All Episodes
Previous Next
May 18, 2016 - Rush Limbaugh Program
34:10
May 18, 2016, Wednesday, Hour #2
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
If it if it is now sexist to tell a woman she looks tired, and particularly if you do that when she's not wearing any makeup.
I mean that according to the UNK Telegraph, that's what makes men think women look tired, is they're not wearing makeup.
Anyway, does all of this mean we're never going to be able to say that about Hillary ever again?
Because men, is that not the common?
I mean, even with makeup.
Looks he's not supposed to go there, are we?
I know.
It looks haggard, looks haggard, looks bedraggled, looks uh looks worn out, looks put up out, put on.
Uh it's not a pretty picture out there, and it hasn't been in a while.
Anyway, greetings, my friends, welcome back.
Great to have you.
L Rushbow behind the Golden EIB microphone back in action.
800 282882.
If you want to be on the program, the email address, L Rushbow at EIB net.com.
Now uh it's Crooked Hillary, barely hanging on with Crazy Bernie yapping at her heels, and Crazy Bernie says he's not going anywhere.
He's hanging in there until the last ballot is cast.
And there's beginning to be some cracks in the superdelegates.
Folks, I'm gonna say this.
For every report that you actually hear or see about Democrats being concerned, multiply it by ten.
This is not at all how this was supposed to go.
In fact, let me find something for you.
Let me find this.
Let me find this one.
Uh I have I found a piece from a year ago.
Here it is.
It was by this guy, what's this guy's name?
Was uh New York Times David Leonard when a presidential nominating contest isn't a contest.
This is how this year was supposed to go.
The Democrat this is this is published March 9th, 2015, so about 14 months ago.
Hillary Clinton and 2016 is the column title.
A Democrat Party's on the cusp of a primary election campaign, unlike any in memory.
It does not have an incumbent president running for re-election.
It does not even have a sitting vice president with an easy, easy path to the nomination.
Yet the party may conduct one of the least competitive nominating contests in modern political history.
New York Times could not have been more wrong, could not have been further off the beaten path.
Establishment pundits, pollsters, consultants, donors, could they have been any more wrong about Hillary Clinton or Trump for that matter.
Here we have a very smug opinion piece, and it couldn't be farther from the truth.
It's not a lie, it's just the guy had no idea.
No Democrat did.
What this column was intended to be was a reassuring piece.
It was also to warn off any potential challengers to Mrs. Clinton.
It was supposed to send the signal, don't even try it.
There's no path to victory for you.
2016 is Mrs. Clinton's in our party.
So all of you crazy Bernies and you other wannabes, Elizabeth Warren's out there, just stand down.
Next year is not your year.
That's the message here.
And all of them listen to it, except for Crazy Bernie and Martin O'Malley, who never was a serious candidate anyway.
So the fix was in.
The fix was in for crooked Hillary.
They tried to take the selection away from Democrat voters.
They gave Hillary all the superdelegates.
They practically gave her the nomination before the primary season even began.
The one thing they didn't factor was the public opinion of Democrat voters.
So here you had you had contempt, you had arrogance, you had conceit.
Arrogance alone is a killer.
But you combine arrogance with conceit and contempt.
You put it in charge of those who are already out of touch with voters in their own political party.
You've got a recipe for disaster.
Here's the rest of the piece.
Not all of it, but just enough to give you the flavor.
And it's uh it was by Pat uh David Leonard.
David Leonard.
Hillary Clinton is in as strong a position as any non-incumbent trying to win a major party nomination has ever been.
Her poll numbers and the decisions being made by rival candidates all suggest she is far stronger than she was eight years ago.
The legitimate questions about why she seems to have violated State Department email policy will not change this fact.
While it is still early in the 2016 campaign, it's not that early.
We are well into the so-called invisible campaign, with candidates, donors, and campaign aides all making decisions about 2016.
On the Republican side, Mitt Romney, having struggled in the invisible campaign, has already changed his mind about running.
On the Democrat side, in contrast to eight years ago, no one as strong as Barack Obama or John Edwards or even Bill Richardson has shown signs of taking on Mrs. Clinton.
The situation has both benefits and drawbacks for the Democrats.
If it continues, it would allow Mrs. Clinton to save her money for a general campaign and to avoid having Democrat rivals criticize her in ways that voters remember.
But it may also prevent her from working off her rough edges as a candidate early in the cycle, and will allow Republicans to train their attention and negative messages on a single candidate from the start.
On a policy level, a Clinton cakewalk will mean the party doesn't have some of the constructive debates about health care and tax policy that Obama, Mrs. Clinton, and Mr. Constructive debates that they nothing, there wasn't any constructive debates about health care in the Democrat primaries in 2008.
Anyway, don't get me off track.
Fourteen months ago, the opinion of power brokers in the Democrat Party was it's over.
There isn't even going to be a primary campaign on the Democrat side.
It's Hillary's.
We are coronating her.
This guy wrote this piece, and it goes on.
Totally wrong, misses everything.
My only point in calling this to your attention is to illustrate that that opinion was shared by practically every power broker you can find in the Democrat Party coast to coast.
And so what's happening now is genuine earthquake status.
tsunami they don't know how to deal with it because this was not supposed to happen Mrs. Clinton was supposed to be at 60% right now.
And climbing against any Republican.
Obama was supposed to be in his last year, sharing glory after glory after glory after amazing recovery of the economy, after dramatic implementation of Obamacare, after nailing immigration and securing endless Democrat voters via voter registration and amnesty for decades.
And all of this was to combine into one beatable Democrat campaign for the presidency led by Hillary Clinton.
And where are we today in reality?
Where we are is that many in the Democrat Party are actually beginning to think that she will lose.
And not just because of Trump.
There are people in the Democrat Party questioning whether she has it.
They have been in denial.
These are the Clintons.
They've been in denial.
The Democrats have for years about Mrs. Clinton.
She does not have her own base.
She does not have like Trump does.
Her base is inexorably tied to her husband's.
So we we have a disaster that is happening.
It's not on the horizon.
A disaster is happening in the Democrat Party.
You know what?
There's an NBC News survey monkey poll out there.
You ready for this?
See if I got this right.
I'll have to double check this during the break.
10% of Trump supporters voted for Obama in 08.
Now, when the Democrats look at that, and then they look at where crazy Bernie supporters are likely to go if he gets the full-fledged Democrat diss at the convention.
And then they balance that against Mrs. Clinton's ability to generate excitement and enthusiasm on her own, which basically is z nil.
Zero.
They're beginning to think it's not just that Trump look at the verbiage here is important.
It's not just that Trump can win.
They are very much concerned that Hillary can lose of her own volition on her own that she can lose, despite the fact that anybody running for the presidency with a D next to their name is guaranteed 200 electoral votes.
They are starting to question whether or not Hillary can actually make that happen.
I know some of you say, come on, Rush, I can't believe you.
You know they've got it.
They've got it wired.
They've got it juiced, Rush.
They've got this voter fraud thing going on.
Well, they've got whatever they need to do, they'll end up winning.
No, no, that's not the case.
Otherwise, there wouldn't be an election.
Otherwise, there wouldn't be all the things happening now if it were that a fait accompli.
But again, the real point is the comparison of where the Democrats thought they were going to be a year ago and where they really are.
And none of this was envisioned.
Not a single aspect of this.
A year ago, Mrs. Clinton was a goddess.
She was the epitome of popularity.
They were going to redo first African American president, transfer that to first female president, and continue on this program where the president is unassailable, cannot be criticized because to do so would be to be sexist and racist and who knows what else.
And they're finding Republicans are not afraid to criticize.
Well, Trump is not afraid to criticize her and not afraid to hit her where it really hurts.
Not afraid to go after her real vulnerabilities, which most Republicans since the failed impeachment have been reluctant to do.
And on the other side, you have Trump, and you have all of these traditional drive-by media hit pieces designed to take him out, which are making him stronger.
Every damn one of them is making him stronger for a host of reasons, which we will get into.
And again, I'm not going to be, folks, I I came in today saying I was overloaded, and I am.
I'm not going to be able to get everything that I have in today.
This is not, it's just, there's too much.
I've got yet the audio sounded right, roster we haven't even touched.
I haven't yet gotten to the phones, and I've still got 90% of the stuff I haven't even touched yet to get to.
So hang in.
full speed ahead from now till the end of the program.
My brother David had a column published yesterday resisting Obama's transgender directive, a hill to die on.
Now, uh, you know, this this whole transgender bathroom business is something, this is typical.
This it fits the pattern that has ended up being so damaging and destructive to conservatives and Republicans.
The left attempts to undermine corrupt and overthrow elements of our culture and our society.
They do It by trying to normalize behavior that for eons has been considered to be anything but they succeed by beating people down and having them portrayed as bigots or racists or some kind of phobe if they resist whatever is said to be just and filled with civil rights.
And the re the the mainstream uh moderate Republican reaction is, oh, come on, don't react to this.
It's more this social issue crap.
Just let it go.
We're never gonna win if you if you if you if you keep focusing on these social issues, it doesn't matter.
And it isn't long before Republicans end up being blamed for never letting go of the social issues.
And the Republicans being blamed as being these social crusade warriors, anti-fun, anti-good time, when in fact all the Republicans are, and conservatives particularly are people minding their own business.
They wake up one day and find out that the way they want to live their lives and raise their kids is being challenged, and people want to come and turn it upside down and put everybody in it at risk.
And so they react to it.
And conservative reactionism is then portrayed as conservatives will not let go of the social issues.
It's the left that won't let go of social issues.
It's the left that is trying to corrupt the American culture and society.
If it weren't for the left trying to do these things, cultural and social issues would not be issues.
But the traditional Republican moderate stance is stand aside, stand down.
This is not a hill to fight on.
This is not something to go to war on.
Let it go.
There are many important issues out there, and then the sign on the bathroom.
And so yet another vestige of what has seemed to be a safe and morality-based area of life, our culture is debased once again.
With our moderates telling us it's not worth the fight.
Too damaging.
We might lose some inroads we're making with moderate voters if we make too big a deal out of this.
So my brother David has had his fill of this kind of thinking.
Resisting Obama's transgender directive is a hill to die on.
He writes, to achieve its political ends, the left doesn't just assault the Constitution through the appointment of liberal activist judges.
There are a variety of other leftist abuses, such as politicizing the departments of justice and education.
In its mission statement, the Justice Department states that one of its aims is to ensure fair and impartial administration of justice for all Americans.
That goal underscores cherished principles of American jurisprudence in the Constitution, including the preamble's commitment to establish justice, the Constitution's guarantee of equal protection under the law, and the rule of law itself.
Justice is supposed to be blind in the sense of impartiality, being free from political influences.
The rule of law ensures that we have a government of laws and not men, meaning that no one's above the law, and everyone should be treated equally.
The law must be fairly applied and enforced, or it'll cease to function as a safeguard of rights and a guarantor of justice.
So now we move to the transgender bathroom order that Obama mandated on American schools with the threat of with uh withholding financial funding from schools.
Obama knows he doesn't have the legal authority to issue such an order, but he's discerned, determined to create as much chaos as he can and to unilaterally impose his iron will to the fullest extent before his term expires.
No one will convince me that this has anything to do with the rights of transgender people.
Rather, Obama and his fellow leftists are seeing how far they can push the envelope, how much they can fundamentally transform America against the people's will and Against the protections guaranteed by the federal and state constitution.
I think personally that all of this is leading to the erosion of private property.
That's where I think the left is dreaming of all this ending up.
Under the thesis that if you if you leave it up to private property owners, everybody that we love is going to be discriminated against.
And so we can't have that.
Federal government's going to have to come in and take over everything in order to guarantee civil rights.
I think that's where this is headed.
Gay rights, transgender rights is just the latest vehicle for getting there.
That's me.
Back to my brother's piece.
Folks, there has to be a tipping point.
There has to be a point at which we as a nation will no longer tolerate this kind of tyranny.
The Obama administration obviously cares not a whit for the privacy of students who don't want to be forced to share a restroom with students of the opposite sex.
The rights of the many are going to be subordinated to the rights of the very, very minuscule, nearly invisible few, not to protect the rights of those few, but to manufacture rights that do not now exist to make an authoritarian statement on behalf of big government.
This is a hill to die on, my brother's words.
And if the sane states don't fight back on this one, we might as well just completely surrender today.
It's either that or eventually seeing the people rise up in a way we haven't witnessed for many years.
His point is at what point are we going to stand up and say enough?
Stop no more.
Well, I think they're headed to private property rights ultimately down the road.
That's what I. America's real anchor man and doctor of democracy, Rush Limbaugh here at the Excellence in Broadcasting Network.
Here's uh Matt in Lincoln, Nebraska as we kick off the telephone portion of program today.
Hello, Matt.
Hi, Ross.
Hey, let's go back to 2012.
The Republican National Convention had the death bought.
And hammering Obama on the economy constantly.
So what did Obama do at the Democrat National Convention?
They brought on A. Bill Clinton to tell everybody that he could not have done a better job than Barack Obama.
And now we see how horrible Obama has made the economy.
So I don't know what Bill Clinton's going to do if Obama went to the body.
You know, that's better than him.
By the way, you know what?
You're exactly right, and this is not a small point.
This was a major focus of the Democrat convention.
The economy like it is today, four years ago, was in a tatters.
Obamacare adjustment implemented, and nothing about it was going right because it couldn't go right.
It was not designed to go right.
You were never going to be able to keep your doctor.
You were never going to be able to keep your plan.
They lied to you left and right.
They're laughing about how easily they got away with it.
And they did.
They had to bring Bill Clinton on, and he pointed his finger.
It was a major point of his speech.
Matt, you're exactly right.
It was a major.
I'll bet if we searched our audio archives that we could find this.
As Clinton is standing up on the stage, where were they?
In Tampa?
Where was, or that was the where was the Democrat convention?
Baltimore, I forget where it doesn't matter where it was.
Clinton standing up there.
I just want to tell you people.
Not even I could have done any better on this economy.
There's not a single person that could have done any better.
I couldn't.
I couldn't have done better than Barack Obama has done.
And the reason it was such a big deal is because Clinton did in the Democrat Party, Clinton does have this reputation as a great, great economics micromanager.
That's right, it was in Charlotte, home of the transgender bathroom issue, by the way.
And it was, it was it was Clinton that went out there to get Obama's fire out of the bacon because there's his rear end out of the bacon because it was steaming.
And Clinton does have this reputation of the just the greatest economic micromanager because the 90s is what the Democrats used to counter the Reagan 80s, and they say Clinton.
Clinton is what saved the country from Reaganomics and trickled down and so forth.
So for Clinton to come out and praise Obama saying nobody could have done better, was big.
It was huge.
And so here's Hillary now saying that she's going to bring Bill on to run the economy.
See, she can't, she she can nibble around the edges about how bad things are now by talking about she's going to improve this or improve, but she can't conduct a full head on attack on the economy because to do that would be attack her very principles and her party and her president.
So the way she does it is to say she's going to bring Brill on to run the economy.
But Bill has admitted, and we can go, Trump could put this in an ad.
Nobody could do better than Barack Obama.
Not a single person ever.
I couldn't do it.
Nobody could do it.
That's a that's an that's an amazing recollection, Matt, and I appreciate it.
Stephen in Annapolis, Maryland, it's your turn, you're next.
Hello, sir.
Hey, thank you, Roger.
There's so many things I can talk about with you, but um, you know, I want to go back to the top of your show, and I think it's probably more significant than you may uh you know think, as far as this country's concerned.
I mean, there are a lot of us out here that are searching for the truth.
And you opened a show with the fact that we're being lied to, and it is a country of commentary, of tweets, of blogs, of Facebook that carry the same weight, apparently, as um, you know, a traditional news source.
And um, you know, philosophically we're told, you know, the truth shall set you free.
The opposite is true, that the lie shall ensnare you.
And I feel like we're kind of ensnared there.
We want to make educated decisions, but we don't know who to listen to or what to believe.
And I'm gonna hang up and maybe you can uh comment on that.
How can we how can we make a better decision?
Um based on what's going on.
I'm I'm gonna take this seriously.
People might think my answer here is gonna be a little bit flippant, but I mean it from the bottom of my heart.
Now, I know what you're talking about.
At the beginning of the program, um, I I set up a piece I gave you some exit uh excerpts of Maury and Callahan How nothing today is real, how everything is narrative.
Narrative has become substitute for substance, that nobody can rely on the substance of reality to sell anything to persuade anybody.
Everything has to be concocted.
Everything is a spin, everything is buzz, everything is PR.
Nobody wants to rely on substance or reality.
Now, elements of this are not new.
P. T. Barnum, of course.
I mean, there have always been hucksters.
I don't want anybody to get the idea here that I think that that uh we we're we're in a totally new era.
What is different is that, as Stephen points out here, the usual citadels, the institutions that people used to rely on have themselves been corrupted.
And narratives, you you now see the word, you know, narrative used to be a very secret word.
Narrative is what journalism schools teach.
Establishing the narrative of the story, and that is code language for advancing your version of the story or your agenda and how to do it by creating a story that becomes the narrative that becomes whatever the news is.
And let me recall for you, one of the best illustrations of this how the media always covers Democrats.
It's how they covered Clinton.
It's how they cover Obama.
They never covered the substance of any Clinton proposal.
They never covered the substance of Obama proposals.
For example, let me ask you a question here.
It's somewhat related.
Why, ladies and gentlemen, should it require an author?
Or just an average citizen who writes a book or does a radio show or TV show?
Why is it those people uncovering the corruption?
Why aren't people in Washington who are close to it uncovering it?
Why are not elected officials elected Republicans exposing the fraud, say, of the Obama administration or the Clinton campaign.
Why does it require authors with books that then have to get on TV and radio to sell the book to alert people?
Why isn't the media uncovering the corruption?
Say of the Clinton Foundation.
Why didn't the media uncover the nature and the substance of Obamacare?
Why does it require people on talk radio or blogs to read the legislation and report on it to people?
And then look what's happened.
What happens to those of us who do this?
We get tarred and feathered.
We get smeared.
Outsiders are having to do it because the traditional institutions everybody relies on or has gone silent, particularly the media.
In the case of Obamacare, the media didn't cover it from the standpoint of what is it?
The only thing that was important to the media was would Obama get it.
Would Obama be the first ever to get national health care in America?
Would Obama succeed?
Will Obama get what he wants?
Not is what Obama wants good?
Is what Obama wants helpful?
Is Obama being truthful about the details of what he wants?
None of that.
Press didn't cover one syllable of that.
Not one page of Obamacare.
The media covered the villains.
The Republicans and people like me on radio and in blogs trying to stop Obama from getting what he wanted.
But they didn't report on us by telling people we were covering the substance of Obamacare.
They just portrayed us as whatever, racist, bigots, homophobes, who wanted to deny the first African American president a signature legislative proposal.
So the media, which most people instinctively rely on to learn what things are, doesn't tell anybody what things are anymore.
All the media does, because they're all Democrats, they're all part of the Democrat agenda.
All the media does is try to make sure that Obama or Clinton or Hillary get what they want.
And to facilitate Obama or Hillary getting what they want.
The Republicans are portrayed as venal vile villains trying to deny Obama and the American people what they want.
And just because they want it, they should have it.
Well, it it's it's much broader than that.
That's just uh an example.
But now with with uh look at Facebook, fake book, and all these supposed algorithms that are supposed to be unbiased, nothing is unbiased, nothing is objective anymore, particularly in places with people claiming to be objective.
Look, I've got to take a break here.
But I'm gonna continue this.
It's a good question.
We'll be right back.
Okay, grab some bite 42.
We got Bill Clinton, a Democrat convention.
Uh this is it.
This was from September 5th 2012.
This is where Clinton said that not even he could have done a better job than Barack Hussein O. I had the same thing happen in 1994 and early 95.
We could see that the policies were working, that the economy was growing, but most people didn't feel it yet.
President Obama started with a much weaker economy than I did.
No president, not me, not any of my predecessors, no one could have fully repaired all the damage that he found in just four years.
There you have it!
There's Trump's ad.
There's Trump's ad, the Republican ad for when Hillary says she's going to put Bill in charge.
Nobody could have done it.
No president, not me, not any of my predecessors.
No one could have fully repaired all the damage that Obama found in just four years.
But remember, Obama started a much weaker economy than I did.
Really?
Well, you lying sack of whatevers are running around in 1992 claiming it was the worst economy in the last 50 years.
Remember that?
Worst economy in the last 50 years.
We had people calling here saying, can't get much worse, Rush.
And it proceeded to.
Anyway, back back to the media.
The guy wanted to where you can trust.
Folks, it's real simple.
The New York Times has just been exposed.
I I could spend some time going into detail on it.
Their hit piece on Trump and the women on Sunday.
It has been fully exposed as fraudulent.
The same writers who did a story on Marco Rubio.
Do you remember the story where Rubio was lying about his finances because he had a luxury speed boat?
And it turned out that it was nothing more than a 40 horsepower fishing boat.
There was nothing luxury about it.
There was no speed about it.
There was there was totally made up.
The women in the Trump piece have come forward and said, that's not what I said.
They didn't report everything.
They've taken me out of context, they misquoted me, and it's been documented.
It's tougher, because of social media today, for those kinds of hit pieces to work.
The New York Times is still plugged into their old, ages-old playbook on how to destroy people.
And they have not yet factored in that they have legitimate fact checkers all over the internet waiting to blow them up.
So I still haven't fully answered the question.
That's coming.
I'm not teasing you.
It's just that time is going by here faster than even I can record.
The Washington Post has a story today that relates to something that I have been mentioning around the edges lately.
They're very, very worried in various uh places around the country that Trump's appeal is stretching to the suburbs that had been trending Democrat.
They're surprised that that Trump is not nearly as toxic in suburbia as the Democrats had calculated.
Details on that coming up too.
▲
Export Selection