×

Rush Limbaugh

For a better experience,
download and use our app!

The Rush Limbaugh Show Main Menu





RUSH: My name got thrown around a couple times yesterday on the Sunday shows. First Slay the Nation. Bob Schieffer has this conversation with Arnold Schwarzenegger.
SCHIEFFER: Somebody like Rush Limbaugh might say, what you really did, is you just went liberal on us. What do you say in response to that —
SCHWARZENEGGER: I always say —
SCHIEFFER: — and people on the right?
SCHWARZENEGGER: I always say that you don’t have to give up your principles; all you have to do is just serve the people, and when you have two parties, you have to compromise. It’s that simple. It’s never our way or the highway. It is working together and finding, you know, common ground and finding solutions. The ultimate goal should always be what is best for the state or what is best for the country rather than what is best for my party. That is the key thing.
RUSH: Oh, man, so much to say here. The problem is that what’s best for the country is never what’s best for the Democrat Party — or seldom, especially in recent years. But what is this question from Schieffer, “Somebody like Rush Limbaugh might…” There’s nobody like me but me, and Schwarzenegger says, “Well, I always say you don’t have to give up your principles. All you have to do is serve the people. When you have two parties, you have to compromise.” Uh, the Democrats don’t look at it that way, governor. They look at it as defeating their enemies. You know the interesting thing about Mrs. Clinton, and the way she has reacted to the David Geffen thing? I’ve often wondered, folks, and I have raised this question with you from behind the Golden EIB Microphone several times. The question basically is: Why is it at that no one in the Clinton orb who served with them for eight years in their administration…? Why were there no leaks, why have there been no tell-all books?
Why haven’t there been the usual defectors? I think we now know. When anybody goes public and criticizes the Clintons, bam! Here comes the Clinton war room, and it is out to destroy you. They have instilled literal fear into the people who have always been on their bandwagon, and the Punk, Terry McAuliffe (who now claims he was joking), made it plain the other day. He said, “I was just joking when I said, ‘You’re either with us or against us.’ If you’re not with us, then we’re going to remember you,” blah, blah, blah. He’s not joking. He’s trying to back out of this by saying that he was, but it was a classic illustration of the Clinton testicle lockbox where the media’s testicles are constantly locked up. This is a great illustration. How do you compromise with that, Arnold? How in the world you compromise? They’re not interested in compromise. They are interested in the defeat of people who disagree with them or have different policy.
They’re not interested in compromise, unless they’re forced into it because there’s no other way out, and how does that happen? Through political strength! Welfare reform, a number of other things. The Republicans won the Congress in 1994, and were able to force Clinton to go along, plus he didn’t mind doing it because he was trying to be phony and triangulate, make everybody think he was somebody he wasn’t while Hillary and the rest of the administration were out there doing all the dead serious liberal dirty work. Another question about the Geffen kerfuffle. Somebody help me out on this. I don’t think you can find evidence of this for me, but did anybody dispute what he said? When Geffen said the Clintons lie and all the other criticism, that Hillary is ambitious, that she can’t win, that Clinton is this or Clinton is that, nobody disagreed.


They called it “the politics of personal destruction,” but nobody came out and said that Geffen was wrong about what he said. They said he was wrong “to do” what he did, and then they started to destroy Geffen. There was a Page Six, New York Post hit piece Saturday or Sunday, I forget which day it was. Well, you know, Geffen’s just jealous. He’s always wanted to be relevant, and he’s not. He’s just jealous of Ron Burkle, Clinton’s big bachelor buddy, and they go horn-dogging around town when Clinton is in Los Angeles. I read that and there’s no question to me, this came from Clinton, Inc., and this is how they keep people in line and keep them forever quiet. The Sandy Burglars, the Richard Clarkes, who knows what they’ve got on these people? They’re willing go out and destroy people in public. My point is with Schwarzenegger: how in the world do you compromise with this?
He says, “The ultimate goal should always be what’s best for the state, what’s best for the country rather than what’s best for my party.” Well, if you’re a member of a party, and you really believe your party principles, or if you have an ideology like conservatism, and if you really believe that conservatism would be the best recipe for what ails the country, then why compromise? Looking at myself personally, I’m a conservative before I’m a Republican, and I firmly believe that conservatism is the answer to so many problems in this country. Why compromise? I don’t think it’s best for the country. To me, it’s one and the same. But this whole notion of compromise for the sake of it is moot. It defeats the whole point of having your own ideas and your own principles.
Now, remember, I had a little criticism of Jonathan Karl on ABC last week. It came up on Reliable Sources. Howard Kurtz talking to ABC’s Martha Raddatz.
KURTZ: Rush Limbaugh was very critical of Jonathan Karl for coming back and saying didn’t we fail when 3,000 American soldiers were killed, saying, look, it’s war. People die. Casualties are parts of the process. Your take?
RADDATZ: Uh, eh, er… That — that question is a difficult one to — to look at and — and — and — say anything about.
RUSH: (stammering)
RADDATZ: Uh, eh, eh… The troop loss, I — I have a difficult time — I probably would have a difficult time asking that question.
RUSH: Notice the hemming and hawing there from Martha Raddatz on my criticism of the question. I know Jonathan Karl and I apologize for criticizing him, but the idea that 3,000 troop deaths in a war in four years equals failure, that’s a bit of a stretch. It was embarrassing, and Martha Raddatz I think, at ABC as well, found it very difficult to defend the question. I just wanted to point that out.


BREAK TRANSCRIPT
RUSH: I want to go back. I have to play this Schwarzenegger bite again, because, folks, let me tell you. I understand. I want to play this again for you for a simple reason — obviously more analysis by me — but we live in times that people say, “We’re too fractured. We’re too partisan. We’ve never been more divided, and we need to find a way to work together to get together and find out common dreams and our common goals,” and it’s seductive. Nobody likes confrontation all the time, and nobody likes a constant battle for things. At times you want to be able to say, “Okay, we’ve triumphed here,” and enjoy successes at the same time. You don’t want to have to constantly stay girded for battle, but it requires that if eternal triumph or long-term triumph is to occur. So listen to the Schwarzenegger bite here again with Bob Schieffer.
SCHIEFFER: Somebody like Rush Limbaugh might say, what you really did, is you just went liberal on us. What do you say in response to that —
SCHWARZENEGGER: I always say —
SCHIEFFER: — and people on the right?
SCHWARZENEGGER: I always say that you don’t have to give up your principles; all you have to do is just serve the people, and when you have two parties, you have to compromise. It’s that simple. It’s never our way or the highway. It is working together and finding, you know, common ground and finding solutions. The ultimate goal should always be what is best for the state or what is best for the country rather than what is best for my party. That is the key thing.
RUSH: I don’t know what he’s got against his party triumphing. Why be a member of a party if you’re not willing for your party to triumph? See, I happen to think that you adopt or you have a set of core beliefs because you believe they should triumph, that they should dominate. Why compromise on those? Schwarzenegger here seems to be saying that leadership is compromise, and that compromise is what the people want. Not in his party, not in the Republican Party! That is not what is wanted here. That’s not what Ronald Reagan said. Compromise isn’t a principle, and principle is not compromising — unless compromising advances the conservative agenda. But when you’re giving up some of your agenda to compromise just to get along, why, big boo-boo, big mistake. Let’s just pretend for a moment that Arnold is conservative. How is the conservative agenda advanced by Arnold proposing the most radical spending, taxing, and environmental laws and policies ever?
Where is the compromise? This is an adoption of the far left’s agenda, and it’s being called compromise, for the sake of getting along, putting party second, third, or fourth to the notion of the principle of compromise, and compromise is not a principle! With whom is he compromising here? Where is the principle? How does it help the people? How does all this help the people, as opposed to helping him? This is my problem. I told you the other day that we’re in a tricky situation here with the Republican presidential field, because all of the candidates have their little camps among conservatives, and in order for conservatives to adopt any one of these candidates, you have to redefine conservatism in some way. You have to say, “Well, this candidate is not quite what we want, but that’s okay.” Well, all right, fine, but don’t then call that the new conservatism, which we run the risk of doing here — and of course with McCain and Arnold and some others, this is what is now passing as Reagan conservatism.


As I said, I think conservatism is good for the people. I think it’s the best thing that could happen to this country. What’s happening now here, unfortunately, is Governor Schwarzenegger is developing a habit of defining his political compromises — which, as we can see, involve embracing the agenda of the left — and then assuming that’s what people want and need. Now, I understand that he’s in California, and I understand that California tilts way left and so forth, but he ran as a conservative. He ran as a conservative Republican, and part of that is carrying that banner through the day and doing what he believes, especially since he has his second term now. This is when you go for broke. But second terms always add up, for most people, to legacies, rather than an opportunity to say, “All right, I’m not running again. I have nothing to lose. I’m going to the wall.”

That seldom is what happens in second terms. It’s tough. I bet it’s very hard work to take a principled stand and fight for it and to explain it, and the reason is that if you’re a conservative and you do that, you get destroyed. You get tarred and feathered. They come after you and they don’t stop. They never disagree with your policies or challenge your policies per se. They try to destroy you personally. They try to discredit you personally, and they will throw in little things about how conservatism is oriented toward racism, sexism, bigotry, homophobia, and all that, but those are all clich?s. Those are stereotypical clich?s that have been around for decades, easily refutable simply by looking at the conservative policy record, if nothing else.
I understand it’s hard to take a principled stand and explain it and continue this process time and again in the face of liberalism and the Drive-By Media and the never-ending liberal attacks, and in the course of that, setbacks are going to happen. But isn’t that what leadership is about? Leadership is understanding there are going to be setbacks. Leadership is understanding that you’re in front of the pack; you’re going to take the spears. You’re going to take the arrows. Pioneers always do. That’s part of being a leader and keeping the troops behind you motivated rather than caving and giving in. Look, anybody, anybody can embrace the views of their opponents and claim it as a compromise and then wrap yourself in a self-serving claim that you’re operating in the public service because you’ve eliminated tension or you’ve eliminated confrontation. That’s easy. It doesn’t take a leader to do that. In fact, it takes somebody who’s oriented toward caving in.
So rather than really jump on Arnold here because he is who he is, this is an object lesson in leadership and compromise and how when you compromise your core principles and beliefs and call that a principle — and when you embrace the wackiness of your opponent’s agenda, just for the purposes of getting along and easing tensions and conflict — that’s dangerous. As I say, this is a great opportunity for people to learn about this and how this is actually done and taking place, and what the mistakes involved are. He uses this argument time and time again to justify his lurch to the left. He’s calling it, “Well, this is compromise. I’m doing the verk for the people,” and so forth. But anybody could do this. You don’t need Arnold Schwarzenegger to cave to liberals. (interruption) Why…? (interruption) What? (interruption) All right. Mr. Snerdley is asking me a question. “Why do they always use me as an example when they are throwing questions at Arnold?” I don’t know.
You tell me. Why do they always use me? That’s… (interruption) All right, I wasn’t going to say it, but since Snerdley said it, I will repeat it. My ego is such that I’m not a braggart as you people know. Snerdley said the reason they use me in questions to Arnold, as Schieffer did here, is because I’m the only one in the national media, on the national stage, that has not compromised my conservatism. So I am the standard against which all of these other people are measured, in the Drive-Bys, according to the Snerdley. That sounds good to me. I’ll take it. Plus there’s something else. I sell. There’s just no other reason. I do. I sell, and so I’m not surprised I’m used. Anyway, my whole point here is that what Governor Schwarzenegger is saying is “leadership” for the party or the state is not leadership, folks. Leadership is not caving on your core principles just to get along and then adopting the mainstream agenda of your opponent. That is not leadership. All he’s doing is adopting a hard-left agenda and telling his party, “Live with it,” and leaders don’t do that.

Pin It on Pinterest

Share This