All Episodes
Previous Next
May 23, 2016 - Rush Limbaugh Program
31:03
May 23, 2016, Monday, Hour #3
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
No, I had to light the two o'clock cigar and a one o'clock cigar is a little a little bitter.
You know, it's not good when it's bitter.
I mean, it's strong.
Normally I can take that.
This is just it's it's a little too bitter.
Which means a rapper's been uh well, it's either not good or it's it's been aged for actually too long.
But no matter we got it fixed.
800 282-2882 if you want to be on the Rush Limbaugh program, telephone number 800-282-2882.
And if you want to send an email, it's all rushboard at EIBNET.com.
It's the fastest three hours in media, and we are into the final hour.
Peter Schweitzer, he has written this book called Clinton Cash.
And made this uh documentary-style movie about it.
And he was on Fox and Friends today.
He's going to put some of this in perspective.
This book is devastating on the Clintons.
I mean, it is, it's not ideological, it's not left versus right, Republican, Democrat, Conservative, Liberal.
He just looked into their practices.
He just found out who's giving them money, why, where's it going, what's it for, and cataloged and has written this incredible.
It's his second book on the Clintons in this regard, Peter Schweitzer.
He's a he's a thinker out there at a think tank, the Hoover Institute.
Uh little conservative enclave hidden down in the basement at uh at Stanford.
Out in uh Palo Alto.
He's on Fox and Friends today.
And Ainsley Earhart was talking to him.
And tell us about the movie and your book, uh, Mr. Schweitzer.
The film really walks people through very real examples of how the Clintons uh have basically become wealthy by peddling government uh influence and power.
We're not talking about Wall Street or large oil companies in the United States.
We're talking about foreign governments and foreign corporations.
That's I think what's so shocking about what the Clintons have done that's unprecedented with any other political figures in American history.
This is this is a neugher thing.
This is not the speeches.
The speech is just the last two years of speeches.
It's 21 million dollars.
The number, the the amount of money the Clintons have raised combined speeches since he left the White House 2000, it's it's over the top how much.
But this is the crime family foundation that Schweitzer's talking about.
That's a hundred million dollars has been donated.
Ostensibly to charity, but it isn't.
It's to Mrs. Clinton and her presidency.
And and Schweitzer's look, it's how we know this.
And he says it's unprecedented with any other political figures in American history.
So Brian Kilme said, look, I watched your movie two weeks ago.
It's unbelievable how it's spelled out.
I walked away thinking, would they be this blatant about these scandals, knowing that Hillary Clinton was cued up to run for president?
Why why would they take any risk, let alone put this out there?
There has been a pattern of behavior with the Clintons for a long time, going back to when Bill was president, when he was governor of Arkansas, they always play it very, very close, uh, ethically uh in this way, and they've gotten away with it.
When she became Secretary of State, America's chief diplomat, they basically viewed it as an opportunity to cash in.
Once she became Secretary of State, Bill's speaking fees tripled the amounts and the quantity that they got from overseas went through the roof.
They cashed in.
There's just no other way to say it.
Yeah, I he's right.
And it's exactly right on the money, no pun intended, because they're obsessed with it.
They are obsessed with it.
They want to be among the wealthiest in their circle.
And all the other things wealth uh provides.
But it's it's in addition to that, it's what wealth says about you.
You know, wealth crackles with its own power.
Wealth in its own way is intimidating.
Wealth is the standard old F you money.
And of course, what good's that if you're never gonna say F you to anybody?
And so they want to be able to do that.
All kinds of things wrapped up.
Look, before I get back to the things in the news, a couple here with uh with Crazy Bernie, uh Soundbite's 11 and 12, Stephanopoulos hosted him on this week, said, Look, as you know, the Clinton campaign has pointed out that they've gotten about three million more votes than you have, Crazy Bernie.
And when you look at the delegate map, Hillary Clinton only needs 90 more pledged delegates to get ahead of you and to win, and then it's over.
We need a campaign, an election coming up, which does not have two candidates who are really very, very strongly disliked.
I don't want to see the American people voting for the lesser of two evils.
Is that how you would describe Hillary Clinton against Donald Trump, the lesser of two evils?
That's what the American people are saying.
If you look at the favorability ratings of Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton, both of them have very, very high unfavorables.
Oh, man, lesser of two evils.
That's a Republican line.
That's how the Republicans have to always complain about their election.
Here's Crazy Bernie now assigning Hillary Clinton to it.
That's another reason her ticked off at him.
What do you sound like a Republican for, Bernie?
That sounds like your average conservative whining and moaning lesser of two evils.
What are you doing talking like that?
State of the Union CNN Jake Tapper talking to Crazy Bernie on Sunday morning, said you've been calling for a revolution.
Senator Sanders in Florida.
Are you are you with uh are you with Debbie Blabbermouth Schultz or you with her opponent?
Clearly I favor her opponent.
His views are much closer to mine than is Wasserman Schultz's.
And let me also say this, in all due respect to the current uh chairperson, if elected president, she would not be reappointed uh to be chair of the DNC.
Look, you can understand why.
Crazy Bernie doesn't like Debbie Blabbermouth.
Debbie Blabbermouth.
What you know, it's a little late to be piping up about this now, I have to tell you, though.
He should have piped up about this month ago.
He should have figured out what was happening when they're scheduling debates on Saturday night.
Nobody's gonna watch him.
It's all part of the Hillary coronation.
He should have piped up then.
Debbie Blabbermouth Schultz has been acting as though this whole thing's rigged for Hillary from the get-go.
So he's he's made it plain that if he's elected president, uh he's ahead of the party, and she is gone.
Now, this next one more bite, one more might upset the Oprah.
Coke Roberts on this week on the round table.
And uh George Stephanopoulos says to Donna Brazil, hey Donna, it seems like that President Obama is almost itching to be Hillary Clinton's communications director.
What do you think about that?
Not only President Obama, but the vice president Elizabeth Warren, there's so many quote unquote undeclared Democrats who are ready to get out here and litigate this conversation with Donald Trump.
She has to really focus like a laser beam on these millennials.
She has to work on independence, have to work on white males at the end of the day.
It's white women.
White women will determine this election.
Whoo, she interrupted Donna Brazil to make the point here.
Donna Brazil was all set to say at the end of the day she's and Cokey Roberts interrupted.
It's white women.
White women.
White women will determine this election.
Yeah, I know.
Debbie Blabbermouth, she's well, she ought to be unpopular.
This is not.
Debbie Blabbermouth Schultz is not.
She's not a likable person either.
My gu.
Look, I'm gonna reign it in, but you guys know exactly what I am talking about.
There this is no way.
There is just alimony would look good.
Anyway, Van Jones, the resident communist in the Democrat Party and over at uh at CNN, he said that he'd rather have Rince Prebus running the DNC than to have Debbie Blabbermouth Schultz running it.
And Crazy Bernie saying the same thing.
Okay, uh there's an NBC News Wall Street Journal poll.
In addition to this ABC Washington Post poll.
Now, the ABC Washington Post poll has Trump up two, 46 to 44.
The thing is, you have to read like 20 paragraphs to find it in their story.
I mean, they they they bury it.
They actually, in their story in the Washington Post, talk about how this upcoming election is going to be one of negatives.
They try to focus on the disapproval numbers that both Hillary and Trump have rather than report Trump has assumed the lead in their poll.
It's there, but they don't headline it and they don't trump it, you have to go get it.
But there's another one out, and that's the NBC News Wall Street Journal poll.
Now, Hillary still leads in that poll, but here her lead has shrunken to three points down from double digits.
It wasn't that long ago that every person in politics, Republican or Democrat, a consultant, strategist, you name it, you'll remember this.
Everybody was saying Trump was going to lose in the biggest landslide in the history of landslides.
And it wasn't that long ago that people were still talking that way.
Some Republicans still are, in fact.
But it's not playing out that way.
Hillary is down something like 16 points.
Aggregate average in these polls since March.
And Trump is up dramatically.
Hillary Clinton's advances, NBC News.
Hillary Clinton's advantage over Trump is narrowed to just three points, resulting in a dead heat general election contest with more than five months to go.
Clinton leads Trump 4643 among registered voters, a difference that is within the margin of error.
In April, Clinton held an 11-point advantage over Trump, 50 to 39, and had led him consistently by double digits since December.
And like every other poll, Hillary is trending the wrong way.
And it's because the more people see her, and this is true not just in this campaign season, it's true of her career.
The more she's seen and heard, the more her numbers drop.
And consequently, conversely, the less that she has seen, and the less she speaks in public, the higher her number goes.
It's just true.
You can attach whatever meaning to you to it you want.
I'm I guess rather obvious, but I'm not gonna just leave it up to you.
It happens to be true.
Hillary Clinton's numbers headed the uh wrong way.
Now, in addition, remember the there are two exit poll questions.
2000 uh 2012.
Yeah.
In the 2012 exit polls, there were two questions that I saw in the first wave, it told me.
No, one was 2000, the first Obama, 2008, 2012, two questions, two different campaigns.
When I saw the exit polls in 2008, McCain versus Obama.
No, no, no, no, I'm wrong.
It's both in 2012.
It's both both questions, 2000, two of them.
2012 exit poll question found that 60 some odd of the people still blamed George Bush for the economy.
This is after four years of Obama, four years of phony stimulus bills to rebuild roads and bridges that never happened, and Obamacare, and four years of us highlighting Obama's economic policies and trying to explain that the plunging U.S. economy was due to Obama.
But four years later, the voters in the exit poll still blame Bush.
And so I had to examine that, and I did, and I found out that people just were unable to forget the crash of 2008 with TARP and all that, and they blame Bush.
He was president, and they blamed Bush for that, and they still did, and Obama was getting a total pass.
Which is why Clinton at the Democrat convention in 2012 went out there and said there was nobody, no former pres, including him, who could have done anywhere near as Obama did, not as much good.
And then the second question that I saw that led me to believe it was over in the exit polls, was the empathy question.
The question cares about people like me.
Obama 81, Romney 19.
I saw that, and I threw the exit poll in the air, and I said, forget it.
So I don't even need to watch the returns.
I'm gonna watch them now.
I don't need to watch them to find out what's gonna happen, because that question right there, given the electorate and feelings and all this stuff, told me.
And it turned out to be true.
So that's a long way of leading up to the fact that the drive-by's are relying on this again.
Hillary's in deep doo-doo.
Nothing's going the way it was planned to go for the Democrats.
She was supposed to be coordinated by now.
Trump was supposed to have uh embarrassed himself out of the race by now.
It was supposed to be over.
So the drive-byers do whatever they can do to comfort themselves that no matter how bad Hillary gets, she's still going to win.
And are doing it on the empathy question.
And the assignment went to Chris Silizza, our old buddy.
We like Chris Siliza, he's the Washington Post.
His piece, Donald Trump isn't empathetic.
Is that a problem?
As the nation turns its eyes to the general election, rights, Mr. Silizza.
I have one question that continues to nag at me as I think about the possibility of Trump in the White House.
Can he be empathetic, like at all?
And does he need to be?
You see, the race to be presidents, unlike other races for elected office.
No one turns to a senator or a member of Congress or a governor when there's a mass shooting or when a tornado devastates community, but they do turn to a president.
A president is expected to do many things in office, but perhaps the most important is to be both a cheerleader and a shoulder to cry on when moments of great joy and great sadness affect the entire body politic.
For all of Trump's successes to date, and there have been many.
Donald Trump has consistently struggled on questions tied to empathy.
Asked which candidate, quote, better understands the problems of people like you.
Forty-seven percent chose Clinton, 36% named Trump.
On the question of who better represents your personal values, 48% chose Clinton, 37% went with Trump.
Two-thirds of voters in the CBS New York Times national poll released last week said Trump did not share their values.
Seven and ten said he did not have the right temperament to be president.
So you see, there is a desire to hold on to this fact that people hate Trump, don't think he's uh a feeling guy.
It doesn't think he can relate to them.
Uh cannot be their father, cannot be their parent, and so forth.
I would one thing I would disagree with Mr. Salizza on, and I think governors are looked to.
I mean, look at Governor Christie after Hurricane Sandy.
So I think I but all that aside.
Uh I thought the problem with Trump, if I'm to read these guys right, I thought the problem with Trump was that he could develop into a cult of personality.
He could become a strong man, so loved and adored that he get away with all kinds of tyranny.
But now, now it turns out could be a person nobody would ever like.
Nobody would ever relate to.
I think they're mi I think they're missing the I think they're totally missing this.
Bond that Trump has with his supporters, this connection.
I think you try to tell me that Hillary Clinton is a more empathetic figure.
Hillary Clinton doesn't have the slightest idea how people really live.
The only thing she knows is that she wants no part of it.
Meeting and surpassing all audience expectations every day.
Back to the phones.
This is uh Weston in Philadelphia.
Great to have you on the program, sir.
Glad you waited.
Hi.
Rush, how are you doing?
Good.
Thanks.
I've been uh seeing some golf ball from the driving range while I waited, so it wasn't so bad.
Uh listen, you know, I uh I I was thinking of poor Duke Cunningham.
If only he had uh given some speeches uh while he was uh accepting bribes, because really that's all this is accepting bribes.
And you know, You were mentioning the left is upset with corporate America.
Well, listen, I'm a strident right winger, and I'm upset with them also.
Uh I understand sort of that they have to do it.
You know, with the transgendered bathrooms and the gay marriage and whatnot, you see corporate America bowing uh to the government, going along with the left because they are fearful.
Fearful, yeah, they are fearful, but they also know, and I've written Trump about this, a line that he should use.
The biggest player in business today, and that's everywhere.
That's state, local, and federal.
The biggest player is the government.
Exactly right.
And everybody knows that they have to play ball with these people.
And you know, my disappointment with the corporate folks, and you've mentioned this before.
Wait just one second.
Wait, just one don't make these guys out to be victims.
These corporations.
These guys are they're not all, oh my God, the government's gonna do this if I don't.
They're taking the aggressive role.
They're forcing this cronyism, many of them are.
Yeah, because they're doing fantastically well.
That's why I'm saying I'm disappointed with them.
I mean, they're they're lining their pockets, but it used to be that the the elite, the the wealthy, the people.
They are winning in the marketplace without having to innovate.
That's the problem.
They are winning because of their association with a government when their competitors don't have it.
They don't have to innovate.
All they have to do is the government punish their competitors with regulations or what have you.
It's CD.
I agree with you, 100%.
Well, that's exactly right.
And it used to be that the people that it the Carnegies and the Rockefellers.
I'm not saying that they were you know totally.
It's exactly right.
Exactly right.
You know, speaking of this cronyism, our last caller was right on the money about it.
I I uh the Democrats have their own reasons to despise the banks and so forth.
They they think they're in bed with Republicans and they they hate capitalism.
You know, leftists hate capitalism, they despise it.
And Hillary Clinton sidling up to all these banks and taking all his money and owing the banks and being uh uh related and bad associated with it.
It just rubs them the wrong way.
But on on our side, this this crony, whatever you want to call it, capitalism, or it's I prefer crony socialism.
The way it manifests itself is this.
You got a guy like Obama who's a statist.
He doesn't want to own these companies.
He just wants to be the boss.
He doesn't want to own the means of production, he just wants to control it all.
So it's not really communism social, more like fascism in that regard.
Well, then you have a CEO who realizes that rather than fight it, you say, okay, I've got a guy here who wants to be, you know, the boss.
So the path of least resistance for me is to have a relationship with him.
So you are the CEO of the XYZ electric company, and you decide that you're gonna say you're gonna be Obama's best buddy, so he will leave your company alone.
Rather than oppose him, which is what people used to do when big socialists came along, everybody in business for the most part stood up and joined hands in and stopped these people, opposed them and tried to keep them from being elected.
Doesn't happen anymore.
Now the easiest least resistance route is to get in bed with them.
And in the case, let's take let's take uh how many of you were surprised some years ago when Walmart came out in favor of Obama's minimum wage proposal increase.
People say, Walmart for crying out Walmart.
I mean, Sam Walmway's turning over these group.
What what look but Sam Walton is as crazy.
Walmart, no unions, uh uh right wing company.
Well, wait a minute.
Wait a minute.
How about this?
How about Walmart can say to them, you know, we can afford if they mandate another buck or two our minimum wage, we can absorb that.
We can figure out a way to hire a few.
We'll support it, but our competitors may not be able to go along with it.
And so Walmart doesn't have to lower a single price.
They can just rely on the fact their competitors can't compete with this new government regulation or whatever.
That may be another best example, but it it results in companies profiting because of their close relationship with the head of state and all of his bureaucrats that lead these agencies, EPA, DOJ, you name it, H H S, T S A. You got a company that's in bed paying to be there, hands off.
Competitors, not so much.
And so you don't have to innovate at all to beat your competitors.
You just have to have that relationship with Obama.
And that's that's why people on the right despise angry.
It's the other thing, it's always been incorrect to say that big business is pro-Republican.
As is evidenced here by these Clinton speeches.
Let me tell you something.
And most tech CEOs are huge leftists.
The idea that they support the Republican Party is a myth.
That's that's the cr the funny thing.
All these leftists, these Bernie people out there thinking Democrat Party's anti-big business, anti-corporation.
They're in bed like you can't believe.
They just lie about it.
You know, they rip into these big, and some of them who aren't in bed, they do try to harm them, big pharma, big oil, big whatever.
But it's in the interest I've read a piece by David Boaz, who used to be at the Cato Institute, which is a libertarian think tank.
He may still be there.
I don't remember where where this was.
But his piece, his his article was fascinating.
He said many of the militant gay political agenda types hate capitalism.
They hate Republicans, they hate conservatism.
And yet, it is the free market economy which has allowed being gay to prosper economic.
He said, Go to any socialist country, go to any communist country, go to any totalitarian country and take a look at how gays are treated versus how they are treated in the United States in a capitalist economy where they can now get married, they can own business wide out in the open at any.
You can't do that in Cuba, you can't do it in Saudi Arabia, you can't do it in Venezuela.
You can't do it in China, you can't do it anywhere.
And I thought it was a f it's an interesting observation.
Because it's right on the and yet they hate it.
They vote against it, they donate to Democrats, the socialists equivalent here in this country.
Anyway, uh here's John at your Belinda, California.
John, what's shaking?
Hey Rush, how are you doing today?
Good, fine, thank you.
Excellent.
It's got to be one of the closest things of being able to speak with one of our country's founding fathers on the wow.
Wow.
Wow.
Thank you so much.
In fact, I got I've got to tell you, I've got two daughters who aren't even married yet, and I've already got two sets of your books here just waiting for the smokes.
That's great.
Thank you so much.
Hey, listen, I've I've got a thought as to uh how Obama can both preserve his legacy and extricate the party from its commitment to uh what has to be considered a fundamentally flawed candidate.
All he's got to do is just let the DOJ indict Hillary.
You think Obama's worried about that?
I don't well worried about which.
Well, I know he's worried about his legacy.
You think he's worried that Hillary could blow it?
I think he knows that Hillary's gonna blow it.
I mean, I I think anybody with the brain knows this isn't gonna go well, and I think what he can't tolerate is having her loose to Trump.
Okay, let me ask you let me ask you a question.
The trend line right now, and by the trend has been Trump has been trending up since day one.
People don't won't admit it, but Trump has been trending since he got in, right?
Well, he may have leveled off a couple of times, but he's been trending up since he got in.
Hillary has not Hillary, ever since Crazy Bernaget series has been trending steady or trending down.
What are the odds?
What in your experience, is there some magic that's gonna happen that changes dynamic, and all of a sudden, out of the blue, Hillary is going to become loved, adored, charismatic, uh, influential, and is going to create all of this energy, which so far she hasn't been able to muster in two presidential elections.
What are those like that?
Yeah.
No, I think absolutely not.
In fact, I think the the more we see of her, the more we see what she's really like.
And I think we could just expect the trend to just keep going the way to accelerate in the direction it's already going.
So you think that Obama is going to eventually see this, and what?
Let the DOJ have at her?
Yeah, because just thinking now, okay, so he opens up his library and he'll have a big section dedicated to where he had the most transparent administration in the history of the planet, because he even let a presidential candidate get indicted, and you know, and and you look at a lot of the biggest spots on his on his record.
I mean, we've got fast and furious and all that, but some of the significant ones are you've got Benghazi and you've got the emails.
And so just think of how many then people will focus on those, and they'll think, you know, the last thing they think about will be the thing that matters.
Okay, so in your theory, Obama sends a signal over there to uh Loretta Lynch and says, okay, drop the hammer.
They indicary and then what?
We got Biden.
Well, I don't know.
He might let Crazy Bernie take his run.
I mean, he's looking at the poll numbers.
You know, I don't I don't he doesn't have to be crazy about what Bernie stands for, but I think he'll be less damaged than Hillary.
I don't think we need to put anybody new in there.
Plus, you know, there's talk of the people at the FBI so convinced of the scuttle but is that Biden is waiting and wants it.
You know, if that happens, you know, we're we were thinking similar things on the Republican side.
If the Republicans actually took it away from Trump, that it'd be L to Pay.
Well, if they indict Hillary, that leaves Crazy Bernie.
If they take it away from Crazy Burney, do you know what his people are going to do?
And if they give it to Biden, who has not gotten a single vote, has not been in a single primary.
If they can do you know what his people will do?
Donald Trump will win in a landslide with 80%.
Uh I that's what they have to be calculating there.
Crazy Bernie.
Whoa.
I have to run.
John, I appreciate the call.
Back after this.
Okay, today's lesson or illustration into cultural evolution.
Involves a player for the New York Giants named Janoris Jenkins.
Janoris Jenkins granted an interview.
He's uh I think he's a defensive back.
I'm not certain.
Doesn't matter.
He uh granted an interview last week with Paul Schwartz in the New York Post.
And it was revealed in this interview that Janoris Jenkins has five children with four women, none of whom is his wife.
And it was observed to Janoris Jenkins, well, those women can't be happy about that.
I mean, you've got five children, four women, and not one of them is your wife.
He said, no, no, no, they're not upset.
When they were going out with me, they understood, okay, I'm a football player.
I'm gonna have multiple women.
That just comes with Dayton the football player, and they knew it.
There you have it.
Cultural evolution 2016, the National Football League.
Nah, five kids, four women, the women knew going in.
He's a football player.
It's gonna have a lot of women.
They take what they can get.
It's kind of like dating a rock star.
Except in those cases, you never know who the father is.
Well, not never, but I mean it's oftentimes not till later.
Now I shot an 80.
Yes, I had a good round yesterday.
It was kind of like I was hitting a no-hitter.
Nobody told me.
The scorecard was on another cart.
So I did well.
I was creaming the ball again.
Can't wait to get back out there.
Anyway, that's it, folks.
We're out of busy broadcast time for today, but we're back here in 21 hours, revved up and ready to go again, depending on what happens.
Well, not depending, we will be with whatever happens between now and then.
It's going to be a lot and always is.
▲
Export Selection