Rush Limbaugh

For a better experience,
download and use our app!

The Rush Limbaugh Show Main Menu

RUSH: All right, Mr. Snerdley told me during the break at the top of the hour, he’s being inundated with telephone calls from hucksters, the Huckaboomers, the Huckabee supporters who are trying to accuse me of trying to sabotage Huckabee’s campaign by simply reporting what the Democrats are saying. Should I be defending Huckabee against this stuff, that’s what they think? I tried to address this to you people in the first hour. I’ve only got one thing against Mike Huckabee, just one thing. Exercise. He’s for it, and I’m not.

Can I be honest with you people? I probably should not admit this. I really shouldn’t. My instincts are to not admit it, but I’m going to punt the instincts. I frankly am getting a little fed up and my tolerance level is near capacity for Iowa. Nothing against Iowa. But it’s just a bunch of damn cauci! I know for Mrs. Clinton it’s a little bit more relevant than it is for the others because she’s the candidate of inevitability, and inevitable candidates don’t lose, and if inevitable candidates do lose then question marks are raised and this kind of thing. But I’m back to my instincts again. I know it’s December the 11th.

By the way, it’s my brother’s birthday today, happy birthday, Dave! David turns 55 today. Hope he has a happy birthday. I’m giving him nothing. He doesn’t need it. (laughing) I love it, Dawn just goes, ‘You can be so mean-sounding when you’re not mean!’ No, he’s got five kids. He’s got five kids. He needs something I can’t give him. (laughing) Anyway, happy birthday, David. I hope the kids remember it. Well, you know, one parent always has to remind the kids. ‘You know, it’s Daddy’s birthday tomorrow.’ ‘Oh, yeah.’ And then the mother goes out and buys presents for the kids to sign their name on. (laughing) I don’t know that that’s how it happens in David’s house, but history and tradition lead me to believe… (laughing)

At any rate, what I was going to say is I know it’s December 11th here, but, for some reason, this still seems early to me. For me, it’s traceable back to this business, these day-to-day polls are really meaningless in terms of what the outcome on Election Day is going to be. We have recent history to indicate. Howard Dean in 2003 was the runaway winner, it was just a fait accompli, and he loses big in the Hawkeye Cauci, and that’s how it can end up mattering big, is if there’s some big front-runner that’s supposedly a lock and it all goes south, and it did. I think it’s largely my disdain for the polls as meaningful indicators. It’s December 11th, but the Hawkeye Cauci aren’t until January 3rd and to me what happens on January 3rd is going to be far more important than polling data today. Now, the polling data today and tomorrow is relevant in the sense that it might affect the minds of people in Iowa and New Hampshire. You know how the Drive-Bys use these things. They use them to make news. They use them to shape opinion. That’s the dirty little secret. They claim these polls are out there to reflect opinion. It’s just the opposite. They do these polls primarily to shape it.

Look at the New York Times story today on Hillary, ‘Oh, she’s just loved by the Democrats. The Republicans have no enthusiasm for any of their candidates. Hillary, she’s just loved. And, why, most Democrats think Hillary Clinton can unite the country better than Barack.’ She’s got 50% — half the country doesn’t like Hillary Clinton, and she’s a great uniter? And, besides, what the hell is with being united? What the hell’s that? I don’t want to be united with libs, I want to beat them. So I just reject all the premises that are advanced in all these polls and I’m content to wait to see what happens in these primary things, and you know my philosophy, it’s these candidates, you Hucksters are upset at me. I’m sorry; it’s not my job to get Mike Huckabee noticed, it’s not my job to get him elected, nor Romney, nor Rudy, nor Fred Thompson. If they say or do things that I happen to love — like Romney’s speech last week — I will say so. If Rudy says or does something like attacking the Democrats and Clintons in these debates back in the summer, I’ll say so. But I also add the caveat that there’s no endorsement implied in the process here.

So I’m just biding my time and waiting to see when the real voting counts, what happens, rather than get caught up in the day-to-day back-and-forth of the daily tracking polls.


RUSH: I just got a note. After what I just said, which I thought was very thoughtful, in fact it was very deep, very serious, and very insightful, I got a note from a friend, ‘Yeah, yeah, yeah, but Mitt’s slide after two years of ruling the roost in Iowa to Huckabee, that’s incredible. Seems like Mitt has the glass jaw to me.’ See, this proves my point. What does two years ago mean to anything? Who was going to win Iowa two years ago is irrelevant. Whatever poll said was going to win Iowa last year is irrelevant. Six months ago, whatever the polls said was going to happen in Iowa is irrelevant. All the polling does is give an indication here of the — well, let me put this a different way. You get the impression that Mitt Romney has had this big slide and Huckabee’s had this giant surge out of nowhere, and you’re doing so in the context of two years worth of polling. Why should we expect a year ago or two years ago people who are going to go to the Hawkeye Cauci to even have the slightest idea that Huckabee was going to get in the race? So this is exactly what I mean. I don’t care what the Hawkeye Cauci poll was two months ago, two years or whatever, because it was meaningless. It’s like stopping a horse race at the halfway point and saying, ‘There’s the winner,’ when there hasn’t been one yet. I may be finessing this a bit much, but I don’t think so.


RUSH: Bob in Birmingham, Alabama, nice to have you on the EIB Network, sir. Hello.

CALLER: Thank you, Rush. It’s a pleasure to speak with you.

RUSH: Thank you.

CALLER: I want to get right to it. The big question of the day is, when did the United States of America become a two-family system instead of a two-party system? If you count George H. W. VP for eight years then he was president for four years, then the Clintonista was the president for eight years, then George W. was eight years, that’s 28 years of two-family. Now, if Hillary should, God forbid, get elected, and gets reelected, that’s 36 years of two families running this country.

RUSH: Don’t say that.

CALLER: When will America wake up?

RUSH: Don’t give her eight years. Don’t commit to that.

CALLER: Let’s give her four, then, that’s 32 years —

RUSH: Right.

CALLER: — of two families running the country.

RUSH: Well, what are we supposed to do about it? We’re a representative republic, and our people vote.

CALLER: Well, we’re supposed to wake up and look at the country and say, okay, are we a two-party system or a two-family system? If that’s the case, we might as well get all the other Bushes ready to go, get Hillary’s daughter ready, her name escapes me — Chelsea —

RUSH: Well, I’ve suggested that Republicans ought to nominate Laura Bush, she’s been first lady for eight years, just as qualified as Hillary.

CALLER: That’s a good idea, then why not Jeb as vice president.

RUSH: I think Jeb’s getting groomed. Jeb needs eight years of Clinton for the Bush name to get off the front pages.

CALLER: Well, we’ve got to wake up, Rush.

RUSH: Then after Jeb is going to come Marvin Bush. I don’t think Chelsea Clinton’s elected. I’ve seen the polls on a potential Chelsea primary in Iowa in 2018 and, if you believe polls, she doesn’t have a chance because she can’t win Iowa —

CALLER: I know this is frivolous in a lot of ways but it’s something to think about, you know, worried about Putin electing — picking his presidential candidates —

RUSH: Well, I understand this. We can sit here and try to explain it, and it might be an interesting line of attack if Hillary does win this thing for the Republicans. It might be an interesting line of attack.

CALLER: That’s correct.

RUSH: But, if the Republicans say, ‘Well, we’ve had enough Bush, we had enough Clinton, and so forth.’

CALLER: Yeah. Time for a change. That’s a real change.

RUSH: Yeah. But here’s the thing. We have a pop culture here that turns even political figures into soap opera type characters. Clinton is a soap opera figure.


RUSH: There’s nothing substantive about him. Hillary Clinton’s is the same thing. They’re soap opera figures. It’s a daily drama; it’s a daily car crash that’s going to happen, might happen, people want to see it. They’re just waiting. Do you realize how many people in this country are waiting for the news to find out who it is that Clinton is dating, and more?

CALLER: That’s true.

RUSH: And they won’t hold it against him. A lot of guys would be jealous that he gets away with it, would love to be getting media praise for this kind of roguish behavior. We’ve got a cultural problem. I agree with you that this switching families is a —

CALLER: You know, just taking turns. I mean, you know, why not, we might as well just line ’em all up and forget about the election.

RUSH: Well, I know, that’s why I still prefer to attack all this stuff on the substance of issues and leave the personalities and other things to other people. But I hear you. I do.

CALLER: And I appreciate you taking the call.

RUSH: My pleasure, sir, any time at all.

Pin It on Pinterest

Share This