RUSH: I got a note from a friend last night who was so captivated by my program yesterday that he was listening a second time, and made some observations based on things I had said. He said, “I never stopped to look at it that way. I never, ever stopped to look at that.” And the person said, “You may as well go ahead and make the point that you just made.” So I relooked at it and it hit me, the perfect ticket for 2016.

So what was it that happened on yesterday’s program? Well, one of the things that happened was that Jeb Bush announced he was gonna do an exploratory committee, and in his announcement, and many times previous to his announcement, Jeb Bush has made it clear that he wants to win the Republican nomination without needing the votes of the Republican base, i.e., the Tea Party.

He doesn’t want to have to sell his soul for the Tea Party vote. What that means is, he doesn’t want to have to pretend to be a conservative at any time during the primary to get the Tea Party or conservative vote. He’s going to win the nomination. He’s not gonna pander. And as evidence, I offer you this from the Washington Times. This is back in 2009, May 3 of 2009, but it’s important that you have this in the hopper.

“Former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush said Saturday that itÂ’s time –” this is May 3rd of 2009, so five years ago, admittedly, but it fits nicely with yesterday. “Former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush said Saturday that itÂ’s time for the Republican Party to give up its ‘nostalgia’ for the heyday of the Reagan era and look forward, even if it means stealing the winning strategy deployed by Democrats in the 2008 election. ‘You canÂ’t beat something with nothing, and the other side has something. I donÂ’t like it, but they have it, and we have to be respectful and mindful of that,’ Mr. Bush said.”

Now, that reminded me of another prominent Democrat who said we must be respectful and mindful and empathetic with our enemies. Another prominent Democrat had said something like that as well, but recently. You might remember who. Now, the era of Reagan being over is a popular refrain and has been for many years within the Republican Party establishment, the so-called RINO Republicans. They have wanted to forget Reagan, move on from Reagan because they don’t like the whole premise of Reagan, which is limited government, shrinking government, expanded liberty and freedom, lowering taxes, all that. They’re not interested in that.

You’ll note also, ladies and gentlemen, have you ever heard any Democrat ever say, “The era of FDR is over and we need to move forward and beyond it”? You haven’t, have you? Have you ever heard any Democrat say, “The era of JFK is over?” Have you ever heard Jesse Jackson or Al Sharpton say, “The era of Martin Luther King is over and we need to move forward, with me.”? You haven’t.

Have you ever heard any Democrat suggest that the Democrat Party forget and throw away any of its heroes from the bygone eras? You never hear that. But yet the Republican Party has for years been insistent that the era of Reagan be thought of as over, a one-time experiment that we forget and stop looking at nostalgically, stop being linked to it and wedded to it, and we must move on.

We must get real and we must look at how the Democrats win elections. Jeb Bush said this five years ago. We must look at how they are winning elections and steal it. Yep, he said we need to steal the winning strategy deployed by Democrats. What was the winning strategy deployed by Democrats in 2008? Seriously, what could he be talking about? (interruption) Okay. Okay. What did Obama run on?

Barack Obama ran on nebulous platitudes. Hope and change. Obama was an empty canvas. Basically you could make Obama whatever you wanted. He ran on nothing. What’d the Republicans run on this year? Nothing. I’m talking about as a party. As an individual, Republican candidates ran on things such as opposition to Obamacare, but the party itself ran on nothing. Can that be the idea Jeb Bush is suggesting that they steal? Maybe they did. They used it in 2014, they think it worked big, we’ll try it again in 2016. We’ll shut up. We’ll stand for nothing. We’ll rely on the country hating what Obama’s doing to Democrats, we’ll get elected, and then we won’t be tied to any agenda because we haven’t announced one.

But this radio program yesterday explored some of the similarities that exist between the two parties. I made a point yesterday of saying that the Republican Party and Democrat Party pretty much agree on amnesty for illegal immigrants. The voters don’t. We all know the election returns, there was a massive landslide defeat for people who believe in amnesty, landslide defeat. The people who voted went to the polls and shouted, “Stop it!” Both parties are ignoring it.

On amnesty, both parties want the same thing. On Obamacare, the Republican Party doesn’t appear in any way interested in repealing it, slowing it down, replacing it. They’re not. May as well be on the same page as the Democrats. And look who it is that turns out to be paying for all of this? The donor class for the Democrat Party and the Republican Party are identical. The Democrats and Republicans are both going after the rich elite. They’re going after bankers, Wall Street brokers and hedge fund types. They’re going after Hollywood, Democrats more successfully there.

Both parties are seeking corporate money big time. And both parties are seeking great fame and pleasing coverage from the media. In other words, both parties seem to be aiming their future prospects at people who live in media and entertainment and financial capitals in this country.

Now, we’ve also heard, ladies and gentlemen, that one of the problems of the Republican Party is that they refuse to cooperate. We hear over and over the Republican Party needs to engage in bipartisanship. This is needed to secure the independent vote. The independents don’t like criticism and fighting, and particularly criticism of Democrat presidents or candidates, and so the Republicans, we’ve been told this by senators McCain and you name it, we’ve been told we must tone down this criticism of Obama.

We must cross the aisle. We must show the American people we can work together in Washington and get things done. We have too long, we are told, had a divided government and we must come together and show that we can govern together. The Republicans tell us this. The Republicans tell their voters. And at the same time they tell us this, they tell us the era of Reagan is a bygone era, we should forget about it, and the Tea Party is absolutely disastrous to future Republican fortunes and plans.

The Tea Party must be forgotten about, certainly not pandered to, and, if necessary, defeated in the primary process, otherwise the Republican Party doesn’t have a prayer. The Tea Party’s the biggest obstacle and that happens to be the exact thinking of the Democrat Party. The Democrat Party thinks the biggest problem in America today is the Tea Party. The Democrat Party thinks that this country is faced with singular opposition that could overturn the best plans of both parties by the Tea Party. Therefore, both parties agree the Tea Party has got to be dealt with, somehow, some way.

Now, on the Democrat side, we have apparently two interested, maybe three if you count Joe Biden, but we have the Fauxcahontas candidate, the fake Indian, Native American. That would be Elizabeth Warren, who is telegraphing her desire to be president by claiming she doesn’t want to be. It’s like being a coach in football getting a vote of confidence it, you’re toast when the owner says you’re cool. Elizabeth Warren says, I’m not running, I don’t want to be president. Translation: I can’t wait, and I am running. But I’m just not gonna admit it right now.

Now, Elizabeth Warren, and Hillary Clinton being the other, they have a little problem, because Hillary, by necessity, has to run for the presidency away from Obama, because Obama is death politically to Democrats seeking office. I give you the 2014 elections. Every Democrat senator voted for Obamacare’s toast. They’re gone, one way or the other, defeated, quit, retired, or dead. Hillary Clinton, Benghazi, all kinds of controversies and scandals, Hillary Clinton was tied. She’s got to distance herself.

So Hillary Clinton, like Jeb Bush, must win the primary some way other than securing the Democrat base, because that is Elizabeth Warren’s. What is the solution to all of this? It’s very simple. The ideal, the perfect ticket for the 2016 election: Hillary Clinton, Jeb Bush. Now, they can figure out who’s on top of the ticket on their own. But when you compare their positions, Hillary Clinton and Jeb Bush, on the key important issues, they are two peas in the same pod. And, by the way, Barbara Bush loves Bill Clinton. Says so publicly.

George W. Bush has referred to Hillary as a half-sister, long lost whatever, some such thing. The Clinton family and the Bush family are very tight. They are very close. There is never a negative or critical word uttered by a Bush of a Clinton or of a Bush by a Clinton. This is made to order the way both parties want amnesty. Jeb Bush wants it; Hillary wants it. Both parties want to win the nomination, Hillary by running away from the Democrat base, Jeb by running away from the Republican base. This is an ideal combination.

When it comes to Obamacare, national health care, both parties are signed on, both parties care about their donors more than their voters. And both parties have the exact same donor class. Mayors, stockbrokers, elite entertainment industry types, you name it. Folks, this is a ticket made in heaven. I can’t recall a time in my life where a presidential candidate and a vice presidential candidate are so close to each other on the issues, where if one of them was unable to serve, we wouldn’t know the difference if the vice president had to take office.

If Jeb’s at the top of the ticket and they win and something happens and Hillary has to take over, nobody’d know the difference. Same token, Hillary is elected president, Jeb’s veep, Hillary can’t make it for some reason, her husband being the white Bill Cosby, might come up, you never know, then Jeb becoming president, nobody’d know the difference. Wouldn’t skip a beat.

The moderates in the Republican Party are scared to death of Hillary Clinton. They’re petrified. What better way to deal with the fear of Hillary Clinton than to put her on your ticket. The Democrats probably have the same kind of fear of the Bushes. Not because they actually fear, but, “can’t we get away? For crying out loud, Bush here, Bush there, Bush everywhere.” What better way. The Republican donor class is scared to death of Hillary. The Republican establishment is scared to death of Hillary. The Republican conservative media is scared to death of Hillary.

They think Hillary’s a shoo-in. She’s an automatic nominee and may be an automatic president, unless Jeb can come in and save the day. Well, why not accomplish both things. Bipartisanship, crossing the aisle, united government, no more gridlock, key agreement on all the important issues that people vote on. Clinton-Bush ’16. You choose the top.

BREAK TRANSCRIPT

RUSH: I mean, that ticket, that would be a moderate — and isn’t that what we’re told needs to dominate, moderates, independents? That ticket would be a moderate wet dream. I mean, it covers every base. Both candidates put their pants on one leg at a time.

BREAK TRANSCRIPT

RUSH: Here’s F. Chuck Todd on the Today show this morning. Savannah Guthrie said, “Hey, Chuck, got new poll numbers. You polled Jeb Bush, you polled all the Republican front-runners: 31% for Jeb. What do you make of that, Chuck?”

TODD: That 57%, you have to wonder about a little bit because some of it is conservative Republicans, and I think that’s the reasoning in his head why he went early, because he’s got work to do to win over skeptical conservatives who sit there and say, “We went with one Bush; he let us down. We went with the second Bush; he let us down. Why should we believe the third Bush? Even though he’s been more conservative in his life, why should we believe you’ll be a real conservative?”

RUSH: Do you believe that Chuck got all that from a poll? I’m sorry, is that really what people told NBC in their poll, “Well, we had the first Bush (grumbling) not quite as… Second Bush, ah, a little bit better conservative. Jeb? I don’t know.” Anyway, it’s 57% in the NBC poll don’t want Jeb, and that was F. Chuck explaining why. So then Savannah Guthrie was shocked and said, “Well, I mean, Jeb has taken positions outside the thinking of conservative activists! Why isn’t he loved and adored by 100%, F. Chuck?”

TODD: Immigration, education, Common Core. Those are the ones, and he has said he’s gonna be sort of a Bulworth about it. “Hey, I’m not going to placate conservatives on those two issues.” (snickers) But guess what? They could really burn him.

RUSH: Really? Okay. Bulworth strategy. You remember that? Did you see that movie Bulworth, Warren Beatty? Okay, it’s an indication. Now, up next, The NewsHour. It used to be with Jim Lehrer, now it’s with Judy Woodruff, and she spoke with Susan Page who is the White House bureau chief at USA Today, about Jeb announcing his exploratory committee.

Judy Woodruff said, “There’s already conversation about how Jeb’s big challenge would be in the primaries where you have more conservative voters making decision, and he’s certainly not seen at the more conservative end of it spectrum. So how do you see that, Susan, at USA Today, and the effect on the Democrats, the effect on Hillary? Do you think her camp is sitting around talking about Jeb Bush today?”

PAGE: I think this is great news for Hillary Clinton because she’s got s-s-some disadvantages in terms of being a dynasty, you know, a family that’s been in power for a while. He offsets that very nicely. Being a fresh face… I mean, makes it look like she’s a fresher face in contrast to him.

RUSH: Can you believe the way these people think? What they do is project the way they look at all of this onto average, ordinary, low-information voters. Do you think low-information voters look at the Clintons and think dynasty? They look at Clintons and they see blue dresses and Monica Lewinsky. Fresher face? Are we talking about “fresher face” in the same sentence with Hillary Clinton?

BREAK TRANSCRIPT

RUSH: Well, that’s it for the fresh faced excursion into broadcast excellence today hosted by me, fresh faced. Isn’t that sexist? You call somebody 67 fresh faced? It’s about as fresh faced as an old Joe Crawford picture, but that’s just me.