RUSH: Okay, back to the audio sound bites. Let’s start with number 19. Here’s Senator Graham. There were two sound bites of his that we have from Meet the Press. Here’s the first one.
GRAHAM: After this interview I’m gonna leave you on a positive note. I think we’re gonna have a political breakthrough that Congress is going to pass immigration reform. I think we’re gonna get plus 70 votes. I’ve never been more optimistic about it so it would be great if we could pass immigration.
RUSH: Now, 70 votes in the Senate, that bill, if it happens, goes to the House. Now, there’s been some confusion of what would happen in the house. There’s a thing in the House called the Hastert Rule, and it’s historically called the Hastert Rule. It’s not something that’s actually literally codified, but it’s what everybody knows it to be. And it basically says that — he’s a former Speaker — that a bill will not be brought to the floor of the House unless the whip count is such that there’s a majority of Republican support for it.
Now, one of the original thoughts was that Boehner would bring the bill to the floor of the House before it was known or even without majority Republican support. Supposedly that’s not gonna be the case. Supposedly Boehner is going to invoke the Hastert rule here. So it all boils down to what happens in the House, and of course you know the theory, passes the Senate, goes to the House where the House has their own bill that looks really, really good and then those two bills go to conference committee where they get negotiated.
Two different bills have to become one, and the theory is that the fix is in the House, and the Senate bill will basically be the version of the Bill the House agrees to in conference so that the one bill the House ultimately and the Senate ultimately vote on will be the conference bill that will be pretty much like the Senate bill and therefore it passes. So goes the theory because there are a number of Republicans that have already signaled, Congress Ryan among them, that he’s in favor of the Senate bill or something like it.
Still a theory. Nobody knows for sure. But it is one of the things being bandied about in terms of alerting people. The purpose there is so those people would exert pressure on the House, make sure that doesn’t happen. The other theory is that the bill is designed to die in the House and provide the Democrats with a campaign issue going into 2014. Here is, again, this is Senator Graham, this is the sound bite that generated a call earlier today.
GRAHAM: If we don’t pass immigration reform, if we don’t get it off the table in a reasonable, practical way, it doesn’t matter who you run in 2016, we’re in a demographic death spiral as a party, and the only way we can get back in good graces with the Hispanic community, in my view, is pass comprehensive immigration reform. If you don’t do that, it really doesn’t matter who we run, in my view.
RUSH: Now, the Hispanic percentage of the vote in 2012 was all that over 8%. Do you know where the increase in Obama turnout was? This will shock you if you don’t know this. Obama’s vote totals were down from 2008 to 2012, but there was one demographic that was way up, and you know what it was? Elderly black women. Elderly black women pushed the percentage of the black vote Obama got even higher than it was in 2008, and people thought that was impossible. But it happened.
Obama got a greater percentage of the black vote because of elderly black women in 2012 than he did in 2008. So using the Graham theory here, we need to also offer amnesty to elderly black women or offer them something. ‘Cause they don’t like us, either. Well, no, seriously, we’re going through all of this for 8% of the electorate? That ought to tell you just how big a role money is actually playing in this and not electoral politics.
Senator Rubio on ABC’s This Week was interviewed by Jonathan Karl, who said, “Are you being played by the Democrats, Senator? Chuck Schumer is playing you, is essentially the charge.”
RUBIO: I don’t — I, quite frankly, I don’t even know what that means. Because the fact of the matter is —
KARL: Is he using you. Is he using you to try to accomplish something the Democrats want that is not — not a conservative bill?
RUBIO: Well, immigration reform is something that all Americans recognize has to be done. I mean, I don’t focus a lot on public polling, but if you look at these public polls, it’s clear, the vast majority of Americans understand that what we have in place in this country is de facto amnesty, a broken legal immigration system that needs to be reformed.
RUSH: So Senator Rubio insisted that he wasn’t being played by Senator Schumer, but we learned earlier today — actually, over the weekend — a New Yorker story by Ryan Lizza that Obama is running the Gang of Eight bill, not Schumer. Ladies and gentlemen, if you missed the first hour of the program, the big story in immigration today is that the immigration bill is being run out of the White House, just like the IRS scandal was not localized in Cincinnati. The IRS targeting of Tea Party groups was taking place at headquarters in Washington. And there is nobody that’s gonna convince me that Obama was not involved.
I don’t expect to ever find a memo proving his involvement, but there doesn’t need to be one. Everybody working for him knows exactly what he wants. Everybody working for him is there because they know what he wants and they don’t have to be told. IRS, FDA, EPA, attorney general, DOJ, Department of Agriculture, you name it, they’re all Obamas in these places. But nobody thinks Obama’s got any involvement in the Gang of Eight bill at all, because of the Limbaugh Theorem. There’s a steadfast procedure and policy of Obama: Hands on nothing. Fingerprints on nothing. Here’s Senator Menendez. I mentioned this earlier. He was on State of the Union on CNN on Sunday.
MENENDEZ: I would tell my Republican colleagues, both in the House and the Senate, that the road to the White House comes through a road with a pathway to legalization. Without it there will never be a road to the White House for the Republican Party.
KARL: So you think without passage you can’t elect a Republican president?
MENENDEZ: I’m convinced that the last election, you know, had a demographic shift in the nation.
RUSH: Now, here again is where I get to illustrate my utter naivete. I don’t understand why the Democrat Senator Menendez wants to us win the White House. Can anybody out there explain to me why Senator Menendez wants the Republican Party to have a pathway to the White House? I’m looking for a pathway to the shadows. He says that the Republicans are never, ever gonna win the presidency again unless they agree with the Democrats on this immigration bill. Why does he want Republicans to win the White House, a Democrat? That I don’t understand. There was no demographic shift, either.
RUSH: And, folks, there was not a demographic shift in this nation after the election involving Hispanics. I believe their turnout was even down from what it was in 2008. So this is all a myth, this demographic shift.
RUSH: I want to get back to the audio sound bites on this. I want to play Bob Menendez again because I need somebody to explain this to me. I really do. I know this is naive, I know that if I were a true member of the Washington establishment, I would understand this. But Bob Menendez is a Democrat from New Jersey.
Now, I know Democrats like the back of my hand, and I know that Democrats want to beat us in elections. I have never, in my life, heard the Democrats talk about how bad they feel when Republicans lose elections. Have you? I don’t recall that. I’m not aware of Democrats expressing regret or sorrow or sadness over the fact that Republicans aren’t winning elections. In fact, it’s just the opposite. Yet on CNN’s State of the Union yesterday morning, here’s Democrat Senator Bob Menendez from New Jersey.
MENENDEZ: I would tell my Republican colleagues, both in the House and the Senate, that the road to the White House comes through a road with a pathway to legalization. Without it, there’ll never be a road to the White House, uh, for the Republican Party.
CROWLEY: So, you think without passage, you can’t elect a — a Republican president?
MENENDEZ: I’m convinced that the last election, uh, uh, you know, had a demographic shift in the nation.
RUSH: It didn’t.
There was a demographic shift among Hispanics in the nation.
What, they all of a sudden voted Democrat after voting Republican all these years? What demographic shift? The Hispanic turnout was less in 2012 than it was in 2008. What demographic shift? But besides all that, don’t you just love Candy Crowley here? So Menendez comes out and says, “Without the Republicans supporting the bill, there will never be a road to the White House for the Republican Party.”
And Candy Crowley says, “So, you think without passage, you can’t elect a Republican president?”
Do either of these two people really care about that?
You think Candy Crowley wants a Republican president elected?
Menendez says, “I’m convinced you’re never gonna elect a Republican unless they sign off on amnesty.” So Menendez wants to lose the presidency to the Republicans? Is that what he wants? Now here’s Senator Durbin. Dick Durbin from Illinois was on CBS This Morning this morning. Charlie Rose said, “Some people argue that the decisions on this immigration reform could be determinative of the politics of the future.” (laughing) What the…? (laughing) What a question. “Senator Durbin, some people are arguing that the decisions on this reform could be determinative of the politics of the future.”
Anyway, here’s what Durbin said.
DURBIN: There’s no question in my mind that America is changing, more diverse. The voters are changing, and they’re gonna look to those parties and candidates who are receptive to this change. If your party candidate for president is saying, “Leave,” as in “self-deport,” it really says, “Well, you don’t care much about immigrants,” and people say, “Well, that means the Hispanic vote, the number vote for the president after African-Americans was the Asian-American vote. They’re listening to this immigration debate just as closely as Hispanic-Americans.
So there’s another Democrat worried that we might never win the White House again! This is amazing.
“I’m not aware of Democrats expressing regret or sorrow or sadness over the fact that Republicans aren’t winning elections. In fact, it’s just the opposite. Yet two Democratic senators in two days have openly, publicly fretted over the fact that Republicans will not win the White House ever again if they don’t agree with Democrats on an issue like immigration.” So both Menendez and Durbin are saying, “If you Republicans ever, ever hope to win the White House again, you better agree with us, ’cause we’re the only ones that are ever gonna win the presidency.
“If you want to win it, maybe, you don’t have a prayer unless you agree with us on this,” and I just never knew that Durban and Menendez or any other Democrat wanted the Republicans to win the White House that badly. I’ve never seen them endorse a Republican. McCain, by the way, in 2008, was very pro-amnesty. Did he win? I’ve forgotten. Oh, no, he didn’t. He lost. McCain was really, really pro-amnesty 2008 and he lost. Eh, must be an aberration.
Craig in St. Louis, you’re next on the EIB Network.
CALLER: Hey, Rush. Honor and a privilege.
RUSH: Thank you, sir. How are you?
CALLER: I’m doing all right. Yourself?
RUSH: Good. Thank you.
CALLER: My question and then I’ll go ’cause we’re short on time. I really like Marco Rubio, I like his plan, but, you know, we have 11 million people who broke the law to get into America. Do we really think that they will pay whatever fines are necessary, do without whatever benefits and go to the back of the line in order to become American citizens?
RUSH: Can I ask you a question, Craig?
RUSH: Why do you Republicans have to continually insult these people?
RUSH: Do you realize what they think? They already hate us, and you call here, you’ve just accused ’em of avoiding, not paying the fine, being a bunch of cheapskates. What are they to think of us?
CALLER: They’ll be no different than they are now, so why do this amnesty thing that will — I mean, actually it will benefit some, who may actually go to the road of getting citizenship, but…
RUSH: I think common sense says the following: We pass the bill — look, this is hypothetical — we pass the bill as it’s written. For 13 years they’re in the woods. They have a pathway, but they don’t have citizenship, therefore they can’t vote, and they can’t get Obamacare benefits or welfare benefits, and theoretically they have to come forward and say “here I am” and pay their fine and go to the end of the line and wait the 13 years, and that’s the price they pay for having come here illegally, but we have enabled the pathway. Let’s say that passes, and Obama signs it. Two to six hours later Senator Chuck Schumer —
RUSH: — will find the nearest camera and talk about how lacking in compassion and how mean-spirited and how extremist it is to tell these people that we have just now granted essentially citizenship, that they can’t have it for 13 years. And how inhumane are we to deny these people and their children health care benefits. So an immediate amendment will be offered to reduce the 13 years to 13 days, or whatever, and the same debate will spring up again.
Now, admittedly this is the cynical view of this, and I have, in my discussions with Senator Rubio, I’ve expressed this to him under the guise that I know Democrats, and I’ve said, “Senator, I think this is the plan. I think the 13 years is in there to get this passed, but nobody involved wants to wait 13 years for these people to count, so to speak.” And he was steadfast in his insistence that that was not the case and it wouldn’t be the case and that he wouldn’t support it if it came up.
But you can’t blame people for looking at this in a cynical way, given the history of amnesty and illegal immigration and the way it’s been dealt with in this country and how — I mean, is there any doubt that since 1986 the whole notion of amnesty has been a boon to the Democrat Party, is there any denying that? There isn’t. So if you know that, you add everything else to the equation, the cynicism here is easily understandable.