All Episodes
Previous Next
Aug. 4, 2016 - Rush Limbaugh Program
33:13
August 4, 2016, Thursday, Hour #3
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
And back we are in the midst of the fastest three hours in media.
The Rush Limbaugh program.
Time goes by.
We're over and done before you know it.
Already, at the beginning here of hour number three.
And the phone number, if you want to be on the program, is 800-282-2882.
That's been the number since we started.
I probably never even have to give that number out.
It's almost in my syllabic memory now.
I mean, I don't even know what the number is.
I know what the syllables are when I have to announce it.
It's great to have you, my friends.
If you want to send an email, we check the email as well.
It's LRushbow at EIBnet.com.
Lots of other things going on out there.
Some, and I want to touch on it before we get back to the meat and potatoes of this.
I really do believe that what you are seeing in the media, and I expect to be excoriated for this, as I am excoriated for much of what I say.
Actually, what we're seeing is establishment panic.
Look, they know what the stakes are here, folks.
If this guy Trump wins, everything is turned upside down.
Everything these establishment people rely on for their self-esteem, for their identity, for their standard of living, for their kids' future, everything is turned upside down and potentially put at risk.
They know it.
And they know something else.
They do not have in Hillary Clinton a candidate that can cross the finish line on her own.
They don't have a candidate that they can follow.
They have a candidate who has to be pushed.
They have a candidate that has to be guided and defended and ignored at the right time.
And there's an opponent that they have to take out.
And we're now in August.
And you know what establishment people do in August?
Mr. Sterling, what do the establishment types do in August?
What do they do?
Where do you find them?
Where are they right now?
I mean, well, they're out in the Hamptons.
They're going to charity fundraisers.
They're hanging out playing polo or they're attending polo matches sponsored by Mercedes and fashion shows and stuff.
And they're going to cocktail parties and they're wringing their hands because they know what I just said.
They don't have an electorate candidate.
They don't have a candidate can sell books.
All they do, they've got a candidate can sell herself or access to herself.
And you know what?
I think these people, the opponents to Trump, they look at everything they've been able to either manufacture, create, or report, that is, the supposed implosion of Trump campaign, his bottoming out on the polls, and Hillary racing ahead.
And yet, what do they see?
They see overflow arenas when Trump goes out and does an appearance.
They don't see, in the real world, they don't see the evidence that would accompany their reporting.
I mean, if the bottom is falling out of Trump's campaign, he shouldn't be drawing any crowds either.
I mean, if the bottom is falling out of Trump's campaign, what does it mean?
It means he's losing support.
And that's worth trying to create the impression he's losing support.
And if you believe, if you live and die in polls, that's what you, you must accept that.
And you can't take a poll that you don't like and throw it out and then sign on to a poll that you do.
So people live and die by these polls on both sides.
But yet Trump's still drawing crowds.
They're just as large as ever.
There are just as many overflows as ever.
And Trump's still doing them.
I mean, so over here on one hand, you have all this evidence of a campaign in disarray, a campaign supposedly with a near mutiny going on inside it, a campaign in need of an intervention by professionals like Newton Gingrich or Rudy Giuliani.
You have a campaign with this person leaving it or that person leaving it.
You have a campaign that Republicans are publicly denouncing and smearing and then leaving to join Hillary Clinton.
But over there, on the other hand, The real world examples, Trump is just as popular as ever.
So all of these problems and the diminished campaign and the lack of support, the dwindling enthusiasm.
I mean, if you look, if you're losing support, if you've down 10 points in a week, that should mean there's a lot less enthusiasm for you.
But they don't see less enthusiasm for Trump.
And I'm telling you, this soundbite we had from Robert Costa, the Washington Post, that's one of those soundbites that provides a window to the thinking of many in the establishment.
So they are trying to think outside the box.
They are worried that outside the box things that they don't control because they don't reach those people through traditional media and so forth.
My point is, they're still very, very, very concerned because they have a lot at stake here if they lose.
Both parties, party structure here, party identity, not that big a deal.
We're talking about the ruling class from people from all walks of life that make it or break it in some way related to government.
And that is what is at stake here.
Somebody is trying to intercede, interrupt, disrupt, take control of it away from them.
And they're just not going to sit idly by and let things take their normal flow and course and then deal with it.
They're going to do everything they can to control the course of events.
And especially using the drive-by media that is theirs.
But there are other things here.
We'll get back to all of this.
I mentioned at the top of the program, you know, talk about millennials and younger people and the cultural upheaval of cultural change happening in America.
I'll tell you honestly, when I saw a story, this is some years ago now, that young men and boys in today's millennial generation, fewer and fewer of them have any interest in cars.
Fewer and fewer had any interest in owning one.
And I said, now that's remarkable.
That is significant.
Because every generation, there isn't a generation of Americans yet that didn't have a significant contingent of the young male population wanting a bike, wanting a bicycle, motorcycle, or a car,
mostly a car, and wanting a cool car, a souped up car, not just, you know, some electric thing to get from point A to point B. And when I saw that there was dwindling interest in that, I said, well, this is significant.
And then there's this.
Washington Post.
The headline, there isn't really anything magical about it.
Why more millennials are avoiding sex?
Sam Weed, 26-year-old financial analyst Chicago, has not had sex since her last relationship ended 18 months ago.
She makes out with guys sometimes and she likes to cuddle, but she hasn't had sex.
You know, I'm trying to think back when I was 26, if I would ever see a story like this in the Southeast Missourian, which was the hometown newspaper, Cape Girardeau, Missouri, when I was growing up, would I ever see a story on a 26-year-old woman in town discussing the last time she'd had sex?
And I don't think I would have seen it.
But today, I mean, this is commonplace.
And it's fascinating.
So here we now have a story in the Post where yet another unique characteristic of millennials is there's no great sex about sex.
What's the big deal?
26-year-old financial analyst Chicago, not had sex since her last relationship ended 18 months ago.
She makes out with guys sometimes and she likes to cuddle.
You mean in millennial population, cuddling doesn't lead to anything?
It's tragic.
It is.
This is tragic, especially for Planned Parenthood.
You got to have pregnancies if you're going to keep that place alive.
And to have pregnancies, you've got to have people having sex.
But I digress.
She says to me, this is Sam Weed, to me, there's more intimacy with having someone there next to you that you can rely on without having to have sex.
I don't want to do anything that would harm the relationship and be something that we can't come back from.
So sex is one of those things that once you go there, you can't go back.
So sex is one of these things that might cause upheaval in a relationship.
I have a clue for her.
That's not new.
It isn't new.
That's always been the.
You know, when that is really always been a factor: male and female best friends.
If you cross the line, well, it's just statistically proven.
Cross the line and you move from friendship to intimacy, you can't get the friendship back.
It's just not the same.
Same thing as this.
We be friends with benefits.
That exists, friends with benefits, but then you meet somebody other than your friend, and then the friends with benefits thing has to come to an end.
Says who, I know.
Okay, how about this?
Male and female best friends, no sex involved.
One of the two meets somebody, gets engaged.
What happens to the original male-female best friendship?
It is over.
It is over.
Why is it over?
Somebody's going to get jealous.
But what if there's nothing to get jealous of?
What if that male-female best friendship is no sex?
And even after one of the two in that friendship gets married, no, we're talking straights here.
I'm not going to get into gaze yet.
That's a whole different dynamic on this.
I agree, it can't hold up.
It can't survive.
The male-female best friendship can't survive once one of them gets married.
And the reason is that that means that one of them is knowingly, every day, openly, theoretically, having sex with somebody else.
It just changes everything.
Well, I don't know.
This is exclusively women are too jealous.
I think it's more this.
I actually, I'm going to get in deep doo-doo for this, but I have always doubted the genuineness of male-female best friendships.
I've always thought there's not, that's not, you can't do that.
That, that, that, no, no, because the, because, yeah, because we know what men really want here.
But it can't survive it.
It can't survive, like one of them getting married.
It can't survive it.
But your best friend, you have a best friend and you're a guy, you have a guy best friend, you get married, your friendship holds up.
Unless your wife doesn't like your best friend, then you can wave him goodbye.
Anyway, so the millennials are tortured here.
It's according to the Washington Post, it's a less sexy time to be young than it used to be, despite millennials' reputation as bed hoppers, frolicking like the characters on girls.
A study published Tuesday in the journal Archives of Sexual Behavior reminds me I need to renew my subscription.
The journal Archives of Sexual Behavior, the latest survey finds that younger millennials born in the 1990s are more than twice as likely to be sexually inactive in their early 20s as the previous generation was.
Even other millennials are more sexually active than this younger group.
And when they, if you read deep enough, you'll find out it's all related to the cell phone.
That people just are having much more interpersonal satisfaction and they're being rewarded much more by virtue of interaction on their phones.
That's what the story says.
That online, being connected, cell phone, what have you, has replaced having sex.
And you know, this story is, I did think that this was the hookup generation.
Have you heard about the Supreme Court blocking a ruling that let transgender students use whatever bathroom they wanted to use in Virginia?
This is kind of interesting.
The Supreme Court signaled in an order yesterday that it is highly likely to take up the issue of transgender bathrooms in its coming term.
There was a five to three vote.
The justices put on hold a groundbreaking court ruling requiring a Virginia scruple district to accommodate a transgender high school student's request to use the boys' bathroom.
And there's a picture of this transgender.
It's a political story.
Gavin Grimm interviewed at his home in Gloucester, Virginia.
He's a transgender student whose demand to use the boys' restrooms has divided the community and promoted a lawsuit.
And it's Stephen Breyer, the court's not in session, so each justice handles a region of the country.
Stephen Breyer got this.
And when Breyer, in his opinion, so when he saw that the four conservatives voted to stay this until later in the term, he decided to vote with them to make it 5-3 to make it look like that there was a solid opinion on this for whatever reason.
He could have made it 4-4 and tied, but he decided to vote with the conservatives on this because they want this issue before the court.
I'm sure they want to blow this sky high too.
But people are surprised that the court didn't take action to permit this, that the court took action or ordered action to maintain a stay.
And the LGBT community not happy about this.
Here is the reaction from the ACLU lawyers over this transgendered individual's reaction, their reaction to Supreme Court decisions saying that he's got to use a specific bathroom.
We are disappointed that the court has issued a stay and that Gavin, who is the transgender here, will have to begin another school year isolated from his peers and stigmatized by the Gloucester County Scrool Board just because he's a boy who is transgender.
He said Joshua Block, senior staff attorney, ACLU, isolated and stigmatized because he is a girl who wants to use the boys' bathroom and shower.
And the popular reaction to this has become, why are we wasting time on who wants to use what bathroom?
Once again, let me just spell it out for you.
Everybody was minding their own business and everything was fine.
And then one day we were told that girls want to use the boys' bathroom and guys want to use the girl's bathroom.
And if you don't like it, shut the hell up.
So who is it that actually starts all this stuff that gets everybody all worked up?
And then the reaction is, what do you care?
What difference does it make?
There are more important things to talk about.
What do you mean, what difference does it make?
It makes some difference.
Why have bathrooms been segregated all of these thousands of freaking years?
And so it's like every other aspect of the rot and decline of our culture.
All we are is minding our own business, respecting tradition and institution and all this stuff.
And a lot of reformers come along and say, you know what?
We don't like the way you do it.
We don't like the way you do marriage.
We don't like the way you assign who can use what bathroom.
So we're going to change it.
And we're just going to force this on you.
And people object, and they are called a problem.
And that's how this stuff works.
And that's how social issues all of a sudden become an albatross around Republicans next, when all they were doing is minding their own business.
And a bunch of people come along and want to totally blow things up.
Like a Democrats and Khazir Khan.
I mean, what's the real trick here on that?
What's the real?
You bring somebody up who has lost a child for some reason in a war or to secondhand smoke or whatever cause the Democrats are pushing.
And by virtue of that, you can't oppose.
You can't criticize.
You can't say anything.
It's like bring up a person who's disabled and have them do a political commercial for a candidate.
The minute you disagree with the disabled person speaking out for Canada, you're called a bigot or what have you.
And these are time-honored tactics that the Democrats use to stifle and shut down debate.
Or when the debate happens, find a way to stigmatize those who are basically for status quo because status quo has derived from tradition and normalcy.
One other thing before we, I'm going to get some soundbites I want you to hear, we'll get back to the phones.
A friend of mine, excuse me, sent me a note.
This is an excellent point, by the way.
Let's take the isolate, the apparently isolated incident here or isolated series of events that are being reported as the Trump campaign's imploding.
The Republican Party is in panic.
The Republican Party is terribly worried, terribly afraid.
The Republican Party is just in dire straits, and everybody's panicking over Trump making a mess of his campaign.
There's a mutiny inside the Trump campaign.
Trump is thinking of quitting.
There's an intervention being planned because Trump doesn't know what he's doing.
And a lot of Republicans are so fed up and so angry that they are publicly signing on with Hillary Clinton.
That's microcosm of what's being reported here the past three days, five days, past week.
Let me ask you a question.
Prior to July of 2015, when Donald Trump got into the presidential race, what was the status?
What was the condition of the Republican Party?
It wasn't held in high regard, was it?
I mean, if you think back to those days, Republican conservative voters were fit to be tied.
They had given the Republicans the House in 2010, the Senate in 2014.
And the Republicans were not stopping Obama, were not opposing the Democrats.
People were fit to be tied.
So Trump comes along, gets in the race.
And who was the establishment behind?
And who did the establishment think was going to be the nominee?
And by the way, was going to end up being the nominee by avoiding the base.
Was that none other than Jeb Bush?
It was.
And how many millions of dollars were raised to promote the Jeb Bush for president candidacy?
Well, it was like $115 million.
And they spent most of it.
They spent, I think, 100 of the 115 million.
How many delegates did Jeb end up with?
You remember, Mr. Snirdly?
Six.
You're off by five.
It's close.
He had six delegates with $100 million.
Now, my point is, we're hearing now that because of Trump, the Republican Party is in a free fall.
It was in a freefall before all of this happened, which is why this is happening.
And the free fall that was in is illustrated by the fact that Jeb's $100 million didn't get him a nomination.
Now, stop and think.
If you were part of that apparatus, you'd gone out there and you raised $100 million.
You had the best consultant.
You had the best advisors.
You had the best planners.
You had the best everything.
What do you got to show for it?
Six delegates.
Over here, a guy you think is a buffoon ran away with everything.
My point here, folks, is that the effort is underway to blame whatever is happening to the Republican Party on Trump when, in fact, the Republican Party was in a bit of a tailspin, maybe a nosedive, even before.
I mean, public opinion and the Republican side, the conservative Tea Party, they were fed up and they had had it with the Republican leadership in the House and the Senate.
And yet, the effort underway now is to kind of make everybody think the Republican Party was strong and it was viable and it was succeeding and it had a good chance of beating Hillary, a good chance of winning the White House.
The Republican Party was strong and it was invigorated.
It was raising a lot of money and everybody was happy.
But that wasn't the case.
But that's what they're trying to invent, make you think was the case, so they can end up blaming all of that on Trump.
Well, and others too, but primarily, primarily Trump.
The point is that the Republican Party was not on an upward trajectory as the Republican primaries began.
Most people that were prepared to vote Republican were not energized.
They were not thinking that whoever the nominee was was going to take on the Democrats.
I mean, and they weren't.
The Republican Party was out there saying, we stand for amnesty.
We must reach out to the Hispanics.
Don't forget that.
Don't fall for this ruse that everything was rosy.
Everything was hunky-dory.
Everything was, man, we were right on.
We were smoking ready.
We were ready to conquer the world.
We were going to take on everything.
And then Trump came along and screwed everything up.
But that's not the way it was.
Because had it been that way, Trump would not have succeeded.
Had there been all that happiness, had there been all that loyalty, if it had been all this support for the party, like they're trying to make you think existed, that Trump has somehow done the damage to the Republican Party?
There's a lot of damage been done to the Republican Party, but you can't say it began with Donald Trump.
Anyway, I take a break here, my friends.
We'll be back and roll right on right after this.
Okay, Barack Hussein Obama.
Late yesterday in Washington, the Young African Leaders Initiative.
It's important to know the audience for this.
This is an Obama attempt to say exactly what Elizabeth Warren says when she says, you didn't build that.
You don't own that.
Obama is adding to it now.
This is egregious.
Our big problem here in this country is sometimes we forget how we became so wealthy in the first place.
You start hearing arguments about, oh, we don't want to pay taxes to fund the universities, or we don't want to pay taxes to maintain our roads properly.
Because, you know, why should I have to invest in society?
I made it on my own.
Well, the reason that you had this opportunity to go work at Google or to go work at General Motors or to go work at IBM had to do with a lot of investments that were made in science and research and roads and courts.
I always tell people who are anti-government in the United States, try going to a country where the government doesn't work.
Anti-government's not what it is in the first place.
But here you go.
Once again, our wealth, America's wealth, originally came from taxation and government programs and government investment.
And I'm sure he's got an audience nodding their heads in total agreement.
This is a bastardization of the truth.
This is so false and misleading that it is a disservice to this audience, that taxation is the route to wealth.
And that people who are wealthy, yeah, they don't want to invest in government that helps society.
They have all this money, but they don't want to give the government any.
They don't want to maintain our roads.
They don't want to pay taxes to fund the universities.
Yeah, I guess people paying 60 grand a year to send their kids to school are wondering what he's talking about.
But here it is.
It's classic.
America's wealth.
Don't believe it comes from hard work.
Don't believe it comes from anything other than the government smiling down on a chosen industry and making sure that there are roads for people to get there and making sure that there is a court to punish the CEO.
Here is Brian, Sonoma, California.
Welcome, sir.
Glad you waited.
You're next.
Hello.
Hey, Rush.
How are you doing?
Just fine, sir.
Thank you.
So I kind of had a question.
I was thinking out loud to myself about an opportunity where, you know, Trump could get most of the votes, like more votes than Hillary, but still not get elected as a president.
Yeah.
And I was kind of thinking about, you know, Gore and Bush, who Gore won the popular vote and Bush still got the election because of the Electoral College.
So we don't really elect, I mean, the people.
We don't really elect the president.
So is there like an opportunity still for Trump to get a majority of all the votes and then Hillary still get the election because somebody smarter at the Electoral College decide that it's better for us?
Well, no, the Electoral College has to vote the way the states go.
That's why you hear presidential campaigns are actually campaigns in various states, battleground states.
But is another reason why, by the way, part of the Trump is losing it meme is that, you know what now?
He's losing every battleground state he needs.
Oh, he's losing Ohio.
He's losing Florida.
He is losing Pennsylvania.
And don't doubt me, he needs Pennsylvania.
He can't do anything unless he wins Pennsylvania.
And he's down by 15 points, Pennsylvania.
It's over.
Trump's losing in every state.
I mean, that's what they're saying.
That's the theme, the narrative that's out there.
But yeah, it rarely happens.
Bush and Gore was a rarity.
You can win the popular vote, lose in the electoral, but it's not because individual, well, I take it back.
There is a member of the Electoral College, one of the electors in Georgia, has come out and said he's not going to vote for Trump no matter what the state of Georgia does.
He's just not going to do it.
So, look, there's all kinds of opportunities for chicanery here.
I'm not denying that.
It's not going to come down to that.
Well, I shouldn't speak so fast.
I think these establishment guys are capable of anything to hold on to what they've got.
I still don't think people have the slightest idea what they would do to.
I mean, you would think the coup was actually going to get rid of Racep, Tayap, Erdogan.
You see what he's doing to everybody?
And that might have even been a fake coup, just so he could get rid of opposition.
He might have planned all.
You've got to hear this one soundbite, by the way, because this is David Rodham Gergen.
He is the voice of conventional wisdom in Washington.
Remember now, in June, we were told polling data in June tells you who wins.
But then Trump erased Hillary's advantage, and then they said, okay, it's the first set of polls after the conventions.
That's what Tiltshaw.
Now, that's out the window.
There's a new mechanism by which we can now determine who will win the presidency.
And David Gergen has it talking about Hillary's bounce in the polls after the Democrat convention.
It's the bounce plus.
And the plus is that Donald Trump has had a miserable seven days since.
Take it back, guys.
Call for the wrong bite.
Play number seven real fast.
Play the next one real fast.
We got time.
Screws in there.
Never mind.
What he says is that all that matters is Obama's approval rating.
As long as Obama's approval rating remains high, that will carry Hillary Clinton across the finish line.
Nothing else matters.
It used to be the polling data in June told us all we needed to know.
Then that one fell apart.
Then they went to the post-convention bounce.
They're not comfortable with that.
Now, the significant number in all of the polling, Gergen says, is the president's approval rating.
When a candidate runs, same party sitting president, his approval number tells you who is going to win.
They think they can keep Obama's approval number 56, even if they have to make it up.
Yet another excursion into broadcast excellence, the Sterling excursion comes to an end, but it never really ends because we're back here tomorrow.
And tomorrow is Open Line Friday, which allows you to branch off into any area of topic discussion you want to go.
▲
Export Selection