Rush Limbaugh

For a better experience,
download and use our app!

The Rush Limbaugh Show Main Menu

RUSH: Now, I want to share something here with you I just became aware of from John Podhoretz, affectionately known as JPod, writes a column for the New York Post. He is a columnist, and may be an editor at Commentary. He is the son of Norman Podhoretz, and he was involved with Bill Kristol at the Weekly Standard when it was founded up and running and has done I think an occasional appearance at Fox over the years. He has a piece here that I want to share some highlights with you, get your reaction, get your thoughts. Headline of the piece: “The National Elite Nervous Breakdown.

In part, it is about the feminazi march on Sunday. And here are a couple pull quotes from the JPod piece. Now… Oh. I should say — and I don’t say this derisively. I’m not saying it critically. I’m just giving you background and information on who JPod is. JPod a proud Never Trumper. Now, I don’t know what his thoughts on Trump are since the inauguration, but I know during the campaign he was a proud Never Trumper. Pull quote number one: “It would be a terrible mistake for conservatives, Republicans, and Trump supporters to pooh-pooh this mass event, which happened simultaneously in several cities and towns, with a gross turnout dwarfing any mass protest in American history.

“Dismissing three million people taking to the streets nationwide would be an act of willful blindness, and ascribing the march’s success to Soros money would be foolish.” In other words, Mr. Pod thinks that this is big, this is huge, and you and we better pay attention to this, ’cause this is unprecedented. Three million of anybody spontaneously marching all over the country, you can’t just discard that. You can’t just chalk it up to kookism. He writes, “[I]t would be wrong to assume those crowds even heard a single word of Madonna’s curses or cared one whit about the fight between the ‘check your privilege’ activists and the offended/cowed Brooklynite feminists over whose march it was.”

He, I guess, also assumes that very few people ever heard what Ashley Judd said. People are missing the point if they focus on Madonna and Ashley Judd and the wacko things they said. His point is, “It was no one’s march. It was everyone’s march.” Anyway, there was no leader. It was, for all intents and purposes, spontaneous with singular purpose. “And it worked,” he says, “I believe, for one reason: It had a simple message. That message: We don’t like Trump and his behavior toward women.” Period. That’s what got three million women into the streets all over the country and around the world on Sunday, their dislike for Trump and his behavior towards women.

Maybe. I mean, if JPod has figured out women, kudos. More power to him. Nobody else ever has. If JPod’s figured ’em out, then I’m willing to learn. But the thing about this, I mean, you can say that women don’t like Trump because of his behavior towards women, but how in the world…? Is there no hypocrisy in any of this? These same women celebrate people like Bill Clinton, who literally use women and spit them out? Serious allegations that Clinton raped a woman, destroyed the life of a 19-year-old White House intern?

Look, I know, I know. Clinton was right on abortion, so it doesn’t matter. And most of these women wished they were married to him. Well, they didn’t have to be married to Clinton. That’s another thing. They wish for one night with Clinton themselves. Who could explain it? It’s like in high school, the girls liked the bikers. It made no sense, but they did. But now we’re talking politics, so we’re supposed to say that their dislike and their hatred of Trump because of the way he treats people, that’s justified. They have a…

Mr. Pod here thinks there is legitimate reason for disliking Trump, one we better hear. We better understand this. We better not pooh-pooh this. We better not chalk this up to kookism or kookery. This is serious, and he means politically. But then there’s another political aspect to this, and that is there’s a bunch of reprehensible left-wing guys, and they treat women like dirt, and they’re never called on it or held to account for it. They’re all excused. That has to mean something, too. If all this is political, then there is an objective, and if it’s political, and it’s liberal oriented, then it’s well worth opposing and defeating, from my at some point, anyway.

Another pull quote from Mr. Podhoretz. “The existence of a grass roots movement encouraged serious candidates to take up the task of running for Congress in what had seemed a bad period for Republicans — the movement provided money, volunteers, and a core enthusiasm for the task. If Democrats can use the Women’s [sic] as a comparable accelerant to recruit candidates, particularly for the House, who have real connections to the Republican districts in which they are running and can frame their bids as a means of stopping Trump from working his will with an all-Republican Congress, they might really have something here.”

Meaning they might have a way to stop Trump by winning back the House in Republican districts by getting votes from others who also hate Trump. So he’s correlating the feminazi march with the Tea Party. Now, the Democrats are trying to do the same thing. We had a story Jonathan Martin New York Times yesterday (we talked about it yesterday ) in which he said that the Democrats are trying to create their own Tea Party. Well, you can’t create one. The Tea Party evolved. It’s like you throw an impromptu party one night and it goes so great, you try to do it again the next Saturday night, and it’s just never the same.

You just can’t repeat it, and if they’re gonna try… Like we just had the news that “scientists” saw how successful the feminazi march was, so now “scientists” want to do one of their own. I guarantee you it’s gonna fizzle. It may not be reported as fizzling — I don’t even know if it’s actually gonna happen — but it won’t be what this was, and if the women did it again it may not be, because that one would be planned and orchestrated, and they would do everything they could to emulate what happened the first time around. Where if Podhoretz is right, the first time around it was basically a spontaneous occurrence, and the thing that united these women was not the women; it was Trump.

Now, how much emotion do they have left for it, who knows. But as far as creating another Tea Party, I still don’t think the left understands the Tea Party and how it came to be. The Republicans didn’t create the Tea Party. The Tea Party was opposed to Republicans as much as it was Obama. It was primarily opposed to Obama, but the Tea Party was opposed to wanton spending, and the Tea Party was frustrated the Republicans weren’t doing anything to try to stop Obama.

So for Jonathan Martin to have a piece now in the Times about how the Democrats are trying to create their Tea Party, I thought they had that. I thought that’s what Occupy Wall Street was. When Occupy Wall Street sprung up, they told us, that’s our answer to the Tea Party. But it wasn’t. It was manufactured. And George Soros was right there, sad to say.

Well, if it was genuine and if it was organic, why isn’t Occupy Wall Street still there? Why isn’t it still doing what it’s doing? Oh, that’s right, it’s been replaced by Black Lives Matter. So, anyway, if I understand what John Podhoretz is saying here, he says, look, I don’t care, Republican, conservative, pro-Trump, anti-Trump, you better take this seriously ’cause this is three million people who got together for one reason: hatred of Donald Trump, the way he treats women, things he says about women. And it was organic, it didn’t require a lot of work, didn’t require leadership, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah.

Meaning it was the essence of real, and if it happened once, it can happen again, and if they ever get this kind of power showing up at ballot boxes, which I’m sure Hillary Clinton spent the weekend saying, “Where the hell were you on Election Day?” And for all we know, they were showing up. For all we know, they did vote on Election Day. Why are people assuming they didn’t? You know, people look at the feminazi march and say, “Wow, where were these women on Election Day?” Maybe they did vote. Hillary was saying, in addition to, “Where were you on Election Day?” no doubt Hillary was saying, “Where were you at my rallies? How come you didn’t show up at my rallies?”

Well, because I guess for these women it really wasn’t about Hillary. Podhoretz may have a point. I don’t know how many of these women that marched on Sunday really cared or said much about Hillary. It was really filled with just visceral, raw hatred for the Trumpster. But I didn’t see a whole lot of love for Hillary. I don’t think there is that much, actually. Especially not the amount of it the left and the Democrats seem to believe exists.

Look, they called themselves something we’re all uncomfortable even saying here. I have to sort of massage the word, the pussai march. Okay, so is there a pussairoots movement as opposed to grassroots? Is there a pussairoots movement out here waiting to be tapped into like a grassroots movement? The Tea Party candidates had real and serious issues to run on which were positive, they were engaging, they required action. It wasn’t just hatred for somebody and anger and inexplicable, irrational rage that created the Tea Party. But it does appear that’s some of the primary ingredients to the pussai march.

And the Tea Party crowd, they didn’t have embarrassing hats like the pussai march did. And the scientists, you know, what are they gonna do? They could put balloons on their heads and go as condoms, test tubes or what have you. But they’re gonna embarrass themselves trying to replicate the pussai march. And you don’t know if the pussai march could actually replicate itself. That may have been a one-time event.

But I realize what Podhoretz is saying. Look, you got three million people that showed up in January, filled with rage and hatred, and it’s not a small number and it could have meaningful political consequences. So don’t laugh at ’em. Now, the fact that Podhoretz is a Never-Trumper, I don’t know what role that’s playing in his analysis here. Anyway, that’s just a couple pull quotes. There’s much more in his piece. I haven’t read the whole thing to you, but it’s in Commentary, and of course we will link to it at RushLimbaugh.com.

By the way, you know what? Our website redesign and the content, we are continuing to set subscriber records at RushLimbaugh.com. I need to really take a moment to thank you all for that. It’s just gratifying as it could be. Thank you from bottom of our hearts here.


RUSH: Here’s Mark in Troy, Maine.  Welcome to the EIB Network.  Hello.

CALLER:  Hi, Rush.  I would like to make an observation on what you’ve been speaking about, the J. Pod comments.  The ladies who have been marching, the two to three million, which is a very large number, are bought and paid for by 50 or 60 groups from George Soros.  They are not —

RUSH:  Yeah, but, no, no, no, wait a minute, he says you’re missing the point. If you want to think those women showed up because they were paid to, you’re wrong, and you’re making a huge mistake by overlooking what this was about.

CALLER:  Well, that plays into his Never-Trumper persona.  But even if we negate that Rush, my point is this.  This women are angry, they’re bitter, they don’t like Trump, they’re haters, but they’ve already voted, Rush.  These are not new voters.  The people who were brought into the political arena by the Trump movement, if you will, and by the Tea Party, folks, they were new voters.  A lot of them did not participate, they’ve never participated.  They were new to the scene, and they were brought in by something other than their monolithic hatred of one man.

RUSH:  Okay, this is an excellent point.  So you’re saying that these women are already politically active, they probably already vote so they don’t bring in anything new in terms of numbers or weight to the left’s causes?

CALLER:  That’s true.  That’s exactly true.  And over time, while they may have loud voices and strident voices and, in the case of some of them, rather — well, some of them are just wack-a-doos, Rush.

RUSH:  Yeah.

CALLER:  My point is I really don’t think they’re gonna have the kind of impact that J. Pod says they will because I don’t think they’re gonna have the staying power with real people.

RUSH:  Well, it’s an interesting point. They’re already in the system, they already vote, and did the way they behave — let me just ask you, Mark, do you think that march was in any way infectious and wanted to make other women who are maybe not on the same page as these women, you think it excited them and they said, “Yeah, I want in this movement, I want to get in this movement.”  How much of that do you think was part of this?

CALLER:  Just by looking at the anecdotal evidence, looking at the pictures of the women who were there, they’re very rich and very old. They have already made their lives. Or they’re very young and very foolish.

RUSH:  Well, I know, but the event itself, how many new women out there that were not part of it looked at it, said, “Wow, this is great, I want to be part of that.” How much of that do you think there was?  Any?

CALLER:  Well, my personal opinion, Rush, is that not many.

RUSH:  Yeah.

CALLER:  I mean, if these folks were out there during the election in the two-year run-up to the election, Rush —

RUSH:  Okay.  I gotta take a break because of time here, but I got your point.


RUSH: Savannah, Tennessee, this is Kent. Great to have you with us, sir. Hello.

CALLER: Yeah, hey, Rush. Dittos, and thanks for taking my call.

RUSH: You bet.

CALLER: I just want to give you the 64-year-old grandfather’s take-away on the Women’s March this last weekend.

RUSH: Wait a minute. Are you 64?

CALLER: Yes, I am.

RUSH: You don’t sound… You don’t even sound 34.

CALLER: Well, thank you very much, Rush.

RUSH: You’re welcome.

CALLER: My wife and I took our three young grandkids to the inauguration, had a blast, and the next morning we decided to take them to the Smithsonian museums. We found ourselves caught up in the middle of the Women’s March. Prior to that, the most obscene place I’ve ever been in my life was Bourbon Street. But Bourbon Street doesn’t hold a candle to what we saw that day. It was indescribable. When I got back to the room that night and watched the news, I scratched my head and wondering, “Were they at the same place that I was?”

RUSH: You mean you’re talking about human-debris kind of behavior?

CALLER: Unbelievable. Fortunately, my grandkids were young enough that they couldn’t understand the words, and we exited the parade route pretty fast.

RUSH: Would you say that the stuff you heard these women shouting was it worse or about the same as stuff Trump says?

CALLER: Trump doesn’t say anything offensive as far as I’m concerned. He occasionally is entertaining, but I heard all of the offensive stuff and read a lot more offensive stuff on the mall that day. A lot of stuff.

RUSH: Let me ask you this. Let me ask you this. You were amongst them. You were in the midst of it, and then you watch it TV. Did TV…? The stuff that you saw on TV, was it representative of what you saw? Did they show the same stuff, or did they paper it over?

CALLER: It was absolutely not representative. I was stunned when I watched the television coverage because it was nothing like the real experience.

RUSH: Well, doesn’t surprise me. I mean, obviously one of the objectives would have been to sanitize this and to make it look like what it wasn’t. I don’t know. These women are running around thinking Trump degrades them. You’re not the first guy I’ve talked to that was amongst this mob, and it sure sounds to me like they did a much better job degrading themselves than Trump ever could.

Pin It on Pinterest

Share This