Dittos, 

ADVERTISEMENT
ADVERTISEMENT
Back Home Button
The Rush Limbaugh Show
Excellence in Broadcasting
RSS Icon
ADVERTISEMENT

EIB WEB PAGE DISGRONIFIER

While Media Buzzes Over Rush and Rubio, Obama Stands in Way of Immigration Deal

BEGIN TRANSCRIPT

RUSH: The Drive-By Media, the State-Controlled Media is abuzz -- bzz bzz bzz bzz bzz -- with the fact that Senator Marco Rubio will be our guest on this program in exactly one hour.  They're all talking about it.  And the subject, of course, is amnesty.  Uh, uh, sorry.  Immigration reform. (imitating McCain) "Meaningful, comprehensive immigration reform, Limbaugh, that's what it is.  It's not amnesty.  We don't call it amnesty."  Sorry.  Exactly right, Senator.  It's meaningful, comprehensive immigration reform.  We put together a montage of the media all atwitter about Senator Rubio's appearance here in an hour.

CHUCK TODD: Today he's going to talk to Rush Limbaugh.

MARGARET HOOVER: The right-wing talk radio folks are saying, "Well let's hear what Marco Rubio says."

CONNELL MCSHANE:  Going to be on Rush Limbaugh today.

SAM STEIN: Rush Limbaugh today.  He is the point person in talking to that universe.

JIM VANDEHEI:  One thing I’d say to watch is that Rush Limbaugh interview.  ‘Cause Rush Limbaugh on his show yesterday said, "I want to call on Fox News and others to join me in defeating this plan." Rush Limbaugh still has juice with the base. 

RUSH:  I didn't say that.  Did you hear me say that?  I'm gonna call on Fox News and others to join me in defeating this plan?  I don't recall saying that.  It doesn't matter.  I'm quoted as saying things I never said constantly.  But, you see, it's out there. 

Now, there's something fascinating -- and I'm gonna withhold some of the stuff about immigration until we get to Senator Rubio -- but the president is flying to Las Vegas today, and he's going to announce his own immigration reform plan, and a lot of Democrats were begging him not to do that.  You know, don't insert yourself; let the Senate handle this and then deal with whatever comes your way.  But the president is going to propose something that, if people who have already spoken on the record mean what they say, this thing doesn't have a snowball's chance of seeing the light of day.

See, the common denominator here, when you get down to the brass tacks, when you take the politics out of it and the motivation, why the Republicans are doing it, after you have that discussion, the meat and potatoes of this comes down to border security.  That's the common denominator.  That's what the Gang of Eight is promising, this Gang of Eight senators is promising.  It's not gonna be like '86.  We're gonna make sure we secure the border.  Just like they did in '86, by the way, and just like they did in 2007.  Just like they always do, they are promising that border security will happen first and that the law will be enforced, and only then will the process of assimilation and dealing with whatever number of illegals are in the country, only then will they be dealt with. Only then will the path to citizenship be spelled out. 

Well, folks, the president's gone out to Las Vegas today, and he is going to make the point that he doesn't want any border enforcement in his immigration bill.  He's going to oppose that aspect of the Senate bill.  He's gonna make a point of saying he doesn't want border enforcement in this, and certainly not first.  Now, this goes to something that I have always said.  Well, not always, but I've said frequently.  When you get down to the basics of Republicans versus Democrats, there is no common ground.  There is no place for compromise.  Democrats are not even into compromise.  The Democrats have no desire to compromise.  Certainly the president doesn't.  He's all about victory, victory, which, that's politics.  I'm not being critical of that.  Don't misunderstand.  It's politics and, you know the cliche, all is fair in love and war. 

The Republicans, I'm not sure they understand what they're up against.  You know, everybody talks about bipartisanship and compromise, and the Republicans buy that, "Okay, that's what the voters want. They want us to get along, be bipartisan, compromise."  And so they come up with compromise plans.  The president is not gonna compromise anything.  He's not gonna compromise.  He doesn't want to compromise.  He is all about ultimate, total victory.  He wants to eliminate any viable opposition to him, in the media, in the Senate, in the House.  He didn't negotiate on the debt limit.  Said he's not gonna negotiate on the fiscal cliff, and he said he's not gonna negotiate on the debt limit.  He's not gonna negotiate on anything.  As far as he's concerned, he doesn't have to; he won.  Yet we are -- by "we," the Republicans are going into this with the idea that they're going to compromise.  It's what people want. 

There is no compromise.  As such, there is no common ground.  There wasn't any common ground in the fiscal cliff deal.  There isn't any common ground in the debt limit deal.  There's nothing in common.  Compromise is not what the president -- and I actually think, by extension, the Democrat Party themselves, are interested in.  And if you were them, why would you want to compromise?  In your mind, you just won everything, and you won it big.  And you're running around thinking the vast majority of the American people are with you.  So what is this compromise business?

The media runs around thinking, they're a little shocked.  Remember, the press conference, F. Chuck Todd and Major Garrett, "Mr. President, why won't you compromise? The Republicans gave..."  Not gonna compromise.  And he went on to talk about how the Republicans are the greatest threat to mankind the world has ever faced.  His objective is to eliminate them as a political force.  So if the Gang of Eight makes it clear -- and they did in '86, too.  This was a way to sell it to you -- if they claim that nothing's gonna happen until they secure the border, that's going to happen.  They promise.  They're gonna secure the border. Ted Kennedy said he was gonna do it in '86. McCain said he was gonna do it in '07. They're saying they're gonna do it now, gonna secure the border.  And only then will we then start talking about a path to citizenship. 

But if the president is not interested in it, then what really is going on here?  See, my question is, does the president really want an immigration reform bill on his desk that he can sign, or would he prefer to have this as an ongoing, unsolved issue over which he can beat the Republicans' heads?  He can talk all day long about his balanced approach and how the Republicans refuse to meet him halfway, when it's the exact opposite, in reality.  He'll use the same language, balanced approach, fair this, fair that, everybody having a fair shot, level playing field, equal opportunity.  Everybody's gotta give a little bit, come up with the straw men that he claims stranding in the way of this, who all happen to be Republicans. 

I'm just a casual observer here.  But if the Gang of Eight is promising everybody border enforcement will happen, that's the common denominator, that's the thing that has to happen, and the president is out there saying, "I'm not gonna have any border security."  I mean, Obama's gonna go to Vegas and make a speech and oppose the Senate bill's border enforcement requirements.  Does that tell you that he's interested in any kind of a deal, in any kind of a compromise?  It doesn't say that to me. 

I think the president's having a grand old time, folks.  I think he is enjoying beating the Republicans up left and right.  I think he's enjoying the media helping him do that.  I think he's having the time of his life.  Why stop now?  He knows he can get this immigration thing any time he wants it.  Why go ahead and do it now?  By the way, if the president plays this the right way, he can win the House for the Democrats in 2014 by once again exposing the Republicans as racist, anti-Hispanic, unwilling to compromise, unwilling to meet him halfway, in his usual fashion. 

Here's Obama's itinerary today.  By the way, that's true.  You know what?  This quote in this sound bite, Jim VandeHei at Politico.  He's the one who said, "'cause Rush said on his show yesterday I want to call on Fox News and others to join me --" I didn't say that.  Not only did I not say that, I said that I didn't even think Fox News was on our side in the amnesty debate.  What I said was, I think we're all alone out there, folks.  I don't think Fox News is even on our side.  I know the Wall Street Journal's not on our side.  And the same people that own the Wall Street Journal own Fox. 

Anyway, the president's itinerary.  9:20: he departed the White House.  11:25 Pacific, and that would be 2:25 Eastern he arrives in Las Vegas.  At 2:55 Eastern, delivers his speech on immigration at Del Sol High School.  At 5pm Pacific rather, he departs Vegas.  This guy is flying nine hours to make, what, a 30-minute speech in Las Vegas and then return.  Nine hours total, four-and-a-half out, four-and-a-half back, basically.  And he's making a point that he's not going to support this whole notion of border security.  Of course he's not.  The Democrat Party doesn't want a secure border.  You know, as long as a bunch of media people are listening -- he-he-he -- the Democrat Party needs a permanent underclass.  We've discussed this before. 

You people in the media may have missed this.  The Democrat Party needs a permanent underclass.  They need a certain number of voters constantly in economic distress, constantly in need of assistance from government.  And open borders is a great way to provide an influx of what I call the need that they have here for permanent underclass.  They're also future voters. 

And I'll repeat again, you know, when the election results were in and everybody was a little bit surprised at the outcome, what were the two things that were said by Democrats and by the media?  You know, you Republicans, if you're ever gonna change your own fortunes, you're gonna have to change your attitude on Hispanics and immigration and women and abortion.  You're gonna have to.  You're gonna have to become open borders. You're gonna have to support amnesty. You're angering all the Hispanics out there.  And when I heard that, my first reaction was, "Really, the Democrats are trying to help the Republicans?  Is that right?  They feel so bad over Romney's defeat that they're offering advice." 

"Hey, you Republicans, you know, you're really gonna have to do more Hispanic outreach, really gonna have to relax your hard views on border control and immigration."  And the Republicans and their consultant class fell right in line.  "That's exactly right," they said.  "We are perceived to be much too anti-Hispanic, anti-immigration.  We've gotta totally moderate our tone on that.  We gotta be much more open to the idea of open borders and illegal immigration, the path to citizenship," and so forth.  And I thought, that's very strange.  The Democrats are actually offering to share some of their voters with us. The Democrats are actually offering to give us some of their voters, not just Hispanic voters, but women voters, too, 'cause they told us that we're gonna have to change our mind on abortion, have to become more pro-choice.  If we did that, we'd get more women voters. 

Really, the Democrats are interested in us getting more of their voters?  How nice of them.  Whoever thought these guys would be that magnanimous in victory, that they won by so much that they're willing to give us some of their voters if we'll just change and compromise on our core principles. 

Now, I want to repeat a proposal. As we go to our first obscene profit time-out, I want to repeat a very simple proposal I made back in November, because I am interested in compromise.  I am interested in everybody getting along.  I'm interested in solving problems.  And I suggested this.  I said that I will openly back amnesty, no questions asked, blanket amnesty if there would be a ban on illegals voting for 25 years.  You remember that?  Remember that proposal? 

I, El Rushbo, I will lead the charge for amnesty. I will lead the charge, instant legalization, instant citizenship of everybody who is here at the moment illegally, with one proviso:  None of them could vote for 25 years.  I didn't have any takers.  Nobody in either party offered to support me, or neither party opened their arms and welcomed me to the fold here.  I'm all for amnesty, and here's my idea. 

My point is if it's really about citizenship, if it's really about freedom, if it's really about opening the country to the oppressed, fine, let 'em in.  They can't vote for 25 years.  And if they can't vote, then my point was to illustrate how valuable are they, really, in terms of this immigration debate.  And I just want to remind you, I made that offer, I made that proposal, and even as we speak now, not one taker. 

BREAK TRANSCRIPT

RUSH:  One other little interesting tidbit about President Obama and his immigration plan that he will announce in Las Vegas today.  "Same-sex couples will be a part of the proposal for addressing immigration reform that President Obama is scheduled to unveil Tuesday in Las Vegas." That has been confirmed by a website called BuzzFeed.  "A second source confirmed that, unlike the Senate framework released Monday, same-sex bi-national couples -- those with one American and one foreign partner -- will be included in the White House principles."  There's nothing like mixing agenda items here to get everybody totally confused. 

So we're gonna have same sex bi-national couples, those with one American and one foreign partner included in the White House principals.  "Lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgendered American citizens simply have no way to confer citizenship on their romantic partners, something that is automatic for straight couples."  That's not fair.  So it's gonna be added in there to Obama's immigration bill.  Hubba hubba. 

BREAK TRANSCRIPT

RUSH:  Dawn, let me ask you a quick question.  When you go to bed at night, do you lock your front door or your back door?  Are you not afraid that that will offend your neighbors?  Well, I mean it's the same thing as border security when it comes to immigration.  People who claim to oppose border security say that it's gonna offend people, that border security is basically a message, "We don't want you hear."  So we shouldn't do that because it sends a bad message.  And I was just wondering, not saying there's border security, but you want your house to be secure, so you do lock the door, right?  Do you worry about your neighbors being offended?  Nah, I didn't think so. 
 

END TRANSCRIPT

ADVERTISEMENT

Rush 24/7 Audio/Video

Listen to the Latest Show Watch the Latest Show

Facebook

ADVERTISEMENT

Most Popular

EIB Features

ADVERTISEMENT: