Rush Limbaugh Program - May 30, 2016, Monday, Hour #3

All Episodes

Previous Next

May 30, 2016 - Rush Limbaugh Program

31:37

May 30, 2016, Monday, Hour #3

Large

Audio Only |

Scroll

Time	Text
	Oh, now that's gonna tick them off.
	Corey Lewandowski leads the search for Trump's running mate.
	The guy that bruised Michelle Fields on the arm by dragging her out of the way.
	Remember that?
	Corey Lewandowski, they despise Lewandon.
	I mean, I'm talking about some of the other young conservative media tests.
	They don't like the guy at all.
	He's heading up the uh vice presidential search committee.
	Trump says that it's not a bad, it's a likelihood, in fact, that the likelihood that his vice presidential pick will be one of his former rivals for the nomination.
	So that opens it up.
	It's not going to be Ben Carson because Ben Carson doesn't want it, and Ben Carson said I'd be too big of a target, won't be me.
	So the huckster is going to lobby for it.
	Uh Christie.
	Governor Chris Christie, he's gonna lobby for it, I think, probably would like it.
	Who else?
	Won't be Rubio, won't be Cruz, uh, won't be Jeb.
	Uh Kasich.
	You can't rule Kasich out of this equation because of Ohio.
	Readings and welcome back, folks.
	It's great to have you.
	Again, a programming note, I'm not here tomorrow.
	We'll have Mark Belling in tomorrow.
	Just a quick trip out of the country and be right back in on Friday.
	Uh and then I'm off next Monday and Tuesday as well.
	So you can make your plans accordingly.
	Uh, excuse me, 800 282-2882, if you want to be in a program.
	Now, I mentioned at the top of the program there's an object lesson in the media today.
	And there is.
	But it's not because I think there's anything left for you to learn.
	I I think you and this audience are so up to speed on the ways and means of the media and what they are and what they aren't, and how they do and and don't do what they do.
	But still it's interesting.
	And the focal point of this, we're gonna zero back, and we're gonna double back here to that New York Times magazine piece on Ben Rhodes, who is Obama's chief media guy on national security issues.
	Well, he's actually more than a media guy on it.
	Now, the thing about Ben Rhodes is he has no experience whatsoever in foreign policy before Obama hired him.
	He was a writer, he's a novelist.
	He was a uh wannabe novelist.
	And he ends up being hired for this position in the regime.
	And I uh one thing I want to point out here that everybody running around, a lot of people running around, Trump's got no experience, he'd better hire people with experience.
	You need people who experience in foreign policy and say, No, you don't.
	Obama got everything he wanted without anybody knowing what they're doing.
	Obama got everything he wanted.
	Obama got an Iranian nuke deal, and he did it by lying to the very media that slavishly covers him.
	That's the point here.
	And the guy that was in charge of making sure everybody bought the lie was Ben Rhodes.
	That was his job.
	His job was to sell everybody, including the sycophant media White House press corps.
	His job was to lie to them and tell them the only reason that we were doing this is because there's a new faction of moderate leaders in Iran.
	Not the Ayatollah Hamidi and his boys, and not any of the Mullahs, and no Mahmoud Ahmedini Zad, none of these guys that have ties to the 1979 hostage crisis or terrorism or any of that.
	These are a bunch of moderates.
	And it turns out that that's what the point of the New York Times magazine story was.
	There aren't any moderates in Iran, and there was a profile of Ben Rhodes in which it was revealed that he lied to everybody about it, and the story was almost a puff piece on how he did it and how good he is at doing it, and how important it was to lie to everybody about this in order for Obama to get what he wanted, the Iranian nuke deal.
	Ben Rhodes is just the next Jonathan Gruber.
	Remember Jonathan Gruber?
	Jonathan Gruber's the architect of Obamacare, the architect of Romney Care.
	And he was out at cocktail parties and think tank seminars bragging about how they had lied to people about what Obamacare was and wasn't, now that we were lying about you get to keep your doctor, you like and oh.
	I wonder if we have this in the roster.
	Let me check real quick.
	Because I didn't ask for this, so we might not have this.
	Charlie Rhodes, Charlie Rhodes, Charlie Rhodes.
	Pages are sticking together.
	I don't think I've got it.
	Charlie Rose show last night, or some Charlie, maybe a CBS show, I don't know what it was, but it was yesterday.
	He had three Obama speech writers.
	And the speechwriters were bragging about how they had come up with this lie in the speech for Obama.
	You like your doctor, you get to keep your doctor.
	If you like your insurance, you get to keep your insurance.
	Charlie Rose actually interviewing Obama speechwriters, laughing about how they lied.
	And Charlie is laughing right along with them.
	Laughing about how they pulled it off.
	I mean, folks, that is not a laughing matter.
	In order to get Obamacare, they had to lie.
	Well, liberals have to do this routinely.
	And these speech writers were taking credit for which one came up with which lie.
	And the lie about you like your doctor, you get to keep your doctor.
	They just thought that was the best one, and Charlie and the rest of the speech writers are laughing themselves silly over it.
	Like all of them were in on the joke, and all of us plebs out here.
	We were the ones taken to the cleaners.
	And it's just so funny about how easy it was.
	And so now we get this puff piece on Ben Rhodes and how he lied.
	Okay, so here's the object lesson for the media.
	In this story, Ben Rhodes describes the White House press corps as literal ignoramuses.
	He says they're all 27 years old.
	By all the way, 72 members of the White House press corps, not a single Republican in the group.
	The average age is 27.
	And Ben Rhodes in this story talks about how they don't know anything.
	They don't know diddly sweat.
	The only experience they have is that they may have worked and covered presidential campaigns.
	He said, but here they they don't know a thing about foreign policy.
	They know absolutely nothing.
	They believed anything I told them.
	So do you think that the White House press corps is mad at today?
	You would think they'd be mad at Ben Rhodes, right?
	You would think they'd be mad at Ben Rhodes for lying to them and then talking about how they don't know anything and about how easy it was.
	They're not mad at Ben Rhodes.
	And the White House press corps is not mad at Obama.
	They're mad at the guy who wrote the New York Times piece, whose name is David Samuels.
	That's who they're mad at.
	They're mad at another press guy, another reporter for reporting the truth about them.
	And they're also mad that he got the scoop.
	They are mad that he got the truth from Ben Rhodes, and they didn't.
	And they are in the White House press corps, and he's just a freelancer.
	And all of this is exposed in the weekly standard today.
	In a story by Lee Smith.
	Lee Smith has a story in a weekly standard about how the real story in the Ben Rhodes caper is not that the regime lied, which everybody knew.
	The real story is how ballistically ticked off the media is at the writer of the story, David Samuels, for exposing them as a bunch of pliable sycophants, whom Rhodes and Obama played like a fiddle.
	Now, Lee Smith, who wrote the piece for the weekly standard, knows David Samuels.
	Describes him as a writer with a real literary bench from outside the usual media White House foreign policy coverage zones.
	And his theory is that Ben Rhodes, who fancies himself is quite the writer, knew exactly what he was doing.
	He sought out a guy, David Samuels, to write the New York Times piece.
	So when the New York Times piece came out, there were two ways it was covered.
	One, it was covered as a hit piece.
	And people couldn't believe what is this?
	The New York Times doing a story on how the White House lied about the Iranian nuke deal.
	That was one take.
	The other take on the story from the media was that it was a puff piece on Rhodes, that it was somebody writing a glowing story on one of Obama's figures in the administration.
	So depending on where you went, who you talked to in the media, it was either a hit piece on Rhodes or it was a puff piece.
	But the media is ticked off because Rhodes did not tell any of them the story, the White House press corps.
	He went and found this other guy, David Samuels, who wasn't part of the blob.
	You know what the blob is?
	That's what Obama calls the Washington foreign policy establishment, including media, the blob, and they are to be outmaneuvered, they are to be tricked, they are to be lied to.
	The blob.
	It's a bunch of people, State Departments, a bunch of people in the diplomatic court, but mostly it is the media.
	And the story was was how they successfully spun and lied to the blob.
	So what we have here basically is media on media, media angry at media for basically high school prom type reasons.
	The story begins this way in the Weekly Standard.
	Man, Ben Rhodes had an excellent weekend.
	A 38-year-old Metz fan, who serves as President Obama's deputy national security advisor for strategic communications, got to watch the press tear itself apart in rabid confusion, which proves one of his essential points that the U.S. media is a pile of dung.
	Now another important takeaway here, that both these pieces, the New York Times piece and the and the and the weekly standard piece here today by by Lee Smith, one thing they expose is that Obama himself and many of the people in his administration hate the media.
	Even the sycophants.
	In fact, they don't have any respect for him at all.
	One thing that becomes clear here is that Obama and Ben Rhodes and some of the others think that this White House press corps is such a bunch of suck-ups.
	They have no respect for him whatever.
	You would think that Obama and his would love these guys because they're on his side and they're greasing the skins for him and they're lying for him and they're spreading whatever disinformation he wants, and they're on his team, but Obama disrespects them, according to this story, because they're so easily used.
	Some people refer to people like this as whores.
	But the story makes it clear that there's no respect for the media in the White House, that they're so easy.
	Lots of people don't know why the administration let Rhodes pull back the curtain.
	Why did the administration let Rhodes tell the truth about how they lied to everybody?
	Why'd that happen?
	And because the answer the answer is because the White House won the Iran deal.
	There's nothing anybody can do about it now.
	Hey, we got what we wanted, here's how we did it.
	We lied to you, we lied to everybody, and they're doing this with pride.
	They wanted to take a victory lap.
	Obama and the White House sent Rhodes out to do this story about how they lied because they wanted to take a victory lap on how artfully they had pulled this off.
	Obama campaign is the anti-Iraq candidate.
	Bush lied, got us into a stupid war.
	The White House would invariably argue, and yes, as President Obama lied to sell the Iran deal, but to keep America out of a stupid war.
	So Obama future war with Iran.
	So Obama's a great hero.
	It doesn't matter.
	Yeah, he lied, and Ben Rhodes lied, but that was to keep us from getting into another war with Iran.
	But the real point of this is found on the last page.
	So why is so much of the press defending people attacking David Samuels who wrote the piece on Ben Rhodes?
	Why are they holding Samuels accountable for reporting what Rhodes did?
	In other words, why is the media not mad at Rhodes?
	Rhodes is the guy laughing about how he lied to them.
	Why are they mad at the guy who wrote about that?
	Well, the reason so much of the media is going after Samuels is because they don't want to believe Rhodes said it.
	It can't be real.
	It can't be real that the regime doesn't respect us, says the White House press corps.
	That can't be true.
	Those quotes, those quotes can't be real.
	Rhodes didn't really say it.
	Rhodes didn't really say how easily it was to lie to the White House press corps, so they don't want to believe it.
	That's why they're going after the writer, the writer is being attacked for making it up.
	But they're not interpreting it correctly.
	Rhodes said it.
	But why?
	Why attack allies?
	Why do an interview in the New York Times and attack your media allies?
	Why brag about how you so can easily lie to them when they help the White House push through everything Obama wants?
	Well, the answer is for the same reason that anonymous White House officials call the Prime Minister of Israel chicken dung.
	For the same reason Obama called American partners free writers, for the same reason Obama shamed the leaders of two of America's closest allies, France and the United Kingdom in public.
	Because that's what this president and this White House is about.
	Humiliating allies and friends.
	That's what this administration is all about.
	Humiliating allies and friends.
	Humiliating traditional allies and friends, like Netanyahu in Israel, and like the United Kingdom returning the Churchill bust, for example.
	So if the White House, the Obama White House loves humiliating allies and friends, why should it treat the White House press corps any differently?
	Now you notice media montages that we do, uh, such as Gravitas, 15, 20, 30 reporters all using the same word or the same phrase, might have in this story also an example of how that can happen coming up after this.
	It has been a while since we uh took a phone call, and people have been waiting patiently, so uh let's uh where we go.
	Monroe, Louisiana, Mary, thank you for calling.
	It's great to have you on the program.
	Hello.
	Hi, Rush.
	It's such a a great honor to talk to you.
	Thank you for taking my call.
	Yes, you bet.
	Um, I guess I I just wanted to run something by you and get your thoughts.
	If Hillary gets the nomination and Bernie chooses to run third party, I think there's a good chance that none of the three will actually reach the 270 electoral votes.
	So if if and only if Bernie decides to run third party, should Cruz also decide to run as a third or I guess fourth party, so that it would then go to the House of Representatives for the deciding vote, and Cruz would actually legitimately be considered a candidate.
	Here's the problem with that, though.
	Um any third party candidate is gonna have to get on ballots by the end of next week.
	I mean, the signing deadline and the and uh deadline for signatures petition, whatever the hell do you have to do in all 50 states, it's it's it's upon us.
	Uh you you couldn't decide, I don't think to go third party in August.
	Now, I I say that.
	I could be, I could be wrong about it, but I just I don't think it works that way.
	I don't think you can just announce, because you have to go through a whole lot of procedures to get your name on the ballot.
	Otherwise anybody could run any time they wanted.
	So there's some there's some thresholds that you have to pass.
	That's why you Bill Crystal is trying to find somebody to do that very thing now, trying to find anybody to run against uh uh Trump as a third party, hoping to throw the race to the House of Representatives.
	Now, here's one thing, Mary.
	The House of Representatives can pick anybody.
	They don't have to pick from the existing candidates.
	If if you've got three people running for president and none of them get to 270, the House can who the Republicans would pick the next president, because the whoever holds the majority in the House, I mean the Democrats would would try to blow the joint up, but it's the Republicans that have the majority, and if they were unified on a candidate, that's who would be the next president.
	And as far as I know, uh wait, somebody's telling me the Twelfth Amendment says that the House can only pick between the top three vote getters in the general election.
	That I was unaware of.
	So you you this would be that that would be a non-effective way for for Cruz to throw his hat back in the ring.
	I think I'm in fact the deadline to be on the ballot as a presidential candidate third party in Texas is already passed.
	If you if you can't get on the ballot in Texas as a third party, especially if you're Ted Cruz, then what's the point?
	Twelfth Amendment essentially says that the House must pick between the top three vote getters in the general election.
	Says the person having the greatest number of votes for president shall be the president if such number be a majority of the whole number of electors appointed.
	And if no person has such a majority, 270, then from the persons having the highest numbers not exceeding three on the list of those voted for as president, the House of Representative shall choose immediately by ballot the president.
	So nobody gets 270, the House chooses, but can only choose from the top three vote getters.
	Republicans run the House, so it stands to reason that they would uh select Trump.
	It stands to reason.
	But believe me, this is one of the strategies I guarantee you that they're planning for in the House leadership if they could get that.
	That's why Bill Kristol's doing what he's doing.
	Don't think that's as a uh an off-the-wall effort that's not attached to anything.
	Remember, some of these people are on record saying they would rather vote for Hillary than Trump.
	Some of these Republicans.
	We have spent time talking about that on this program past months.
	There are a bunch of Republicans have been quoted as saying so.
	Elected Republicans, House, Senate members and so forth, and others.
	So hey, look, this is this is going to be exciting all the way through, folks, for uh for a host of uh a host of reasons.
	I'm actually thinking of taking a couple days off of my eight weeks vacation coming up and just do seven weeks and two days.
	I'm just kidding.
	Here is that sound bite.
	Charlie Rose, PBS, Monday night discussion with President Obama's speech writers, John Lovett, John Favreau, and there was one other in there, but he's not part of the bite.
	Charlie Rose says, Do you have uh equal impact, you speech writers?
	Do you have equal impact on serious speeches as you do lighthearted day-to-day speeches?
	Because it's about style.
	It's about use of language, et cetera.
	I really like I was very the the joke speech is the most fun part of this, but the things I'm the most proud of were the more serious speeches, I think.
	Health care, economic speeches.
	Love it wrote the line about if you like your insurance, you can keep it.
	How dare you?
	You know what?
	It's so true.
	No.
	You believe that?
	Lovett wrote the line about if you like your insurance, you can keep it.
	How dare you!
	Ha ha ha!
	And they all start laughing.
	Charlie Rose is laughing with them.
	And then Lovett says in the noise there at the end.
	And you know what?
	It's still true.
	Not.
	It's still a lie.
	This whole administration's got people in it that do nothing but chortle and laugh and brag about how they get away with lying to everybody.
	They lied about who they were talking to in the Iran nuclear deal.
	They've lied about this.
	They know they're lying and they're and they're thrilled they get away with it.
	They're laughing at every American citizen's face.
	And there's Charlie Rose laughing right along with them.
	You know those media montages that we do here?
	This Rhodes profile, the Ben Rhodes profile in New York Times, actually explains how this happens so spontaneously, such as everybody in the media referring to Dick Cheney as a gravitas hire, or any other phrase that we have found that is used by countless media people in the same way.
	This is what happened when Rhodes, Ben Rhodes, the regime, when he found out on the day of the State of the Union address that Iran had taken a bunch of our sailors hostage.
	Okay?
	This in the midst of negotiations on the Iran Nuke deal.
	It was a day that Obama's going to do the State of the Union speech.
	They find out that Iran had taken a bunch of our sailors hostage.
	So Ben Rhodes instantly decides to go with the spin that the crisis will be resolved because thanks to Obama's Iran diplomacy, we now have good relationships with moderates in the Iranian government.
	The New York Times writer of the profile, David Samuels, is sitting in Rhodes' office as the media message goes instantly from Rhodes's mouth to the ears of his deputy Ned Price, who then emails those words out to Obama's reliable network of media sycophans.
	And this is how it was written.
	Standing in his front office before the State of the Union, Rhodes quickly does the political math on the breaking Iran story.
	Now they'll show scary pictures of people praying to the Supreme Leader, he predicts, looking at the screen.
	Three beats more in his brain spun a storyline to stanch the bleeding.
	He turns to his aide.
	He says, We're resolving this because we have relationships.
	So the aide, Price, turns to his computer and taps away the regime's network of officials and talking heads, media people, columnists and newspaper reporters, and web jockeys, outside advocates, and he types a single message to all of these people.
	And it is, don't worry, we're going to get them back because we're dealing with moderates in Iran now because of our nuclear negotiations.
	And that was in that's how it was reported everywhere.
	And it and David Samuels witnessed it.
	So Rhodes comes up with how they're going to spin it.
	His deputy types an email to 55, 60 different people.
	They all think they're getting a custom email from the White House, and they run with it.
	And in this way, the White House actually gets its own exact spin.
	Used by the drive-by media.
	One example of how it happens, and there's a paragraph here of all that being explained.
	I don't want to take time to read it because time is fast fleeting by here.
	But that is one way in which it happens.
	Again, Peggy Noonan somebite here before we go to the break from CBS this morning.
	Gail King, the BFF of the Oprah, was talking to Noonan about Trump's campaign, and uh Gail King said, Well, what are your Republican homies?
	What are you Republican homeboys?
	Hey, hey, Peggy, what are your Republican homies saying about Trump behind closed doors?
	Tell us the truth.
	Tell us, tell us what your homies really think of Trump that they're not saying Publicly.
	Some people are just trying to wrap their heads around what is still for them a surprise.
	It's a funny thing about people in politics.
	They ought to be the ultimate realists.
	And yet there were a lot of people in Washington Republican politics who thought Trump won't happen because that's not the kind of thing that happens.
	Therefore it won't happen.
	So they managed to be surprised last week when he just cleaned it all up.
	Republican leaders in Washington ought to be thinking, geez, for 10 years we've been doing white papers on how to bring people in.
	This guy just brought people in.
	Do we like that or not?
	Normally you like the guy who makes the tent bigger.
	My point exactly, the Republican Party has been running around thinking this is exactly what we need to do to win.
	Trump's been doing it and they don't like it.
	Well, it's understandable.
	They didn't do it.
	But it just proves that what they say they want and need to win is not really what they're interested in.
	They want to be the ones in control of it, Trump making it happen.
	Anyway, her point is that behind closed doors, Republicans still can't believe it.
	They're in a state of shock, state of panic, and still expecting Trump to implode.
	Still thinking that he's going to step in it at some point, folks.
	Mark my words, and we'll be right back.
	Have you heard this story was um Chelsea Clinton's husband, Mark Mizvinsky, the son of Marjorie Margoli's Ms. Vinsky.
	Remember that name?
	Clinton found a way to get her to vote for his budget back in 1993.
	Anyway, this Mark Misvinsky guy is a hedge funder.
	And Chelsea Clinton is also on record as, you know, I just, I just, I'm not into money.
	I tried.
	I tried, I really tried, but I just don't care.
	I it I I'm not a money person.
	We think she was raised to say this by her parents who kept complaining about leaving the White House broke.
	Uh it's it's one of the lessons that rich Democrats learn early in life.
	The richer you are, the better, but you always act like you aren't.
	And that it doesn't matter to you that money couldn't, it just doesn't affect you when it's all you're interested in.
	Well, it turns out this guy, Mark Mizvinsky, because connections with the Clintons partnered up with Goldman Sachs to do a hedge fund in Greece.
	Now tell me, we all know the problems that Greece had, right?
	They were practically belly up two different times.
	Greece was facing default if it weren't for the Germans, right?
	There was no solution other than the EU.
	Which.
	So this Mark Mizvinsky guy gets together with Goldman Sachs and start a hedge fund, rolling the dice that Greece is going to have a massive economic recovery.
	The hedge fund is now lost, I think 25.
	Let me check the number.
	It's either million or billion.
	Let's say what is this?
	Come on, where is it?
	I can't find it.
	Oh, here it is.
	25 million dollar hedge fund.
	Uh, all of the investors' money is gone.
	25 million dollar hedge fund, all the investors' money is gone.
	Who, in their right mind, would invest in the economic rebound of Greece.
	In order to do that, what do you have to believe?
	That the European Union or some other government agency is going to come along and bail them out and not just bail them out even the balance sheet.
	They're going to bail them out to the point of a robust profit.
	But it didn't happen.
	Now the Clintons have enough money to cover the loss.
	25 million, no big deal.
	I don't know what's going to happen, but who in their right mind?
	Can you imagine somebody's running a hedge fund and comes, hey, I got this hedge fund and we're investing in the rebound of Greece, and all I need from you is like, you know, a quick 50 mil or 50,000 or what.
	Just it boggles the mind.
	It's a reminder, not here tomorrow, folks.
	Mark Belling will be uh manning the golden EIB microphone tomorrow.
	We'll be back here on Friday for open line Friday, and whatever happens on Thursday or tomorrow.
	Whatever.
	It doesn't matter.
	Wait till Friday.
	Find out what to think about it.
	I'll have it for you.

▲