All Episodes
Previous Next
May 9, 2016 - Rush Limbaugh Program
37:35
May 9, 2016, Monday, Hour #2
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Meeting and surpassing all audience expectations every day.
Great to have you.
The Excellence and Broadcasting Network, Rush Limbaugh, here behind a golden EIB microphone.
Telephone number if you want to be on the program.
800-282-2882 and the email address L Rushbow at EIB net.com.
During the break at the top of the hour, I came across the latest piece by Victor Davis Hanson.
Uh writing at National Review.
It is a long piece.
It prints out the six pages.
That pretty much makes it bordering on impossible for me to share the whole thing.
I mean, I mean, even I could do it.
I mean, I could read all six pages and I could have you transfixed.
But it's still long.
I haven't had a chance to uh highlight it, which I always do, pick uh pull quotes, excerpts, and so forth.
But let me tell you what it's about.
It's about Trump and Hillary and where principled conservatives find themselves, which is not a good place.
Principled conservatives are having a real tough time with all of this.
And principled conservatives are worried that the ultimate end of this is the elimination of conservatism as a I don't want to say nominant, but maybe even relevant force in American politics.
In fact, there's a piece here by Josh Barrow, writing at Business Insider that deals with that very thing.
The crisis in the Republican Party is even worse than it looks.
I'll share that with you in a minute here.
But the VDH thing, I'm I'm gonna read this, I'm gonna summarize it when I have time to do it.
But his basic premise is that it's kind of I don't want to he thinks it's it's kind of strange that we're worried about Armageddon being brought on by Trump when we're living the apocalypse of Obama and Clinton.
Now, this is something I think Trump supporters have already figured out.
Uh and I think a lot of people instinctively have come across it or had had it reflected in their in their minds as they uh ponder all of this.
It certainly spells it out for me.
Uh in fact, I wasn't gonna grab soundbite number five.
I was gonna skip past this because I couldn't find any reason for it to relate to anything other than me being discussed in the media, but actually that now plays off of the VDH thing really well.
You you will remember this because it's by no means the first time I've expressed it.
When whenever I run across Republicans out there just belly aching about Obama and going Trump and belly aching about Trump and losing their minds over Trump.
And like last Friday when I summarized for you the genuine fatalistic it's over ism out there in so many different sectors of American conservatism, and I read the excerpts of some of these pieces to illustrate.
And I asked, where was all this during Obama?
Where's all this rage?
Where's all this anger at stuff that actually is happening and has been happening for seven and a half years.
We haven't had any anger of the sort from the Republican establishment that's being directed at Trump.
This is not a defense of Trump, by the way.
I I'm not saying any of this from a pro-Trump position here.
I'm simply observing.
And it has amazed me.
Well, I'm I'm to this day, folks, to be bluntly honest with you.
I remain really surprised I had nobody joining sides with me on January 16th of 2009 when I said I hope he fails.
When I was telling the story about the Wall Street Journal and wanting 400-word op-ed from a bunch of people on their hopes and expectations of Obama's presidency in my side, I don't need all that.
I can do it in four words.
I hope he fails.
And I got no Nobody joining me.
I got some on my side attempting to explain it, but they wouldn't join me.
And I had a cacophony of people saying, that's outrageous.
You don't say that.
We should all unify behind our president.
We should all come together.
Nobody wants our president to fail because nobody wants our country to fail.
And I said, you're missing the point.
I want Obama to fail because I want America to survive.
I want Obama to fail because I don't want progressivism and liberalism to win.
What's so hard about this?
I got no joiners.
As I say, I had I had some who who defended me on it, but I didn't have there wasn't an echo.
And there wasn't a court, and I to this day remain surprised because I thought that it was a very principled conservative position to have, to hope liberalism fails.
I mean, to me, that's what this is all about.
Meaning this program, what this program's been all about is attempting to educate, inform people of the pitfalls and the dangers of liberalism, progressivism, socialism, the left, or what have you.
And we knew enough about Obama weeks before he was inaugurated and know exactly what was going to happen with his administration because he had told us.
For example, he told us he was going to shut down the coal industry by making it impossibly expensive to stay in it.
He told us that he was going to slither his way to single payer health care.
He told us that he was going to do what he could to transform the very identity and makeup of this country.
And I said, what in the why why isn't there any not just outrage?
Why aren't people frightened by this?
I was.
I was scared to death of what Obama intended to do.
And it wasn't just because I know who liberals are and what they're going to do.
He had said so in numerous interviews going all the way back to the early 2000s.
Not to mention the things he had said in the campaign, not to mention the Jeremiah Wrights and the Bill Ayers and the people that were his friends, and all it was all there.
Every bit of it was foretold.
So to me, it was only natural to say, I hope he fails.
So likewise, I have been amazed throughout these entire seven and a half years that there's been all kinds of outrage that members of the Republican Party express for other Republicans or conservatives, but I haven't heard anything in any kind of proportion whatsoever aimed at Obama.
And now Hillary, or anything, even during the IRS scandal, even during Obamacare, even I I from the establishment of there.
Sure, there was a conservative media that was all over all this stuff, but from the standpoint of anybody else, where was the outrage?
And this outrage at Trump to me has always been out of proportion.
This fear, this this shouting of the dangers Trump represents.
What the hell do you think we're living through is?
Well, anyway, that's the point of Victor Davis Hanson's long piece here at National Review.
We're worried about Armageddon on the Trump horizon while we're living amid the apocalypse of Obama and Clinton.
It's a brilliant piece.
And you know why you'll say it's brilliant?
It's because it's so obvious.
It's once again somebody cutting through all the noise and getting to the meat and potatoes of what's actually happening.
For there's another great piece today I have.
The uh the great British historian.
Uh Paul uh Paul Paul fail me now brain, Paul.
What's anyway, he has a piece that praises Trump that talks about how important Trump is for one reason, and that Is Trump's single-handed assault on political Paul Johnson.
Paul Johnson thinks that political correctness is something a lot of people laugh at, a lot of people joke at, a lot of people reference, but that it is hideous.
That it is responsible for more of the cultural upheaval that has taken place, that it is nothing more than official slash unofficial censorship.
And he's happy for Trump for just that reason, that the whole idea of political correctness has been shown to be penetrable and survivable.
And frankly, this is one of the things about the Trump campaign that also I was hoping would be learned from.
I was hoping all kinds of things Trump was doing back last summer and fall would serve as lessons for the other Republicans in the field.
That you can criticize Obama, that you can violate political correctness, that you can say what you really think, and not only survive, you can thrive.
So I have a lot uh uh marked up the Paul Johnson piece to share with you uh during the course of the program today as well, which I will.
But here's the business insider piece.
The crisis in the Republican Party is even worse than it looks.
Now, this guy's not a conservative, he's just a business insider.
I'm not blogger, I guess, runs a website, writes for one.
Donald Trump is going to be the Republican nominee, and this alarms ideological conservatives for several reasons.
Is there any other kind of conservative?
I mean, real conservatives are ideological in definition.
Anyway, here are three reasons why Trump alarms ideological conservatives.
Number one, they think that he will lose badly to Hillary, perhaps so badly that Republicans lose both houses.
Number two, ideological conservatives are afraid that Trump will damage the brand of the Republican Party, making it harder to win future elections.
This is the lament from last week.
Somebody had a column on how much damage Herbert Hoover did to the Republican Party, and they think Trump's gonna be the next one that defaces and bastardizes the image and the brand for 50 more years.
And the third thing, they believe ideological conservatives believe that Trump lacks the temperament and character to serve as president.
Now, this guy, Josh Barrow, he says these are all good reasons to be alarmed, but there's a fourth reason for alarm that is perhaps the most alarming for all conservatives, and that is that Trump's nomination could signal the death of orthodox conservatism as one of the two main forces in American public policy,
since Trump is running away with the nomination despite being exposed as a non-conservative.
You may have a point here.
I frankly, as an ideological conservative, am not worried about that.
But I know a lot of people on my side are.
I know there are a lot of ideological conservatives who are worried this could be the end of everything.
As we discussed on Friday, here's why Mr. Barrow thinks so.
Trump is the candidate who finally figured out how to exploit the fact that much of the Republican voter base does not share the policy preferences of the Republican donor class.
And that it is therefore possible to win the nomination without being saddled with the donor base on popular policy.
Now, I think that's a little overstated.
Trump's not the only guy to come along and figure that out.
He's the first candidate to act on it.
But hell's bells.
This has been the reason for the rift in the Republican Party.
Is that the donor class is not conservative.
And therefore, the establishment isn't.
But his point is that Trump is the candidate who has finally figured out how to exploit the difference for his benefit.
And, by the way, to the detriment of the donor class.
He said conservatives haven't been able to do it.
This is why he thinks conservatives.
are worried they're going to be aced out.
Because Trump is a non-conservative, and he's come along and he's shown how to just rip to shreds the donor class.
Conservatives could never figure it out, but Trump as a candidate has done it, and that scares the heck out of them.
And then Mr. Barrow says, because Trump has shown how to do it, all kinds of copycat Trumps are going to come along in years to come and do the same thing, continuing to ace out conservatism, because what he says, his basic theory is that Orthodox conservatives are worried that Trump is exposing the fact that they were unable.
That conservatism was unable to defeat the establishment, whereas Trump as a non-conservative has shown how to do it, which means the copycat nature of things pretty much guarantees that future people will emulate Trump and not conservatism in beating the Republican establishment.
And that will then relegate orthodox conservatism to a minor, minor position way over there that nobody pays any attention to anymore.
In his words, future candidates will seek to rebuild Trump's coalition and they'll follow his footsteps by opposing free trade, by promising to protect entitlements from cuts, by questioning the value of America's commitment to military alliances, and shrugging at social changes, like the growing acceptance of transgender people and abortion as planned parenthood comments and so forth.
But Mr. Barrell says, hey, that's not even a half of it.
It gets worse.
It's easy to find examples of parties where ideologically orthodox members felt sold out by moderate leaders.
Tony Blair's a great example.
But at least those moderate leaders tend to be broadly popular with the public and win elections.
But they don't this guy doesn't think Trump has a chance.
He's popular, but he's going to win anything, which means he's going to take every movement with him.
He's going to take it all with him down the tubes.
Because here's the payoff quote.
Trump has somehow found a way to throw away the ideological extreme ideas that Orthodox conservatives cared about while actually making the party less popular.
Trump's recipe, therefore, is a recipe for conservatives to sell out and lose anyway.
And the key here is, by the way, ideologically extreme ideas.
There's no orthodox conservative that thinks what he believes is extreme.
An Orthodox conservative knows that what he believes is mainstream.
It's portrayed as extreme, but it isn't.
But the point is, his theory, Trump has found a way to get rid of conservatism while making the party less popular.
He said that couldn't that that's a double whammy on orthodox conservatives they may never recover from.
That's his theory, just sharing it with you.
Okay, between now and the end of the next break, I'm going to have some summary of the VDHP.
Victor Davis Hanchester give you an idea what he's talking about here.
But in the meantime, back to the phones.
This is Tim in St. Louis.
Great to have you on the program, sir.
Hi.
First time caller.
Oh, thank you, sir.
Great to have you here.
I think that there's going to be a big surprise in the election with the number of crossover Democrats like myself that are going to vote for Trump.
Well, you know, it won't surprise Trump.
Trump's out there saying he doesn't need to unify the Republican Party because the guys like you.
Well, you've talked about it before, moderate and conservative guys that, you know, our fathers and uncles were the Reagan Democrats that in the last seven years said, what in the heck has happened to this party?
We've been asking that for more than seven years, Tim.
Well, you know, I uh my best friend in college, who's now the Republican uh speak of the North Carolina House, shout out to Tim Moore.
Uh we would uh listen to the radio, and I'd always go, man, why do you listen to that guy?
Maybe he was right.
And now you're here.
Well, so what let me tell you ask you something.
What is it about the last seven and a half years that has you saying, what the hell are we doing here?
What's happened to us, meaning the Democrats?
I mean, frankly, Tim, there's a lot of us been asking this for a lot longer than seven and a half years.
Uh, just uh the priorities of of the party, you know.
It seems more important that you know, uh letting somebody that wants to call themselves a boy or a girl go to whatever bathroom they want to is more important than uh job security and national security.
Yes, exactly right.
Exactly.
All those things seem who wants to marry who and who wants to use what bathroom matters more than jobs, standard of living, the economy.
Something else, I don't know, you African Americans out there who believed that the election of Barack Hussein oh was going to mean, and I addressed this last week too, was going to mean substantive improvements.
And I don't mean welfare.
I don't mean more goodies and benefits.
I mean the election of Obama was gonna genuinely improve life circumstances for African Americans.
Obama's at Howard University say, hey, I was never about that.
Other people said that I was into this post-racial Americanist.
I was never into that.
I never said that.
And he's right.
He never did, but a lot of people thought it.
Grab audio soundbite number seven.
I just want case somebody wants to doubt me.
This is Obama.
This is Saturday at Washington, Howard University.
This goes by fast.
There's just eight seconds.
Here it comes in three, two, one.
My election did not create a post-racial society.
I don't know who was propagating that notion that was not mine.
Well, I don't know how many people know what a post-racial society is.
Let me tell you what it means.
It means colorblind society.
Post-racial means race ends as a factor in America.
A lot of people voted for Obama hoping that's what their vote meant.
You know this as well as I do.
There were people that voted, white people voted for Obama hoping to end this.
They think it's tearing the country apart.
They think there's been a lot of progress, still some to go, but there's no reason for the country to be further divided by it.
They were hoping that a black president would send such a message, and that it would mean substantive improvement for African Americans in this country.
And again, I want to reiterate, nobody thought that meant m more welfare or or more benefits or more dependence, but that actual quality and standard of living improvements would take place.
And there haven't been any at large.
And here's Obama said, I was never what I was about.
Other people out there saying that, but that was not mine.
So he's admitting it.
Post-racial postpartis.
He was also supposed to be post-partisan.
If you don't know what that means, how many of you remember during a campaign Obama was going to end all of the division?
We were going to unify.
We were going to come together.
We were going to be a nation at one with each other.
Yeah.
No red states, no blue states, no Democrats, no Republicans.
That's from this convention speech, Democrat Convention what in 2004.
So post-partisan was that that means that partisan America, the divide is gone, that Obama was going to do all this.
And he's telling the students at Howard University, hey, I never said that.
That was not me.
I never said because he doesn't want it to end.
He thinks there's so much payback still needed.
This country has committed unforgivable sins, And there's no way the people who committed them are going to get away this easily.
No way, Jose.
So I wonder how many people shocked, if any, to actually hear Obama.
Say it.
Here's another one.
Try this.
You're at Howard, grab number eight.
You're at Howard University.
Here comes the president of the United States, the first African American president.
Keep in mind again why so many white people voted for him.
Believe me, a lot of Republicans voted for Obama hoping to end all this racial strife, hoping that the symbolism of it would send such a message to black people.
Hey, there's not any racism, any racism anymore.
How can there be racism when there's a black president?
We get Oprah and a black.
You got to stop thinking this way.
But Obama says, no, that's not what I was about.
Now you think you voted for Obama because he was about improving the circumstances for African Americans.
Listen to this little bite.
Be confident in your heritage.
Be confident in your blackness.
Remember the tie that does bind us as African Americans.
And that is our particular awareness of injustice and unfairness and struggle.
We have cousins and uncles and brothers and sisters who we remember were just as smart and just as talented as we were, but somehow got ground down by structures that are unfair and unjust.
And that means we have to not only question the world as it is and stand up for those African Americans who haven't been so lucky.
Because yes, you've worked hard, but you've also been lucky.
That's a pet peeve of mine.
People who've been successful and don't realize they've been lucky.
That God may have blessed them.
It wasn't nothing you did.
What was that?
What was that?
Was he reverting there to uh ethnic?
That's his that's his version of Hillary saying, I ain't no way tired.
God may have blessed them.
It wasn't nothing you did.
All right, so you're out there, you've just graduated Howard University, and you got the president saying, hey, you've been lucky.
Nobody gets it.
You know, this is a this is a an offshoot of Elizabeth Warren.
You didn't build that.
You didn't make that happen, meaning your business or whatever else that you have built up.
You didn't do that.
Everybody else did that for you.
Without what everything we did, you couldn't have done diddly squat.
Here's Obama.
People have been successful and don't realize they've been lucky.
Got all these people out there successful thinking they actually done something.
You ain't done nothing.
You nothing but luck.
He's not criticizing that.
He wants people to realize that.
Because what Obama wants people to realize is that without government and without betters and without people in command and control authority, you're not gonna have diddly squat.
It's the people that got connections who get lucky.
It determines whether or not they're successful or not.
You did nothing.
It's a hell of a commencement speech, isn't it?
That's a hell of an inspirational message.
I'd be really motivated.
Okay, so I've spent four years or however many years here in this university trying to equip myself for success, and now I'm told that's not a factor.
I gotta go out and learn luck.
Where do I go to study luck?
Where do I go to get my degree in luck?
And the unspoken message is if you're black, you aren't going to have any.
Because the people in charge of luck aren't gonna pass it out to you.
This is hideous, folks.
This is anyway, he's admitting it.
Post-racial, I know it wasn't about that.
Victor Davis Hansen.
Let me briefly summarize this for you.
And this is this is the first pass, so we'll uh have more detail later.
But uh and at first glance, I'm telling you the thing appeared brilliant to me.
I haven't had a chance to really read and study it as I do most things.
But here's a basic summary.
And his point is that, you know, we're worried about Armageddon with Trump because Trump's clueless and Trump doesn't know anything, and Trump's a neophyte.
We're worried about Armageddon when we're living the apocalypse right now with Obama and Hillary, who don't know anything either.
Everything they do is wrong.
And dangerous.
So what VDH is saying here is that Trump's cluelessness, and he's acknowledging that Trump is clueless on some things.
I will get into detail of specifically what, but you know, all these flip-flops on the minimum wage and tax increases or no tax increases on the rich or not on the rich, or so that Trump's just rolling the dice as he goes.
Trump's cluelessness about the nuclear triad, and that that is from a debate.
He got a question from Hugh Hewitt about the nuclear triad.
And Trump didn't know what it was.
You could tell he didn't know what it was.
And Hugh Hewitt could tell he didn't know what it was.
Hugh Hewitt kind of let him off easy, respecting the fact that a guy was running for president, didn't expose him because I'm sure Hugh thought that he'd expose him.
He didn't know what the nuclear triad was.
But he was being asked to comment on it.
And to anybody who knows what the triad is, it was I don't know, embarrassing or disquieting or a little concerning.
Do you know what the nuclear triad is?
You do.
Yes, you do.
What do you mean you don't know what the nuclear triad is?
The nuclear triad refers to the three different ways you can launch the SOBs.
You can launch them from the Trident submarines under the ocean.
You're gonna launch them from ground-based silos, and you're gonna launch them from airborne aircraft, the triad.
Three different ways of delivering nukes.
Trump didn't know.
So Victor Davis Hansen says Trump's cluelessness about the nuclear triad is nothing but a lowbrow version of Obama's ignorance.
Whether seeking to Hispanicize the Falklands into the Maldives, the Falklands are referred to by Argentines as the as the Malvinas, not as Obama said the Maldives, or mispronouncing corpsmen, or riffing about Austrian-speaking Austrians, or the 57 states.
I mean, his point is that all these things that you are worried that Trump doesn't know, Obama is it in spades.
Obama's just as clueless about a lot of things, happily and proudly so.
So all these people getting upset that Trump didn't know about the nuclear triad.
How about how about Obama not knowing how to pronounce Corman?
Or thinking they're 57 states or riffing about Austrian-speaking Austrians, or Hillary's flat-out lie about the causes of Benghazi, hours after she had learned the truth.
It's easy to be appalled by crude ignorance, but in some ways it's more appalling to hear ignorance layered and veneered with liberal pieties and snobbery.
The choice in 2016 is not just between Trump, the supposed foreign policy dunce, and an untruthful former Secretary of State.
It's also a matter of how you prefer your obtuseness, raw or crooked, or cooked, I should say.
Who has done the greater damage to the nation?
Would-be novelist and Obama insider Ben Rhodes, who boasted about outconning the Washington media, or Corey Lewandowski.
Now Hanson's point is Lewandowski has this dust up with a reporterette.
And everybody goes ape and wants to put the guy in jail, wants charges, wants a criminal trial, wants the guy fired, once the guy strung up, they want Trump disqualified for having such a thug.
Meanwhile, we learn that we've got a guy lying to the American media about who we are negotiating a nuclear deal with with Iran.
Speaking of which, we've got a guy, Lewandowski supposedly should be prosecuted, put in jail for grabbing a reporter by the arm.
Meanwhile, we just got an administration here who's seen to it that the Iranians are going to have a nuclear bomb.
So Hanson, where's the sense of proportion?
You think Trump's an idiot?
You think he's got thugs working for him, and it's gonna be bad?
What about what we have had to endure the last seven and a half years and where has been the proportionate outrage?
Exactly my point.
And then he points out here in his piece that over the next six months, Trump could, not necessarily will, but could reinvent himself into something more responsible.
Could promise solid conservative appointments like Cruz to the Supreme Court, John Bolton to state, Larry Arne of Hillsdale is education secretary.
Things like this are things that Republicans ought to be working with Trump on to try to make happen.
And even if we think if Trump does it that it's a naked ploy to get our votes, we still have to ask, isn't a naked ploy from Trump better than Hillary Clinton?
See, Victor Davis Hanson's coming from the exact place I am.
Hillary Clinton, you can't do worse.
You're not even on the same field.
This lesser of two evils thing doesn't even apply because nobody gets close to the depth of incompetence and depravity and danger posed by another four years of the same crap that we've had the last seven and a half.
Anyway, I take a break here, folks.
We'll be back.
We will continue after this.
And we go back to the phones here on the Rush Limbaugh program at a one and only EIB network.
This is Michael in Caseville, Michigan.
Great to have you.
Hi.
Hi, how are you doing?
Um I name's Mike, a contractor from Caseville.
Uh just really worried about this election.
Uh we got these two candidates.
And, you know, you know, just because Trump has GLP next to his name, I'm I'm very conservative, but why should I settle for him?
I mean, we got the libertarians hitting 11%, they're way closer to to my values.
Yeah.
I mean, why should we settle for Trump when we don't have to?
The the older generations have messed this up by allowing this by selecting the lesser of two evils.
They keep telling me, well, that's Hillary's gonna win.
Hillary is gonna win.
See, that's the thing, though, Michael.
For the last, I don't know.
For the last how many many presidential elections, the GOP establishment has told us when we've been upset with the nominee.
Screw that.
You have a duty to hold your nose and support our nominee.
You have a duty to unify.
You have a duty to put all that aside and come together and and now that the shoes are neither foot, they have no interest in in doing the same thing.
So I don't I don't disagree with you that there's been this uh counterbalance, but you know the old saw about third parties.
They're not win anything.
When's the last one that was victorious?
The point is is we need to fire these people.
We need to get them out of there.
I mean, look at all the losing an election on both sides.
How are you gonna do it losing an election?
You you gotta make strides.
I mean, little by little, you gotta make strides.
You gotta do it somehow.
Trump got in when nobody else said he could.
I have why can't we get a nominee in there that that holds our values?
Well, where is he?
Well, like I said, the libertarians have enough support where I think they will actually make the debates this time.
And I think we need to go that way.
There isn't gonna be a libertarian candidate that is on the ballots that is holding eleven percent national support.
What who?
Jerry Johnson.
Oh, Gary John oh, Gary Trump.
How did I fail to comprehend where you were going?
You're My bad, Gary Johnson.
Yeah.
Well, he he he doesn't hold every single value I have, but at least he's not flip-flop into the going after Bernie's supporters.
I mean, that's where Trump's going.
You know?
I mean, he he's just everywhere.
Well he doesn't care about grabbing the conservative vote.
He's made that clear.
You know, I was firmly, firmly with Cruz.
I would have gone cruise all the way.
Right.
But this guy, I cannot be accountable for this.
I I just can't do it.
I I got five kids, you know, and I'm too.
I I look, I I I I hear you.
I guys guys like you, I can't tell you how I I think you guys are the backbone of America.
You've just been forgotten and all that.
But I a third party, you're not gonna win anything.
That's the you're just gonna you're gonna guarantee that what you don't want ends up victorious if you go that way.
Donald Trump is once again ripped into Hillary as a nasty, mean enabler of her husband's affairs.
That'd be sexual affairs, pecadillos.
And there's other stuff um out there as well, folks.
▲
Export Selection