All Episodes
Previous Next
June 29, 2016 - Rush Limbaugh Program
33:07
June 29, 2016, Wednesday, Hour #3
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Hi, welcome back, folks.
Fastest three hours in media.
Here we are already at hour number three.
Great to have you with us, El Rushbo, the all-knowing, all-caring, all-sensing, all-feeling, all-everything, maha rushy.
You're at 800-282-2882.
Email address, lrushbow at EIBnet.com.
Okay, let's look at some of the polling data here.
The big poll that everybody's talking about today is the Quinnipiak poll, which shows that Trump and Clinton are running neck and neck.
Now, this is at variance with the ABC poll, which shows Hillary up 11.
And then there's the NBC Wall Street Journal poll, which shows Hillary up five, I think, something like that.
However, that poll, the NBC Wall Street Journal poll, that's the only good news for Hillary in that poll.
When you get into the internals of that poll, it is devastating for Mrs. Clinton.
And it gives rise to the question, how can she be leading in this poll, given the internals?
Now, I will explain all of this as the program unfolds.
I'm looking here.
Grab soundbite number 13.
I just want you to hear an illustration of what I'm talking about.
This is last night, Bloomberg, the all-due respect show with Mark Halperin and John Heilman.
They had F. Chuck Todd from NBC in as their guest because the NBC Wall Street Journal poll.
So Mark Halperin said to Chuck Todd, said, okay, your poll.
Secretary Clinton's leading, but she is behind Trump on a number of traits, including who is better on the economy.
What's amazing about our NBC Wall Street Journal poll is that this is among the worst polls Hillary Clinton's ever had.
Except because it's in comparison to Trump, it looks like a good poll for her.
But if you extrapolate, if you take out the head-to-head, there's not a good number in here for her.
I'm trying to find it.
Yeah, yeah, there isn't.
He's exactly right.
And see, this cuts against Hillary in two ways.
Aside from the substance there, Hillary Clinton, it's especially against Trump.
She's supposed to look like Mother Teresa.
She is supposed to look like a goddess.
In their view, in the Democrat Party view, Donald Trump is the epitome of the worst human being there is on the planet.
He epitomizes everything they hate about humanity.
From his hair on down to his attitude, to the fact that he does improvisational appearances, to the fact that his voters and supporters are stupid.
They think by comparison, Hillary Clinton should be walking away with this.
That's why they're so reassured when old Nate Silver comes out and tells them that Hillary's got a 79% chance of being elected.
They breathe a sigh of relief.
But the Quinnipiak poll is the same thing.
The Quinnipiak poll shows them in a dead heat, but it also shows that Hillary, she's not loved.
She's not respected.
And it's the same thing in the NBC poll.
And the Democrats are devastated privately by this because the only thing that'll make them comfortable is a cakewalk.
And they thought they had one.
They thought they had a cakewalk here.
They had a perfect Republican opponent in Trump that nobody in their right mind would ever, at the end of the day, really vote for the guy.
And especially if they had Hillary Clinton.
Remember, their view of Hillary is about a thousand gazillion percent higher than ours.
They think she is the epitome of greatness, achievement, accomplishment, first female president, historic nature of the campaign.
Wife of Bill, of course, gives her a certain amount of credibility and so forth.
And these polling numbers are devastating for her.
Forget that Trump's even in them.
It wouldn't matter.
It's really, really bad news for terms of respect, likability, trust.
She's even addressing the likability problems that she has out on the stump.
Now, what are these internals that I keep talking about?
Well, let me run through the list for you because they're not detailing this.
They're talking about it like you just heard F. Chuck Todd describe it, but they don't get the details.
Here they are.
Who do you prefer changing Washington?
Who's best?
Who will be best at changing Washington?
Trump 53, Hillary 23.
Isn't that the primary reason for this election?
Is changing Washington?
Isn't everybody fed up for the establishment?
And I'm including a lot of Democrats in there.
Look at Bernie Sanders.
That is a huge number.
That means that Hillary is viewed as an agent of the same.
She's an agent of the establishment.
She's not going to change anything.
Honest and straightforward.
Trump 41, Hillary 25.
Now, you realize the Democrats think honest and straightforward Trump should be in single digits, the way they look at it.
Here's a guy saying all these rotten things about Mexicans, rotten things about Muslims, rotten things about this.
And Hillary is angelic compared to Trump, and Trump owns it 4125, dealing with the economy.
Trump 47, Hillary 37.
Not only is Trump winning in all these internal categories, it isn't close.
And of course, the Democrats also think they have all the economic.
Remember, they're the ones that think we're in a great recovery.
They're the ones that think Obama has helped us rebound from the horrible financial crisis and the rotten eight years of George W. Bush.
And Hillary Clinton, she's got roots back to Bill Clinton, which was the definition of a roaring economy in the 90s, they think.
Standing up for America.
Trump 45, Hillary 37.
Democrats think that nobody does better in standing up for America than them because they think everybody hates America like they do.
Let me, they think everybody has the same grievances about America they do, and they think they have shown solidarity with all these people who share opinions about these grievances, the problems, the deficiencies of America.
So Trump beating her and standing up.
In fact, they think standing up for America is quaint and old-fashioned and is long past.
We don't need to be doing there's nothing to stand up for here because America is guilty of all these transgressions that we've committed since our founding.
The gun issue.
The gun, that's the subject.
The gun issue.
Who do you prefer dealing with the gun issue?
Trump 43, Hillary 35.
Do you not understand how that's going to just blow them a new one?
They can't, that's going to send them to the asylum.
They can't imagine a guy like Trump, people preferring a guy like Trump dealing with guns.
They believe that a majority of Americans want to get rid of the Second Amendment.
They believe that a majority of Americans want to get rid of guns.
Well, folks, they do.
They lie to themselves about, and they easily do it about American public opinion and terrorism and national security.
Trump 44, Hillary 39, and that's the closest she gets to him in any of these internals.
And that 39, there ought to be a parentheses, Benghazi.
Another parentheses, sniper fire.
So that's what Chuck Todd was talking about.
There isn't a good number for her.
He says, I'm trying to find it.
It's among the worst polls Hillary has ever had, except because it's in comparison to Trump.
It may be not so bad.
No, it makes it worse, really, because they think Trump is a reprobate.
They think Trump is somebody with no redeeming qualities at all.
And they think everybody agrees with them, and thus Hillary ought to just be smoking Trump in all these internal categories.
And she's not even close.
Now we go to the Quinnipiac poll and the also known as the Q poll.
Clinton 42, Trump 40.
Too close to call.
When third party candidates are added to the Q poll, Clinton 39, Trump 37, that bothers them.
Both sides of that bother them.
They don't understand being in a dead heat with the guy.
They don't understand Hillary at only 42%.
But the internals of this poll and what everybody is talking about in the Quinnipiac poll is how majorities of respondents say neither of these two is worth much.
The majority of respondents of the Quinnipiac poll say that neither Trump nor Hillary is the greatest of shakes, and they're not excited and they don't think these are the best representatives and whatever.
And this they're perfectly willing to accept that about Trump.
But the fact that Hillary is seen in the same way, remember now, this was going to be a coordination.
They're added, the Clintons are rock stars in the Democrat Party.
This is like George Clooney being at 38%.
It wouldn't compute.
So these polls that are out today, the ABC news with Hillary Clinton up 11 has pretty much been forgotten.
And the one that preceded it, the Reuters reported by Bloomberg, but had her at 10 points.
All those have been forgotten because these are new, these are recent.
And there's just nothing much to brag about in either of these polls.
And there's quite a lot to be concerned about.
And then we're going to add something to this.
Trump's speech yesterday, at about this time, Trump was speaking in Monessen, Pennsylvania, or Pittsburgh.
And you recall, if you were here yesterday, I was giving a running commentary of that of the speech I could see during commercial breaks.
And I made mention that he was using a prompter, and it was not the usual Trump appearance, which is an improvisational rally that goes on for an hour to 90 minutes.
And it's a stream of consciousness rant that just has people out of their chairs and yip-yip-yipping and ya-yah-yah-hoo-ing and just generally excited.
And this was much tamer and much more subdued and much more serious.
The reviews on this speech that I have read have been universally positive because he was serious, because it was substantive, and because it was unexpected.
Trump did better than people exposed both sides.
There were some alarming things for the establishment, like Trump did drop a bomb when he promised to get out of NAFTA.
And the TPP did get out of both these things.
If renegotiations on more favorable terms fail, we're going to get out of it.
That Chamber of Commerce, and I could send them to the ledge of the highest building.
But he made it, he made the statement with great emphasis and believability.
So that's what the mix is today.
Well, not just the drive-bys.
You know, I was reading my tech blogs.
The tech blogs are making fun of Trump for speaking in front of garbage.
But this is the thing.
Let them do it.
They don't.
Everybody is every critic of Trump.
Well, not every, because there's some critics on our side of a different vein.
But the traditional opponents, like the other party opponents and the liberal Democrat opponents, they are reacting to and criticizing Trump using the same old playbook that you have used for years and decades to criticize political opponents.
If there's anybody who can get away making a speech in front of garbage, it's Donald Trump.
If there's anybody who can turn a speech in front of garbage into a positive, it's Donald Trump.
His critics think that's tantamount to a fatal, fatal, strategic, operational error.
Somebody needs to be fired.
Who would dare put the guy in front of a pile of garbage?
It was recycled aluminum cans.
It looked like an aluminum Christmas tree.
That's how I described it.
But I think all those tech blogs were just going nuts making fun of the guy for it.
Such thing.
Trump speaking in front of garbage?
Who could tell the difference?
Comments like that.
But those kinds of things I don't think are relevant.
I don't.
I think Trump, and he could blow this, by the way, but I think Trump still enjoys a little insulation from the standard ordinary boilerplate ways of analyzing and judging candidates and candidate performance because Trump is not from that world.
He's an outsider.
His support is entirely outside that world, why it exists.
Look, I don't think they'll be able to romney.
The best way to illustrate what I'm trying to say here is I don't think they could Romney Trump.
I don't think they could run an ad showing that the wife of a Trump employee died and get away with running an ad.
Trump doesn't care or didn't care.
I don't think they could succeed running an ad where Trump put the family dog on top of the airplane and took off and flew at 30,000 feet on a family vacation.
A dog died up there.
Those are the kind of things I don't think if Harry Reid came out and said, you know what, I got a friend who says Trump hadn't paid his taxes in 10 years.
I don't think they could get rid of a Republican candidate like Trump as easily as they could dispose of somebody like Romney.
Because Trump's support goes way beyond party loyalty.
It's much deeper than that.
But you know as well as I do that if the drive-bys come along and attack your average typical Republican, some Republicans will abandon just because the attack's been successful.
Oh my God, they just destroyed our guy.
Heck, I can't vote for him.
No, I can't.
It's what happened to Sarah Palin.
But I don't think they can do that with Trump.
I think only Trump can do that to himself.
And I don't think standing in front of garbage making a speech is enough to do it by any stretch.
Okay, back to the phones we go with Rush Limbaugh, having more fun than a human being should be allowed to have.
This is Mike in Sarasota, Florida.
You're next, sir.
Hi.
How you doing, Rush?
Very well, sir.
Thank you for calling.
Hey, just to go back to the beginning of your show when you were talking about, you know, the people that wanted to donate blood and were told they couldn't and so on and so on.
You know, that's not the only reason.
If you've had tattoos done, you can't give blood for a year.
So the whole discrimination thing, I think it just goes out the water on that one.
So if you don't want to be forced to donate blood, then go get a tattoo.
Right.
If you can't, no, if you can't, if you want to give blood, like I do, if you had a tattoo done in the last year, they won't take it.
Hmm.
They tell you why.
I mean, I can think I can understand.
Well, you can kind of figure why, but, you know, there's needles involved.
Wait, there's the needles involved in there, the needles and the ink and all that.
Sure.
All right.
Well, I appreciate that, Mike.
When did I talk about donating blood?
I haven't talked about donating blood since the JCs tried to recruit me back in Kansas City in 1976.
Oh, I'm too.
I'm looking at why'd you put the call up there?
I'm thinking, this guy's talking about tattoos and blood donations.
What the hell's going on here?
So Sturdley's telling me you must have talked about it while I was screening calls and didn't hear about it.
It's a classic example of how, even though I have no idea why the caller's calling, we can make it worth it.
But I do wonder what he was listening to.
You talk about tattoos and donating blood, and you can't do it if you've had a tattoo in the last year.
Anyway, Eric in Pedmore, Michigan, you're next, sir.
Great to have you.
Hi.
Yes, Diddles from Edmore, Michigan, the Potato Capital.
We were talking early on about all the polling about how Trump is not going to win, can't win.
It's all irrelevant because he has created his own paradigm shift in politics.
And the way he's done everything, he's done everything his own way.
Wait, you mean the polls are irrelevant?
The polls are now irrelevant.
And even the way campaigns are being run is becoming irrelevant.
I see.
That's how he changed everything.
Right.
Well, again, he's talking about Nate Silver.
Nate Silver came out, the wonderkind of liberalism, predicting Obama victory and so forth.
Nate Silver has been wrong seven straight times predicting Trump the way he normally does.
He analyzes all the polling data.
He even factors celebrity endorsements into the way he does his analysis.
He's been wrong on Trump seven times since last June the 16th.
Okay, let's play catch up here on the audio soundbites that we've had waiting to go today.
We'll start with Trump last night, Claresville, Ohio.
I remember mentioning yesterday during his teleprompter speech, which again was reviewed in a number of places very favorably.
Now, usual places had their usual hit jobs on.
Trump thinks, by the way, that there is a Trump effect in these polls, much like there is the wilder effect.
Meaning that there are people who do intend to vote for Trump who are not saying so when a pollster calls because they see the way the drive-bys treat Trump.
They see the way the drive-bys react to Trump.
They watch people make fun of Trump or this or that.
And they don't want to be made fun of or laughed at, so they don't tell the truth.
They either say they're not voting or they're voting for Hillary or whatever.
But Trump believes he's got a lot more support out there.
I must tell you, folks, we were the first to note this possibility right here on the EIB network.
I forget, I'd have to do a keyword search of my website, but I could find that when I first referenced the possibility of a Trump effect in the polls.
And I forget what it was that made me think it might exist, but I could find it.
Trump says that many of his supporters are shy about telling pollsters they support him.
Politico even has an article on it now on the possibility of the existence of a Trump effect.
But they poo-poo the whole thing.
They say that Trump's paranoid, that Trump's defensive, that Trump is simply coming up with caca excuses for why he's not doing better.
Yeah, you know, the first Dan Abash was one of the first people I saw that actually did raves about Trump's speech, which made me suspicious, to be quiet.
Dan Abash praised it as substantive, serious, well-delivered, representative of a positive shift in tone in the campaign.
And I said, whoa, whoa, whoa, whoa, whoa.
She's still working there today.
Yeah, she's still working there today and still pushing Hillary and so forth.
Yeah, I was, I did.
I thought, whoa.
It kind of made me reluctant.
But then I saw so many other people, even on some conservative blogs, that are not predisposed to liking Trump, praising the damn thing.
So who knows?
Here is Trump.
This was last night in Claresville.
This was a rally, not a teleprompted speech.
We have a couple of examples.
As you know, we had another suicide bombing, Istanbul, Turkey.
Many, many people killed.
Many, many people injured.
Folks, there's something going on that's really, really bad.
All right, it's bad.
And we better get smart and we better get tough.
Or we're not going to have much of a country left, okay?
It's bad.
It's pretty straightforward, pretty easy to understand.
It's bad.
There's not much ambivalence in that.
Or we're not going to have much of a country left.
When's the last time you heard a political candidate speak that way?
Exactly.
When is the first time you've heard a political candidate speak that way?
Do you know how many people think so?
I got a note from a friend of mine who actually, it was last night, after this thing in Istanbul.
He said, you know, the days of you trying to be Paul Revere and alert, you forget it, man.
It's over.
It's time now to make plans to take care of our families and find out, you know, what we're going to do.
I'm not kidding.
Got this note from a friend.
You know, you've done a great job being Paul Revere, but it doesn't matter.
We're so far gone.
And he started giving me examples of how, look, we caused all this.
We got Obama destabilizing the entire Middle East.
Why do we have so many refugees pouring in here?
Because Obama's blown up their countries.
There's nothing left for him to do.
In addition to them wanting to do this and spread the gospel as they believe it all over the world, we're sunk.
So forget this Paul Revere stuff and figure out where we're going to take our families.
It's bad.
It's bad.
What do you mean, is he nuts?
I can't say that he's not.
I can't say, I can't assure you that he's not, but he's dead serious about it.
But when's the last time you're in Canada talk this way?
And realizing that a lot of people think this way, that's my point in sharing with you the story of the note from my friend.
Here's the next Trump soundbite.
Do you remember when I got in some trouble where I talked about waterboarding?
They asked me a question.
They started off, they asked Ted Cruz a question, and he rightfully didn't want to get into it, and he was a little bit, you know, like, don't ask me, don't ask me about waterboarding.
Well, they asked me the question.
I said, I'll answer that question.
They said, what do you think about waterboarding?
I said, I like it a lot, but I don't think it's tough enough.
You know, you have to fight fire with fire.
When's the last time you heard a candidate advocate waterboarding?
He's the only one ever.
Now, I'm telling you, the Democrats believe that that's the kind of stuff that should launch Hillary into the 70% in the polls.
Cheney is believed to like it, right?
But Cheney, well, the waterboard guy that did it, that Leslie Stahl interviewed.
Jose having a better block.
Cookie, see if we can find that bite real quick.
Oh, yes, yes.
You know, Leslie Straw was upset that we were feeding them insure.
Sheikh Mohammed.
And anyway, you don't hear a candidate talking this way, advocating waterboarding.
Democrats think, okay, Trump's finished now.
This is great.
Hillary's going to be up at 70%.
Did anybody watch the Game of Thrones finale on Sunday night?
You guys watch Game of Thrones?
You know what they did in Game of Thrones Sunday night?
Wineboarding.
Not waterboarding, wineboarding.
Cersei Lannister wineboarded one of the scepters, one of the highest sparrows, nuns, essentially.
Had her laid out on the board there, tied down, poured wine all over her face.
Shame, shame.
If you didn't watch the episode and you're not familiar, this won't mean anything to you.
Moving on to audio soundbite number eight.
The drive-bys have to tell us.
They have to let us know how cosmopolitan they are.
They have to share with us the worldliness that they bring to their jobs.
And in so doing, they convey how they and they alone are qualified to analyze these events that happen across the globe, whereas you and I are mere plebes, haven't the slightest idea.
And part and parcel of being able to explain what's going on in a way that you never could is having been to Atatürk Airport in Istanbul.
Istanbul Airport, which is a very modern, very well-run airport.
I've been in and out of that airport dozens of times.
I've traveled through this airport many times, as you have as well.
This target in the airport, I've been through this area.
Last time I was there was late 2013, maybe early 2014.
Istanbul Airport, if you're ever traveling to the Far East, especially, it tends to be a sort of hub.
And the years I've been traveling out of that.
I've gone through that airport and that particular spot many, many times.
I think I've been in three European airports in the last month.
I've been to Istanbul before.
I was just there last year.
Headed back to New York, transitioning through Istanbul, which people do every day.
See, so what's the big deal?
I've been to Istanbul.
Okay, so you've been to an airport just blown up.
What's the big deal?
I've been to Istanbul airport.
What kind of credibility does that afford you?
Yes, I've been to Istanbul.
I've traveled to the Ataturk airport.
I have been there.
So?
Did it blow up when you were there?
Well, no, I fortunately wasn't there when an explosion occurred.
Well, then, what's the big deal?
Well, you see, I'm more cosmopolitan than you.
You've never been to the Istanbul airport.
That's why I'm on CNN and you're not.
And that's the way they think.
Right.
I mean, everybody's been to LaGuardia.
Everybody's been to the bathrooms of LaGuardia, but not everybody's been to Istanbul and the Ata Plus.
Istanbul, let's all be honest about something.
Istanbul is exotic in and of itself because of James Bond movies.
Istanbul is a central location for practically every international spy movie or book that's ever been done.
Istanbul.
Just sounds great to say it.
You know what it used to be?
Right on, the broadcast engineer gets it.
Constantinople is what it used to be.
Named after whom?
The Emperor Constantine, who's noted for doing what?
Besides that, Christianity, catacombs, freedom, Constantine.
Back.
December 10th last year, first mention of the Trump effect in polling by me on this program.
And it was because some people that were saying they weren't voting for Trump, even though they were.
So the Trump effect was first established here on this program way back in December.
Most things start on this program.
And most things always have.
Okay.
It was Jose Rodriguez, who was the official water boarder at Guantanamo Bay, at Club Gitmo.
60 Minutes did a profile of Jose Rodriguez.
He had a book.
And he was describing what went on.
And then Leslie Stahl couldn't believe it, as he was describing the various techniques that we use to extract information from Al-Qaeda prisoners at Club Gitmo.
And this is one of my all-time favorite sound bites.
Leslie Stahl interviewing Jose Rodriguez, April 29th, 2012.
She says, so what happens to Khalid Sheikh Mohammed?
Does he break down when you waterboard him?
Does he cry?
Does he fall apart?
No.
He gets a good night's sleep.
He gets his insure.
By the way, he was very heavy when he came to us, and he lost 50 pounds.
What, his insure?
You mean like people in the hospital who drink that stuff?
Yes.
Dietary manipulation was part of these techniques.
So sleep deprivation, dietary manipulation.
I mean, this is Orwellian stuff.
The United States doesn't do that.
Well, we do.
Well, we do.
Remember, she could not believe that we were feeding a prisoner in shore.
And Rodriguez, oh, yeah, he was very heavy when he came to us, as though he showed up at rehab.
When he came to us, he lost 50 pounds.
You mean insured that people in the hospital would drink that stuff?
And Rodriguez, he's mocking her the whole time as she doesn't get it.
A segment on dire techniques.
Dire, dire techniques that we use.
So Jose Rodriguez says, oh, yes, dietary manipulation was part of these dire techniques.
It just flew right over her head.
United States doesn't do that.
Oh, God, did he cry?
Did he break down?
Does he fall apart?
Oh, no, no, no, no, no, no.
Gosh, we don't do this.
Well, we do.
Jose Rodriguez.
So what is the Attorney General Lynch, Loretta Lynch, what is she doing meeting with Bill Clinton in the passenger compartment of a private plane on a tarmac in Phoenix today?
What in the world could that be about?
Why would the Attorney General be meeting with Bill Clinton in the privacy of the passenger cabin of a private jet in Phoenix?
No.
it's not that because everybody knows about it.
So it's not, it's it's not no, it's not what you would usually think Clinton's doing with a woman on a plan.
▲
Export Selection