All Episodes
Previous Next
May 4, 2016 - Rush Limbaugh Program
32:27
May 4, 2016, Wednesday, Hour #3
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Checking the emails during the break.
A couple of people said, Rush, Rush, thank you for trying to keep everybody a good frame of mind today, but don't feel so bad for Cruz.
He can be back in four years in 2020.
Folks, I know that.
We don't, I'm going to just tell you the truth.
We don't have four years.
And it isn't going to be four years if Hillary Clinton gets elected.
If she gets elected, this is what I don't understand.
Anybody calls themselves a conservative or anybody calling themselves Republican.
I don't understand anybody voting for Hillary.
Anybody who is a Republican or conservative that thinks they're going to vote for Hillary doesn't think the country is in the dire straits that I think it's in.
And I'm prepared to acknowledge that there are many people that do not think that we are in a crisis.
You and I know that we have people.
Most of the established Republican doesn't think that because they're not affected by it.
They're going to prosper no matter who wins elections, unless, of course, it's Ted Cruz, and that means conservatism would be ascendant in the Republican Party.
They can't have that.
Yeah, they'd rather have Hillary Clinton.
You give Hillary four years, how many Supreme Court justices are already writing their own eulogies for crying out?
The next Democrat president, the next, is going to have three or four Supreme Court.
The left on the Supreme Court is not a bunch of judges.
It's a voting block.
The left does not put judges, well, they're judges, but that's not why they're on the court.
They are ideologues.
They are activist leftists to advance the Democrat Party agenda.
And right now, there's only four of them.
And maybe on some cases, a fifth, depending on how Anthony Kennedy wants to go.
But you let Hillary Clinton be elected and they're going to get their fifth and their sixth and their seventh.
And who, 2020 comes along?
Yeah, there's going to be a presidential race.
And yeah, the country may be in such dire straits that we'll get.
But why do we, I'd rather not have to deal with five or six or more leftists on the Supreme Court for another 30 years.
It's all good and well to talk about people's future career prospects running for president in four years, but that seems to assume that Hillary's going to win, and that's what this means last night, and it need not.
And I honestly, to tell you the truth, I don't know how anybody, I am going to project here my own view of things on other people.
I assume my view is commonsensical.
I assume my view is non-controversial.
The Democrat Party is why we are all animated.
It's why we're all energized.
It's why we're all involved in this.
It's to stop them.
It's what 2010 was about.
It's what the Tea Party was about.
It's what 2014 is about.
It's what conservatism is about.
It's about stopping the Democrat Party.
It's about stopping Hillary Clinton.
It's about putting the brakes on the Obama agenda.
And anybody who says that they're going to vote for that agenda, who also claims to be a Republican or conservative, must not see the existential crisis that I see.
And that makes me really curious.
How do they not see it?
Because we're living it.
It's a great puzzlement to me.
I want to share with you a fascinating little email that I received during the course of the program today.
It addresses, we had a call here talking about morality and how morality and conservatism, if we obliterate the whole notion of right and wrong, then how can we also have conservatism?
And the email is from a Trumpist who claims to be a conservative.
Cruz is a godly leader and will be used again is the subject line.
Email is, I don't believe this has anything to do with people not wanting conservatism or not wanting morality.
We do want it.
This country has come so far down from where we were with Reagan that even if I would love Ted Cruz to be our president and I would love to have the Bible back in school, how much just that would help our country.
And I think Cruz might have been able to do that, but our country has fallen so low into immorality and liberalism that Cruz, as 100% moral and 100% conservative can't win in the climate we have today.
Trump, okay, maybe 40% conservative, but he has a chance to actually win.
And IRush will take 40% conservative now and work our way back up, maybe 50% next time.
We just have to get back the office presidency with an outsider, which Cruz would be amazing, but this election from where we are, 100% conservative, is going to be rejected every day.
It's too scary to people.
It's too stark.
It's too drastic a change.
I pray that will not be the case in years to come.
Sent from my iPhone.
So there you have a Trump supporter explaining how she would love it to be Cruz, but doesn't think Cruz could ever win this year.
Because the country is just not prepared to put on the screeching brakes and do a 180, a 180 return in one election.
Meanwhile, try this.
I told you we're going to be loaded here today.
This is from the Politico.
New immigration fight looms in Congress.
I should add, there should be a word to this headline.
New immigration fight quietly looms in Congress.
A proposal for low-skilled worker visas threatens to drive a wedge through both parties.
Let me tell you about this and ask you if you've heard any of this.
Lawmakers on both sides of the aisle on Capitol Hill are quietly launching a new effort to expand visas for low-skilled foreign workers in government funding bills.
In other words, a budget bill, and they're hiding an expansion of the B2B visa.
In other words, they're quietly, meaning it's not a bill mentioning that.
It's a budget bill.
And oh, as part of it here, Section 14CA, see that over there?
That expands the number of visas for low-skilled foreign workers that'll be permitted into the country.
Hey, it's just like immigration reform.
It's no different than what Disney's doing, firing Americans and replacing them with educated but foreign workers who are working for much less than Americans.
And the number of visas permitting the number of such people to be hired is quietly launching this effort.
Republicans and Democrats whose home states rely on immigrant labor are lobbying top appropriators, i.e.
congressmen, to include language in this year's budget bills, it says here, funding bill, budget bills, to renew controversial provisions from last year's omnibus spending measure that effectively quadrupled the number of low-skilled worker visas.
They want even more.
Nine House lawmakers led by Republican Billy Long of Missouri sent a letter last week urging the Appropriations Committee to keep those higher numbers intact, and key senators have already begun to discuss the issue.
Again, the program in question is the H-2B visa, which covers immigrants who work as landscapers, housekeepers, and, of all things, seafood processors.
Those visas are legally capped at $66,000 per year, which pro-business advocates say is an artificially low number that could harm key American industries.
This year's push on Capitol Hill comes against the presidential backdrop of the GOP presidential campaign and Trump, whose hardline view towards immigrants and higher Americans first rhetoric has galvanized the right.
And it says here, this is, by the way, politico again.
However, Trump himself has made the case for these kinds of visas.
He needs them at his hotels and stuff.
So, I mean, even as this is all going on, the campaign's all going on over there.
They're still working to expand the age.
Now, this is not southern border, open border, illegal immigration we're talking about, but it's still an expansion of the number of visas granted to foreign workers who will, well, by definition, they're not cheap.
It's cheap labor.
They're lower wage labor than people who currently have those jobs with their being paid.
I just thought that I would throw that in.
Another story that's just off the proverbial wire.
And this is from Paul Apaula.
I'm sorry, Paula Bolyard.
And I've not heard of her before.
It doesn't mean anything.
I just haven't.
Writing at PJ Media, which is a conservative blog for most purposes.
And the headline is, get ready for the biggest media assault you have ever seen, aimed squarely at Trump.
Pull quote.
This Trump tsunami is going to come crashing down between now and the convention in Cleveland in July.
It may not play out exactly as I've described here, but there will undoubtedly be some version of this.
The left and their partners in crime and the media are going to destroy Trump.
They are not going to stand by and take a chance that Hillary Clinton will not be the next president.
They may not like Hillary, but they know she'll reliably protect their dual sacraments, abortion on demand and LGBT rights.
Lesbian, gay, bisexual, and those two things are paramount interest to the media and by extension, Democrats, and that is abortion and gay rights.
They have no idea what Trump will do.
They can't take the chance, but they won't risk losing the ground they've gained with Obama, especially in the courts, to a giant, unstable question mark like Donald Trump.
The knives are being sharpened as we speak.
Now, this is kind of counter to a theory that I articulated earlier in the program.
I can see the following happening.
I'm not predicting it.
Maybe some of you think I predicted it.
And I might predict it at some point, which is itself a good point.
We need to give ourselves a day, two days, a week, maybe 10 days to go by and revisit all this stuff.
Can't avoid doing that anyway.
And we'll just see how many people who are saying things right now in the heat of the moment have changes of heart, one way or the other, because that undoubtedly will happen.
But here's what I can see happening.
All through this campaign, the media was expected to turn on Trump at some point.
There was maybe a hope that that would happen.
There was also a great expectation that Trump would implode on his own.
Many people thought that.
Many people, after his first announcement speech, many people laughing at this guy, he's not even serious.
I had somebody send me a note.
Get this.
I got a note last night.
Rush, did you see Trump's hair at his speech tonight?
He's not purposely trying to win this.
Nobody shows up with hair that color, serious about winning.
I just had to laugh.
I mean, the things people see and they react to.
How could you walk out of your home with your hair that color, said the note.
How could you do it?
How could you go on TV with your hair orange?
He's purposely, Rush, he doesn't want to win this.
He can't be serious, not showing up with hair like that.
I got that note last night.
Here's what I can see happening, because it already is.
The media is in love with the guy.
They may hate him, but they can't stop covering the guy.
And it has meant it.
Did you see, folks, did you see the story?
I was going to talk about this yesterday, and of course, I had to broom it out for other things.
Did you see the story that CNN has overtaken Fox ratings-wise in prime time in the demo?
What, 2554?
Did you see that?
You didn't see that?
Well, it's been reported that that's the case.
I mean, Fox is still overall number one, you know, midnight to midnight, Monday through Sunday, 12 plus.
But when you get to the demo into prime time, what has CNN done differently than they were used to doing?
Why are people tuning in to CNN?
I mean, if these numbers are right, they are.
Why are they watching CNN?
Well, certainly it's because they're not.
Did you say not watching Megan?
Okay, so here we go.
Now I'm going to get all this anecdotal evidence.
Okay, so you're trying to tell me that Fox is losing audience out there because of things Fox is doing, right?
That's your.
All right, okay, that's what you're telling me.
Fine.
Maybe, but I'm telling you, CNN has made some fundamental content changes.
You haven't noticed all the conservative commentators they've hired.
Not just Jeff, they have hired a bunch, and they're on all the time, and they are not laughed at, made fun of, and hooted and hollered off the set.
They are treated as co-equals.
It's never been done on CNN.
Now, is that a factor in their ratings and audience gain?
I mean, I get emails too about Fox, anecdotal stories about people upset with Fox for the same reason.
Too many liberals on Fox now, too many commentators and strategists and analysts and so forth, and then others who think that Fox is not the conservative thing it used to be.
Whatever.
It's all anecdotal.
You can't factor.
There's nothing scientific about it.
You can choose to believe what you want.
But with CNN, you can look, there are substantive content changes they've made.
Now, have conservatives discovered it and have grabbed it?
Or is the programming just more interesting than it usually is in CNN?
I know something has to explain it.
And the CNN people, they think they know what they're doing that's changed people's minds about it, about them.
And they the point here.
Look, I've got to take a break.
I'm sorry to interrupt myself.
You think you're frustrated?
You don't know the half of it.
I've got to take a break.
I'll be back.
We'll continue this when we get back.
Okay, the theory very quickly is that the media is in love with Trump because the programming that Trump provides is something they can't provide on their own.
No network can.
There isn't a cable network out there that has a personality that can draw a crowd like Trump for the reasons Trump does.
Maybe a couple, but certainly not enough to generate audience tune-in factors that increase the audience throughout the busy broadcast day or night.
And with Trump doing that, there is more attention than ever being paid to the places these people work.
All of these people, audience ratings are higher than ever.
And as such, they're getting more comment from the public.
Take your pick of any host on any network you want and more people than ever telling them, yeah, man, I watch, I watch.
And they're hearing this.
And Trump is drama.
Trump's the unknown every day.
Trump is the unexpected.
You never know what's going to happen.
And it has meant the revival of some cable networks.
It's meant a lot.
And my point is, even they, and they hate it.
They don't like having to turn the network over to Trump, but they can't not do it.
And they've gotten comfortable with it.
And I think, and it could be something that is momentous about Trump.
I don't know.
But what if the media did decide that they would rather have Trump in the White House than Hillary, simply because it'd be more fun, it'd be more exciting.
And who knows, they think they might be able to bend and shape Trump to do what they want done.
But it might mean bigger audiences.
Hillary, there's nothing exciting about Hillary.
What Hillary is is ideologically pure and would give them total confidence that their liberalism is going to be.
And that's a big deal.
It would be, I realize my theory is out there.
It's not yet a prediction, my possibility.
It's way out there that the media could actually want Trump to be in the White House because they love what Trump has meant to them during this campaign.
And why should it stop?
Because it's not going to be exciting covering Hillary.
She's going to do what Obama does and build a wall and try to keep him out only when she wants him in there and yet demand fealty from them.
So I'm not yet prepared to predict it, but I'm not also prepared to predict that the media is preparing a seek and destroy mission on Trump.
I mean, the common sense reaction is, yeah, they'll do that because then the push comes to shove.
They're going to make sure their Democrat buddies stay in the White House.
And that's a common sense belief to have.
But I tell you, the experiences that many of these media people are having with Trump as the focal point changed their lives and careers for the better in their minds.
Now this is getting interesting.
This is getting fun.
I just got another email from a Trump supporter watching MSNBC.
Apparently, Trump's out there saying it's a great thing, Kasich, getting out of the race, going back to Ohio.
And apparently, Trump is talking about his running mace.
It'll probably be a person with political experience because while I've been in the world of politics all my life, the business I will handle so well will bring our jobs back.
I do want people, somebody that could truly be good with respect to dealing with the Senate, dealing with Congress, getting legislation passed, so forth.
And he's talking about Kasich.
It's a good thing Kasich got out of the race, go back to Ohio.
And Rush is the fix in?
Have we been played the whole time?
What he needs to fix in.
It would make the fix that Kasich stayed in to harm Cruz.
Okay.
Well, if there was a Trump Kasich deal all along, you think you've been played?
Hello, welcome to politics.
What do you mean you haven't been played?
If Kasich, have you ever heard of Huckabee?
You remember what Huckabee did to Romney in 2008?
Well, you think it was dirty.
You think it was sweet, whatever.
But Huckabee threw all his delegates to McCain of West Virginia, and then Christ endorsed McCain.
It was over because Huckabee didn't like whoever.
Romney, I guess.
I don't know.
So if Trump and Kasich have had an agreement all along that Kasich could stay in just as an insect, you know, pestering Cruz and denying Cruz the one-on-one, hey.
And if Trump chooses Kasich, some people are going to say, good move.
That's Ohio.
Get to get used to it.
I might cringe a little, but some people will think it's a good idea because it's Ohio.
The theory being we can't win without Ohio.
I would say, Trump, I thought you're going to rewrite the map.
Maybe not need Ohio.
Maybe get Wisconsin or Illinois instead.
I know we need Ohio.
But now, no, nobody, nobody was being played.
Let me ask you this.
Let me ask you this.
For you, Cruz supporters that right now can't see any way of supporting Trump.
Did you hear Trump's apology to Cruz last night?
Yes, you did.
You just didn't hear those words.
But you heard Trump praise Cruz as a competitor.
That was the apology.
By the way, Trump was back at it today on this Raphael Cruz, and he was asked about it.
He said, hey, look, I'm just telling you what was in the paper about Raphael Cruz and Lee Harvey Oswald.
But here's the question.
What if Trump says that he would seriously consider Cruz to replace Scalia on these Supreme Court?
Do you think that would revive some never Trumpers?
Would you think Cruz would be interested in it?
Lifetime Supreme Court can't run for president anymore if you do that.
More important.
All right, well, we'll put that, you know, I'll talk to Trump about it, see what happens.
Okay, back to the phones.
John in Blue Bell, Pennsylvania.
Great to have you on the program.
Hello.
Thanks, Rush.
God bless you.
I consistently pray that you stay interested and for your good health.
I wanted to say the wounds, you know, they haven't healed from last night, and everyone, you know, they want us conservatives to get over it and jump on board the Trump bandwagon.
You know, we're asked to bend and break our values to have unity and to get along.
And it sounds, you know, familiar with everything that happens.
Even though we know Trump would have, he would have gone third party had he lost.
And trust me, I am in the ABH, the anybody but Hillary camp.
But it's time for Trump to sell me and conservatives on how he's going to get my vote.
Well, it'd be interesting to see if he does that.
I think you're right.
I said earlier that it's sadly, it's the responsibility of losers to get with the program.
But at the same time, Trump could be, it would be a very magnanimous gesture, and he's going to need it, by the way.
He's going to need as many anti-Hillary votes.
And a conservative is a guaranteed anti-Hillary vote, but he's got to go out and get them.
Because right now, some of them are very, very angry at him and don't trust him and don't think that he is one of them.
And there are things he could do to allay some of those fears, but I think you're right.
He's going to have to.
I'll talk to him about it.
Anything else?
Hello.
John, are you there?
Yes, I am.
Okay, is there anything else you wanted to add?
Well, I mean, I question if the Trumpsters, if the Trumpsters have the fortitude to withstand the press as they turn on him.
I mean, I think it's going to come, and basically you know it's happening.
Wait, wait, what do you mean?
But what do you mean the Trumpsters withstand?
Who do you mean?
Well, the folks that are all for Trump, they've been for Trump all along, and now the press is going to turn on them.
Are they going to be able to have the guts to stick up for him?
I wouldn't want to be the media if they turn on Trump.
These Trumpists, are you kidding me?
Unless you're thinking about a different thing than I am, I wouldn't want to be the media turning on Trump.
Look, what I'm going to say next might offend some of you.
I'm not trying to, but some of these Trump supporters are sophisticated people.
I know you think a lot of them are just brain dead, and a lot of them are just reactionary single-issue types.
And that may well be, but they are devoted to the guy.
Remember, I've talked ad nauseum about the connection.
Sadly, folks, look, this job is really tough.
I say things about people that don't sound complimentary, but I have to say them.
I can't skirt around it.
Trump has a connection with his voters.
There's a bond there.
You can almost see the connection.
Unfortunately, Cruz was not able to establish that beyond his core group of supporters.
It's a tough thing to do.
Some people have the talent naturally.
It's just charisma, the it factor.
But people who don't have the charisma or the it factor, some of them are still able to make a connection with people in politics, in entertainment, or what have you.
And it's becoming a necessity.
Obama has the connection with his portion of his supporters.
Reagan did.
But Romney didn't, for example.
McCain didn't, for example.
Most don't.
But when it exists, it's really, really hard to break it.
Because that bond makes, in this case, the Trump supporters, highly defensive and protective.
And anybody that turns on their guy is going to hear about it.
They're not going to panic and abandon Trump because the media turns against him.
I'd be surprised if that happened.
Back after this, folks.
Some other people have had reactions to this.
Rich Lowry at National Review on Fox last night said Reagan conservatism is now in exile.
What's your reaction to that?
Reagan conservative conservatism is in exile.
Well, if National Review continues to publish, then it won't be, right?
Theoretically, if National Review is still publishing, then Reagan Conservative won't be in Excel.
It'll be right out there in the open.
Dr. Krauthammer on the Fox News channel last night said for the first time in 50 years, the Republican Party is not the conservative party.
He's not sure if he can vote for Trump.
He's just not sure.
He just, I heard him.
I saw him explain why he couldn't do it, and he just, he just, he may not be able to pull the trigger.
Now, it's one thing, Charles Krauthammer used to be a Democrat.
He used to be, I think he was a Mondale Democrat.
But he says he can't vote for Trump.
Right now, he can't.
He says he's not decided what I'm going to do, except for that I'm going to try to state what I see as the future of the party.
And the question is, are we going to have a conservative program before us or not?
I don't know, but we will see.
Well, you may not get a, you're not going to get ideological conservatism out of Trump.
You may get something here or there that is conservative.
You may get a policy.
You may get any number that might be conservative.
They're just not going to be heralded and impressive.
Trump announces conservative policy.
It's not going to be that way, but you'll be able to spot it.
Peggy Noonan, it's not just knuckle-draggers.
There are secret Trumpers and shy Trumpers in the GOP.
And she was on CBS.
She can't believe that he won Greenwich, Connecticut.
That's like what?
Bob Schieffer, CBI.
They brought him out of retirement for this campaign.
Bob Schieffer, this is so classic.
He said that he can't believe that working class voters support a billionaire who has his own airplane.
He thinks that working-class people would automatically reject somebody with their own.
Why didn't I reject the Kennedys then, Bob?
Here's Amanda in Wellington, Florida.
Great to have you with us.
Hello.
Hi.
I just wanted to make a comment that I don't think there's any way Cruz really could have one right now, nor really should he have.
People are hurting.
They need relief right now.
And Cruz stands for amazing things, and I think he would be incredible, and I hope he does get his shot at it.
But right now, Trump is speaking to the masses, whether people are admitting it or not, because people are hurting.
I mean, you look at that $400, you know, could somebody come up with it?
Yeah, it's amazing, isn't it?
And that's where I think he's getting everybody, and people can't see it.
Well, how do you not see it?
Because, I don't know, it's just my thoughts.
No, I think, look, I know what you're saying.
And I have similar beliefs.
My job with the Kansas City Royals when I had it was marketing.
And the one thing, and we had a marketing plan.
Every season, we had a theme, and the design purpose of the theme was to get more people to come to the ballpark, which meant buying tickets.
But we never announced how we were going to do it.
We just designed the plan, and then we implemented it.
It would be counterproductive to say, here is our plan this year to separate you from your money.
Well, with the same token, I think to run around saying, I'm the most conservative guy, I'm the conservative you can trust.
Just do it.
Just go out there and be it.
This telegraphing it at this particular point is, it might make it a bigger target than it otherwise would be.
Anyway, folks, I'm out of time here.
There's a lot of stuff here that we need to continue on with tomorrow, which we will.
Say, would you say that anti-illegal immigration is a conservative position?
Well, that would make Trump more conservative than a lot of conservative media types at the Wall Street Journal, for example, and maybe at other places.
Just saying.
▲
Export Selection