Rush Limbaugh

For a better experience,
download and use our app!

The Rush Limbaugh Show Main Menu

Listen to it Button

RUSH: We’ll start in Lillington, North Carolina, and Mike, welcome, sir. Great to have you here.

CALLER: Well, thank you, Rush, and an honor and a pleasure to be a second-time caller.

RUSH: Well, good for you.

CALLER: Okay. Well, there’s more to this than the Democrats making a whole bunch of new Democrat voters. Part of the plan is now, 2014, they’re angering the base if this bill passes, so if they thought a bunch of people didn’t show up in 2012 for the election, wait until 2014. I don’t think the Republicans are gonna turn out any more. And also, Rubio and Paul have been assassinated. The Democrats have successfully assassinated them without even doing any character destruction because the Republican base is not even gonna want to elect these guys as dogcatchers.

RUSH: These are two interesting theories, ladies and gentlemen. Let me take these one at a time. The first theory is that if you think Republicans sat home in 2012 because they were angry at various things, you haven’t seen anything ’til we get to 2014 if the Gang of Eight bill passes. The theory being Republican voters are not gonna want to reward Republicans who saw to it that this became law. The Republican voters are gonna say, “Why should we affirm this? Why should we pat these guys on the back? Why should we care that they run Congress, or why should we care that the Democrats should be stopped because the Democrats are getting everything they want anyway with our guys where they are.” And he says, the Democrats are very smart.

The Democrats are making sure that Republican voters are gonna stay home, and the way they’re doing it is incorporating conservative Republican leaders into their legislation, putting them face forward — he didn’t say this, but I know what he means. The Democrats have put Rubio out there as the face of Gang of Eight. Now, Rubio — and I can tell you this. You know it as well as I do. Marco Rubio, to a lot of Republicans, is the great hope. Presidential politics, Marco Rubio ranks high on many people’s lists. And, I can tell you, folks, there are a lot of Republicans who are hoping, they’re willing to give Senator Rubio a pass on this to a certain extent because he’s so good at articulating conservatism.

I mean, his campaign against Crist, when Rubio rose to national prominence, it was precisely because he was Reaganesque, precisely. And there are a lot of people who are willing to give him a pass. In this sense, they are saying, “Gee, I hope this doesn’t ruin him.” They’re hoping he backs out of it. They’re hoping that at the last minute he’ll just withdraw from this so as not to be tainted by it. Because the fact of the matter is there will be significant Republican outrage if this thing passes and it’s made possible by significant Republican participation.

And then his second point is this is suppressing Republican turnout without having to run a negative ad once. By making Rubio, Rand Paul, or whoever else the face of the bill, they are successfully assassinating Republican political leaders without having to run a negative ad, by making them the face of what the Democrats want and by making it look like the Republicans are facilitating Democrat objectives.

So I understand the thinking. This is a guy from Lillington, North Carolina, crossroads of America. You’ve gotta figure that there are a lot of people with this kind of thinking. And I’ve had a number of people say to me about Senator Rubio what I just passed on to you, “Gee, I really wish he’d get out of this, because, whatever happens, I hope he doesn’t have any fingerprints on it when it’s all over.”

Senator Rubio, I’ll tell you what he wants, or what I think. I meant to run this by Senator Cruz. And he answered it in an indirect way, without my asking him. But we talked about this idea that Senator Graham said, “We gotta get back in the good graces of Hispanics. They hate us, and therefore we’ve got to grant amnesty.” Or we gotta support the immigration bill. Only then will Hispanics realize that we’re good guys and we don’t hate ’em. Senator Rubio is confident that he can persuade liberals of conservatism. He’s confident that he can persuade and inspire middle-of-the-roaders and people that are not committed ideologically to join him. He’s very confident in his ability to speak to a crowd and persuade a lot of them.

When it comes to the Hispanic community, I mean, he is Hispanic, he’s Cuban. There is that linkage. But I think he is of the belief — and I don’t want to put words in his mouth, so to his staff, I could be wrong here, if I am, I’m sure you’ll let us know. But I think there’s an element here of Senator Rubio that believes he won’t be listened to by the Hispanics we need to persuade if somehow this legislation ends up in such a way as to further the notion that we hate them.

Politics is perception. We don’t hate them. We don’t hate them. We don’t have animus for anybody, folks. That’s the truth of the matter. But the perception is, and the Democrats and the media have been very successful in convincing minorities, particularly that Republicans don’t like ’em and don’t want ’em to get anywhere or go anywhere, or become anything. And so they think they’ve gotta overcome that. And they won’t be able to overcome it if this bill goes down in flames.

So I think there’s an element here, I’m not gonna even have a chance to persuade these people. And he maintains, Rubio does, that border security — he’s back on that now. By the way, Senator Graham had a fascinating quote yesterday. Senator Graham is frustrated — see if I can find it. I think I threw the damn thing away. Senator Graham — I’ll paraphrase this. After Rubio came out yesterday and said that after all this border security wasn’t enough and he couldn’t support the bill as it is — and he did say that — Senator Graham said (paraphrasing), “What the hell’s going on? I mean, the guy who came up with the bill, the guy whose bill it is, now says he can’t support it? What the hell’s going on?” That was Senator Graham reacting to Senator Rubio.

So the caller is right. The one thing I know, and there are many things I know, the one thing I know is where you all are on the Republican Party today. You know, people have said the country’s hanging by a thread. Well, so is the party. The Republican Party is hanging by a thread. In fact, some actually do know it, and I think this whole notion that they’re embarrassed of their base and wouldn’t mind at all if the base left the Republican Party even if it meant losing a couple of elections, I think there’s that element in the party. Don’t doubt me on that, by the way. They’re either embarrassed of the base or they don’t like the base, you know, the caricature, pro-life, gun-toting, shotgun-shooting, tobacco-spitting crowd, that’s the base.

They wouldn’t be embarrassed, wouldn’t be bothered at all if that group of people said, “To hell with you. We’re leaving, man.” Even if it meant losing a couple of elections. But the Republicans can’t afford any defections because they don’t have any people that are gonna make up the slack. And if they’re thinking this Gang of Eight bill is gonna pick up the slack for whatever base they lose, they have got another thing coming. That’s just not in the cards because, as I explained yesterday, you cannot out-liberal a liberal. I appreciate the call, Mike.


RUSH: Here’s the Lindsey Graham quote: “How do we put together a bill and then the guy who put it together says he may not vote for it? I just don’t get what we’re doing here.” That was Senator Graham to the Huffing and Puffington Post. “How do we put together a bill and then the guy who put it together says that he may not vote for it?” Meaning Rubio. They’re positioning Rubio as the guy who wrote it, as the guy who came up with it, as the guy who conceived it.

Rubio is the face of it.

How can the face of our bill say he may not vote for it?

Well, 75% of illegal immigration would continue under the Senate immigration bill. That’s from the CBO. Of course, then what is the point? What is the point? If 75% of illegal immigration is gonna continue after this bill is signed into law, then what is the point? CBO also has other findings that the Drive-By, State-Controlled Media will studiously ignore, such as the fact that the CBO says the Gang of Eight bill will only reduce the number of people here on visas by 25%.

That’s another way of looking at it.

Seventy-five percent will continue, or the Gang of Eight bill will only reduce the number of people here on overstayed visas by 25%. That’s another thing. We have no way of finding or controlling people who overstay their visas and dealing with them. The headline’s a little misleading, “CBO: 75% of Illegal Immigration Would Continue Under Senate Immigration Bill,” because we’ve noted previously the Wall Street Journal has found that overstayed visas account for somewhere between 40 and 50% of the current illegal alien population.

Overstayed visas.

Well, we have all kinds of ways. We’re not doing it. We’ve got immigration laws on the books. Don’t misunderstand when I say we have no way of finding them. I don’t know if it’s the NSA, what they’re doing. I don’t know how we can’t find anybody. I don’t know how we can’t find Snowden. Did you hear what Obama said about this? “If you are a US person…” What is “a US person”? If you are “a US person.” He didn’t say “American.” He didn’t say “citizen.” He said “a US person,” so anybody happens to physically be here.

He said (summarized), “If you are a US person, your e-mails can’t be read, they can’t be listened to, none of that can happen, if you are a US person. If you’re not a US person, who knows?” But this CBO admission here that 40 to 50% of the current illegal alien population’s overstayed visas, that’s an incredible admission. Then to see that 75% is gonna continue! But, see, this isn’t a problem for the Democrats. None of that is a problem for the Democrats. “Oh, 75% will continue? Not a problem! People overstaying visas? Not a problem!” That’s all you need to know.

None of this is a problem for the Democrats.

Here’s Carol in Boston. Carol, I’m glad you waited. It’s great to have you on the EIB Network. Hi.

CALLER: Hi, Rush. I’m so nervous to talk to you, but I can’t tell you how much listening to you helps get me through some of the days, especially being locked in the People’s Republic of Massachusetts. But I have two comments. One is, I’m afraid that Marco Rubio has really spent his political capital. I don’t know how he can continue to go out and back this thousand-plus-page bill. I mean, did he learn nothing from Obamacare bill? Doesn’t think that a thousand pages is loaded with just great safeguards?

I don’t understand that. I’m also very upset and disturbed by people like Karl Rove and Reince Priebus picking our candidates for us. I mean, I do believe that Crossroads ran ads against people like Ted Cruz in order to promote a more moderate candidate, and I am concerned because Reince Priebus made a statement on the news where he said, “Oh, we do really well and local and state elections, but we’re not doing well on the presidential election.

“We have to relook at that,” and he started talking all this inclusive stuff rather than to look at the candidates that they run like McCain and Dole and Romney who are really mostly moderate candidates in conservative clothing, and they only run that way when they’re running, and then when they get into these debates and everything. People realize, looking at their record that they’re not conservative. The last election — even Reince Priebus said this — that we won by huge majorities was 21 or 22 years ago. Well, who was that?

RUSH: Let me ask a question. Let me cut to the chase with you here. Let’s use the… Who did you mention? You mentioned Dole.

CALLER: Right. McCain and Romney. All moderate.

RUSH: Let’s just use the McCain campaign of 2008, for example, just to pick one, okay?

CALLER: Mmm-hmm.

RUSH: Can you think and tell me who on the Republican side might have won because of a McCain candidacy?

CALLER: Who might have won in terms of a local or instead of him?

RUSH: I didn’t say elections.


RUSH: “Who might have benefited?” might be a fairer way to put it.

CALLER: Oh, absolutely. Everybody in Washington, DC, would have won, most particularly the Democrats win because John McCain is special for reaching across the aisles.

RUSH: My point is this: The consultants who run these campaigns make millions of dollars even when a candidate loses.

CALLER: That’s true.

RUSH: And if they know a bunch of big money donors are gonna support a certain candidate, then whether the candidate can win or lose may be of secondary importance.


RUSH: It’s how big the donor pool is because the percentage of that is how you earn your living, if you’re a consultant.


RUSH: They’re advertising agencies get 15% commission every ad they run. So the more campaign contributions a candidate engenders or inspires, the more successful the consultants are. In other words, Steve Schmidt, who ran the McCain campaign, did not lose, nor do any other consultants. These are big-ticket items financially, campaigns are. Of course there’s a big deal when you win because it enhances your reputation, but even when your candidate loses he’s still spending gobs of money that has been raised that you get a percentage of.

Pin It on Pinterest

Share This