Rush Limbaugh

For a better experience,
download and use our app!

The Rush Limbaugh Show Main Menu

RUSH: Here is Julie in Houston. Julie, welcome to the EIB Network.

CALLER: Welcome. Thank you, Rush, for taking my call. I’m a first-time caller, so I hope I’m not nervous. Congratulations on your wedding. Best wishes to you and Kathryn.

RUSH: Thank you.

CALLER: Listen, I agree with your assessment and the previous caller’s assessment about Obama redirecting his direction to Afghanistan.

RUSH: Yes.

CALLER: But the real problem, the real elephant in the room, if you will, is that monies are not flowing into the RNC and senatorial Republican National Committees. Even with this momentum, they’re not flowing in there. The Democrats right now are still ahead even with the 60% fall, for example, from Wall Street and New York and some of those areas. Now, the tea parties are getting the money, but I’m concerned about the coordination. There is really no overall coordination. If you contrast this with Haley Barbour in 1994 he had everything coordinated, he had everyone on board. But you look at what’s going on. You got like the quasi-endorsement by the NRA of Harry Reid. You’ve got the fact of his unemployment that you just mentioned. You know, they should be front and center with advertisements about this. The Republicans aren’t holding us up. People don’t know. They need to educate, and it’s an embarrassment and so there’s no leadership, and even though I don’t blame Steele, Steele has a hard time trying to coordinate some of these disparate elements.

RUSH: Wait a minute. Why don’t you blame Steele? I mean, the whole point of the RNC is fundraising. The RNC chairman is not a media star and he’s not a pundit. He’s supposed to be a fundraiser. He doesn’t speak to policy and so forth. He’s not technically or even in theory the leader of the party. That’s me.

CALLER: Well, yes. That would —

RUSH: (laughing)

CALLER: That aside, but you understand what I’m saying?

RUSH: Yes, I understand what you’re saying!

CALLER: Think about Haley Barbour in 1994.

RUSH: I can also explain it to you.


RUSH: I can explain that the Republicans think they’re gonna sweep to victory if they don’t do anything.

CALLER: (snorts) Ha!

RUSH: They think there’s so much anger at Obama and the Democrats. There’s a Rasmussen poll out today: 60% of the American people still want the health care bill repealed. However, only 41% think it will be.

CALLER: Well, may I say one thing? What about the Republicans in the House? They are not signing on the discharge petition. What about those three Senators not agreeing with repeal of the health care law? I mean, this is something they’re against and yet they’re not willing to put their name on the paper?

RUSH: Well, I think there’s a… We talk about the House and there are some different things going on there.

CALLER: The discharge petition that they’re —

RUSH: Well.

CALLER: — trying to get together.

RUSH: No. That’s a strategy. The House Republicans are trying to frame the election. They’re trying to nationalize the election —

CALLER: Right.

RUSH: — much as they did in 1994. And by that I mean they’re going to run in local congressional districts not on local issues. They’re going to tell people in those districts, ‘Hey, if you elect this Democrat X, we’re going to be forever exposed to a national security threat. We’re going to forever broke because this guy spends money left and right.’ That’s the strategy here, at least on the House side and maybe in the Senate as well. But I don’t know.

CALLER: I’m concerned about the coordination. It doesn’t seem like there’s a lot of coordination. At this point with all the momentum, you would have thought that we would have been way ahead with at least the fundraising, and, yes, the tea party people are going to be giving to special campaigns but we need an overall coordination. I don’t think anyone finds this important enough. I do. I’m very concerned about it. I think we’re going to get the House but I don’t think we’re going to get the Senate, and it’s because of this lack of coordination. If we had a Haley Barbour believe me you, I think things would be a little bit different. Not that I’m, you know… Well…

RUSH: Well, now, Haley Barbour, it’s interesting, Haley Barbour is. A lot of people are asking Haley Barbour what he would do about Steele.

CALLER: Mmm-hmm.

RUSH: And Barbour is not going to say. Steele’s term is up in January anyway, and Haley Barbour has his own plans and designs. Now, there are numerous stories in the media today. Russ Feingold is in trouble in Wisconsin. Patty Murray is in trouble in the state of Washington, along with Boxer. Nobody ever dreamed that this would happen. The talk here that the Republicans may actually take the House two years after the most popular candidate…? I mean, The Messiah! The Messiah had come! We were going to be unified, we were going to be all this, and the Republicans might win this despite themselves. What troubles me more than the fundraising coordination or lack of it is if they win this thing they’d better have won it but telling people what they’re going to do. They better give themselves a mandate here.


Folks, I’m… (sigh) I’ve been sitting in this chair for 21 years, and for 21 years people have been calling, asking me, ‘Why don’t the Republicans do X?’ and I do not have an answer. I do not have conclusive evidence to support any answer I give you. I can only th’speculate and theorize insurgency. Now, granted, my speculation and theorization would be a little bit more informed than the average person. But… (interruption) All right, what’s the question? Ask me the question. I get so frustrated with this! I’m not the Republican Party! I don’t know what they’re doing. I couldn’t tell you why they’re going to do what they do. I can only guess they’re scared to death of anything negative said about them in Washington, which I totally can’t relate to. You know, I love grief. They fear it. If you fear grief and you’re in politics, you’re dead. If you fear criticism, if you fear being criticized by the people you want to be liked by you’re dead.

I don’t care if it’s politics or anything else in your life. If you want to be loved by the wrong people, you’re going to do two things. You’re either gonna bastardize yourself to be loved by ’em and then you’re going to be twice as miserable as you were, or you’re going to ignore it and be who you are, in which case you’re going to be happy. But I don’t know why. They’re sitting there thinking they’re gonna win this regardless what they do. Why make waves on agenda items and policy? Then you’ve got Boehner. He’s got an idea. Eric Cantor has an idea. One of the things Obama is out there saying is, ‘Look, you people. I’m going to make some hard choices coming up next year, and you people have been whining and moaning about the deficits, I’m going to call your bluff.’ Well, as I told you last week, this is a trick waiting to happen.

Here’s the Obama quote: ‘Next year when I start presenting some very difficult choices to the country, I hope some of these folks who are hollering are deficits and debt step up, because I’m calling their bluff.’ That’s after the 2010 election. When I start presenting? Why are you waiting? Why are you waiting two years to start these very difficult choices? Why — why are you spending trillions of dollars before you start? Well, we know why! All of this is just a pretext for tax increases. So the Republicans are out there talking about deficits, spending, and we’ve gotta stop it, and they’re walking right into a trap. ‘Okay, well, the money’s been spent. We need tax increases now,’ and what Obama’s counting on is that the Republicans, in order to stay true to their concerns about spending and debt will agree to tax increases to reduce the spending and the debt. Some Republicans, particularly Senate, might fall for the trap.

The Republicans, instead of talking about deficits and spending, need to start talking about growth. They need to start talking about private sector economic growth. That’s how to blunt this trick that Obama has laid here. ‘I’m gonna call their bluff.’ ‘When I start presenting some very difficult choices to the country.’ The difficult choices are supposed to be made by the chief executive, and that’s you, Mr. President. You are the leader of the regime. ‘I hope some of these folks who are hollering about deficits and debt speak up.’ He’s been hollering about deficits and debt, as though he had nothing to do with them, as though he inherited them. So the answer to all this is not to get caught up in deficits and spending. Everybody already knows that’s outta whack! The antidote to this is growth, and therefore tax increases will not do it.

We cannot tax increase ourselves into prosperity. It never happens! It woulda happened by now in the last year and a half if it was going to happen. These tax increases that are coming next year are going to cause more economic malaise and it’s going to be a disaster. It’s gonna make right now look like a utopia if these tax increases do hit — and, by the way, they’re gonna hit. What do you think the purpose of this deficit reduction commission is? They report in December, after the elections, and they’re gonna report a VAT tax and increased tax rates on ‘the rich,’ and all kinds of stuff. ‘Because that’s the only option we have ’cause we can’t cut spending. It’s already spent. It’s already there in the budget.’ So the answer to this has to be growth. The way to blunt what Obama’s trick is, is, ‘No, Mr. President. You can talk about deficits and spending all you want. You own it. You own the deficit. You have spent all the money.

‘We didn’t vote for any of it. We couldn’t stop any of it. Mr. President, we are interested in growth. We want policies that will grow the private sector, in which case we must stop doing everything you’re doing.’ That’s the way, but they’re afraid to say that. Don’t ask me. For 21 years I’ve offered my answers, I’ve given you my theories as to ‘Why don’t they do this?’ and ‘Why don’t they do that?’ and you’ve heard every one of them a thousand times. (interruption) What’s the question? Mmm-hmm. (interruption) Do I think the Republicans left in office know why they are thrown out? You mean in 2006 and 2008? Okay, Snerdley, wants to know if I think the Republicans who are remaining know why their colleagues were thrown out. Now, you obviously, Snerdley, think they were thrown out because of spending and becoming like Democrats in that regard and so forth, and there is credence to that.

But they also were thrown out because of Mark Foley. If Mark Foley hadn’t happened, I’m not sure that Pelosi’s bunch woulda won. There was clear anger at the Republicans by Republican voters, but the Foley thing, that tipped it. I mean, that took it from spending to corruption and ethics, and Foley was e-mails. Just like George Allen is gone because of Macaca. While all this is going on, you’ve got Bill Clinton and Barack Obama defending a Klansman! He had to be a Klansman to get elected. So in one sense if you’re Republican you say, ‘What the hell am I supposed to do? If I defend a Klansman, I’m dead. If I don’t demand Steele quit, I’m dead. Meanwhile, these guys are out defending a Klansman! He had to do it to get elected.’ So I’m not sure that the number one reason the Republicans lost in ’06 was spending. I will admit — I’ve said this before, too — that they went to Washington and they forgot why they were sent.

They failed to govern as they had campaigned, but the Foley thing, had that not happened, I’m still not convinced that Pelosi’s gang would have won — and that was a coordinated and timed event with the mainstream media. They had that information, they had those e-mails — and that’s all they were, by the way. There was never any contact between Foley and these pages. It was just e-mails, and they had that and they timed it just like they had the George W. Bush DWI in 2000 timed. You know, the famous ‘October Surprise,’ which everybody waits for. You look at Kagan, the Elena Kagan hearings. People say, ‘How come the Republicans aren’t giving her any grief?’ Jeff Sessions tried. But the Republican attitude is, ‘Hey, they won. He gets to pick his nominees. That’s the way we look at it.’ Now, we would say, ‘Well, for crying out loud, they don’t, and the aggressor sets the rules of the game! They’re not going to let us get our nominees just because we win the nomination. Why are you going to let them have theirs? ‘Well, we’re more civil.’ Uhhh, right. All the while being accused of having no civility.


Pin It on Pinterest

Share This