of winning by losing.
And even in the next page of the op-ed, he refers to it again.
He said no one forced anyone to cancel the vote in Colorado.
Political insiders made a choice to cancel it, and it was the wrong choice.
There was no vote ever intended to happen.
So there was never in this cycle a cancellation of an election.
But Trump's op-ed makes it look like there was a schedule vote and a last minute cancellation to disenfranchise people because they didn't want Trump to win.
And Trump supporters are more than happy to embrace that.
I mean, every supporter loves it when their guy is the victim of some cheating or some dirty trick.
So I've answered my question.
Why didn't Trump call attention to this before they caucused in Colorado?
Because he was counting on losing and then exploiting it, which he's done brilliantly, and here you have this this op-ed in the Wall Street Journal, which carries the theme forward.
And Fox News poll data got that when we come back.
Don't go away, folks, they'll rush bowl and open line Friday back after this.
Oh yeah, this this Trump op-ed, it it carries on the narrative that is fundamental to populism.
You can you cannot have populism without the impression that the man is shafting the little guy.
And so the the contre temps, the controversy in Colorado, uh has actually buttressed Trump's campaign theme, that the political system is rigged against the little guy.
This case Trump's a little guy is the outsider, so the political process rigged against the little guy.
He's the champion of little guy, so they're rigging it against him and his op-ed today, making it look like Colorado had planned to have an election and cancel plans.
That didn't happen.
There was never going to be an election.
But it doesn't matter.
As far as Trumpists are concerned, their guy got screwed, and that's the end of it.
And not only did their guy get screwed, the American people got screwed because the establishment didn't let people vote.
Even though there never was going to be a vote.
Back to the phones, Louisa in Greeley, Colorado.
Great to have you with us.
Hello.
Hi, big sale dos to you, Rush.
Thank you very much.
Uh yes, I wanted to give you an eyewitness account from uh Colorado Assembly on Saturday the night uh to tell you that the room fell silent for Ted Cruz, and we all listened with rapt attention.
Um but when Ted or um Trump man stood up, that was the time that people chose to go uh refresh their coffee.
And uh that speech was forgettable, but Ted Cruz is what found, and we all listened.
So that the uh we did in fact have an election, lots of elections.
We have them at every precinct, which is how I ended up as a delegate.
So it is not true to say that there were no elections in Colorado.
In fact, there were lots.
Okay, but there were uh there were not there was not a primary election like everybody thinks of primary elections where average ordinary common people go to the polls and vote.
Colorado choice there chose their delegates in a in a different way.
They were gonna be unbound anyway, even if there had been an election, like it had always been the case.
Uh Anyway, it's it's look, folks, you can say what you want.
This is this is if if you if you remove yourself from it in a in a preference way and just look at this as, say, in a scientific study, you have to acknowledge that this has been fairly well planned and well executed.
I mean, it's it's abundantly clear to me now that the Trump campaign knew long time ago Colorado wasn't gonna have an election.
Not a standard ordinary typical primary election.
It's abundantly obvious to me now that the Trump campaign planned on exploiting it.
Right along the lines of their entire campaign theme.
Outsider populism deck stacked against the outsider who represents the little guy.
They knew there wasn't going to be a primary.
They knew there wasn't going to be primary vote, so they objected.
Don't mention this beforehand.
Because what you want to do is lose this to be able to then go forth and write your Wall Street Journal op-ed about how an election had been planned and canceled.
Because I mean, the implied thing there is they knew we were going to win, they knew we were going to win the Trump people say, and so they cancel the election, so we wouldn't win.
Never mind there wasn't an election.
Never mind there never was going to be an election.
Never mind there wasn't going to be a primary.
Therefore, there wasn't an election that could be canceled.
Doesn't matter.
In the world where perception is reality, this is another slam dunk score.
And I'm sure there's some people upset about it who think that this ought to be all above board and honest.
These are serious times.
We don't have time to monkey around here.
We gotta get in there, we gotta address these issues, we gotta educate people, they gotta vote as an informed electorate as possible.
And one side thing to hell with that, we're just gonna win.
Whatever it takes to win, we're gonna win.
We can't go forward without winning.
That's the objective.
We're gonna win.
And that seems to be the guiding principle and philosophy here.
Eric in Bedford, New York.
It's great to have you.
You're next on Open Line Friday.
Hi.
Hello.
I think Donald Trump is more interested in starting a new party, something much larger than just being a president.
There are lots of presidents, but far fewer political parties, and I think that's a much bigger ambition, much more in keeping with his big personality.
So are you saying that Trump not only wants to win the presidency, that as part of that, he wants to create a new party along with it.
That's correct.
So it's not that he is trying to create a party that might lose the presidency.
He's trying to do both, in your opinion.
That's correct.
He would never try to lose anything.
I think he would try to win, but I think the presidency itself is even smaller than he thinks.
I think he thinks bigger, and that bigger than the president would be an entire political party.
Well, look, I understand that that last point you made, but I have to tell you something, I don't think the presidency is small.
I think Obama's made it huge.
I think Obama's turned the presidency into something that it's never constitutionally written to be.
Eric Erickson had an op-ed at his website with this as the premise that – his point, the reason there is so much controversy in these campaigns now, the reason there's so much acrimony is because the presidency has become so powerful.
Much more powerful than it was ever written to be in the Constitution.
So everybody wants it.
And everybody wants it to be used to pave the way for the things that they want.
And that if the presidency weren't nearly As powerful as Obama has made it, and then maybe some other previous ones too, that it wouldn't have such importance.
I you might be able to debate whether or not campaigns would be less intense because of it, but it's still a good point that the presidency is not small now.
It's a much larger branch.
It's not coequal with the other two by any stretch anymore.
We have a call up here that...
I've got to check this out when we get back from the break.
A bunch of noise when I was talking about Ted Cruz.
Ted Cruz.
Uh huh.
Uh huh.
Uh-huh.
Okay.
▲
Export Selection