Rush Limbaugh

For a better experience,
download and use our app!

The Rush Limbaugh Show Main Menu

Listen to it Button

RUSH: This morning on CNN’s New Day during the Inside Politics segment, CNN national correspondent John King played part of a new ad for Republican Senate candidate Scott Brown. Now, the reason they did this is CNN is in panic, as I think much of the Drive-By Media is in panic.

The reason is, there is new polling data. In addition to this thing from the Pew Center, there is new polling data that Republicans are making inroads with “security moms.” We had that news for you yesterday. You know, you’re here on the cutting edge. If you’re here every day you know things before they’ve begun to be talked about elsewhere in the media.

It might have been a couple days ago we had the news that Obama and the Democrats were losing women, and it stunned everybody, and it was in the category: Who do you think is best equipped to keep you safe? And the Republicans launched over the Democrats big for the first time in a long time. Scott Brown is running an ad, and CNN’s nervous, and they played a portion of it today.

BROWN: Anyone who turns on the TV these days knows we face challenges to our way of life. Radical Islamic terrorists are threatening to cause the collapse of our country. President Obama and Senator Shaheen seem confused about the nature of the threat. Not me.

RUSH: Right. Okay. So that ad you just heard was played by John King on CNN. Then they spoke with their national political correspondent Peter Hamby about this new ad. King said to Hamby after playing what you just heard, “New Hampshire’s the home state of James Foley, the American journalist beheaded by ISIS, and if you talk to people in both parties who understand politics, they say there’s a ripple in the Senate race based on the fact that it’s so personal.”

HAMBY: Republicans also say that this is effective with women voters. You know, the term “security moms” came up in 2004 in that race. But, you know, Scott Brown’s going to need that (snickers), uh, in this race against Eugene (sic). He’s in the hunt, actually, in this race even though his fave/unfave ratings are upside down. So if he can kind of cut into, uh, Shaheen’s gender gap a little bit, you know, he could be in the race.

RUSH: Ooh! Folks, they are worried about this, as they should be.

The polling data, as you know, is scant. It’s not plentiful. They’re not taking a lot of polls. They’re taking them in media but they’re not releasing them about the Senate. It leads to a number of different types of analysis. If the media’s not releasing a lot of polling data, it may well be because it isn’t good and they don’t want to publicize it, thereby depressing Democrat voters even further.

They’re not even taking the polls, another theory says, because they know this. So there’s an undercurrent throughout the Democrat Party that they’re really, really worried about the upcoming Senate races. Now you throw in this gender gap business that they were just talking about here, and they are — much more than they will exhibit — a little petrified.

In a somewhat related story, this is from Fox News: The Democrats are not talking about Obama’s fundraising. They are refusing to disclose how much money he’s raising. Now, there are a couple theories on this, too. Is it because he really can’t raise money these days and isn’t, or is he raising it in huge amounts that are so large it would be suspicious?

The National Journal: “Last week, President Obama headlined a $100,000-a-plate fundraiser at the swank Jefferson Hotel in downtown Washington on behalf of the Democratic Party’s Senate campaign arm. … How much money did the president help rake in for the party that evening,” at $100,000 a plate? “The Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee wouldn’t say.

“The committee wouldn’t even disclose how many people attended. Nor were the president’s remarks to a room of big donors ever made public.” So people are shaking their heads. Normally they brag about fundraising. Normally they’re honest about fundraising, particularly if they’re in the lead, because that then serves to depress the spirit of Republicans and candidates alike.

TheHill.com: “Pro-immigration reform Republicans say…” Just listen to that for a second. This is the lead to the story: “Pro-immigration reform Republicans say there is a better chance that Congress will produce an immigration overhaul if [the Republican Party] wins control of the [Senate] in November.” Now, what the heck here? This literally makes no sense.

There isn’t one poll out there that shows “immigration reform,” amnesty, whatever, is supported by any majority (unless you survey the Chamber of Commerce). Obama’s numbers on immigration reform are 30% approval/60% disapproval. What is he known for? He’s known for threatening to do amnesty via executive order, and he’s at 30 approve/60 disapprove.

“Pro-immigration reform Republicans say there’s a better chance Congress will produce an immigration overhaul if their party wins [the Senate] in November.” Are these pro-amnesty Republicans, whoever they are, trying to make sure the Democrats take control of the Senate? What is the point? Why leak this? Who’s leaking this? Who’s behind it?

You know what’s happened here, folks?

I’ll tell you what it is.

It’s you.

You are the base, and you have been irritated at Republicans for many election cycles, and I think many of you and others across the country have stopped donating. We’ve seen fundraising numbers for Republicans are down. I think grassroots base donations are down, and the money has to come from somewhere, and it has come from corporatists and Chamber of Commerce types, and so that’s who the GOP has to be loyal to.

That’s who’s paying them.


RUSH: “Supporters say immigration law could pass — with a GOP Senate.” Now, let me spend just a little bit more time on something I was trying to cram in before the break. Over the last number of election cycles, fewer and fewer Republican base voters are donating to Republicans. You know it as well as I know it. You may be among those who’ve cut back, and the reasons are numerous. They are not conservative. They do not govern as they campaign. They don’t push back against Obama. There’s no leader. Whatever. They’re eager for amnesty. Whatever it is, you’ve stopped giving.

Well, somebody’s making up the slack, and that is big corporations. Chamber of Commerce types are donating to Republicans, and they are the masters now. The dirty little secret is it’s not uniformity of agreement on issues with citizens that dominates or inspires or influences decisions made by elected officials. It’s money. So if the grassroots has gotten fed up and isn’t sending any money to these guys, and the corporations, the corporatists, the Chamber of Commerce is, well, they are calling the shots, then. And if those people want amnesty, and if they are the ones funding election campaigns, then, voila.

But I think there’s a second possibility. ‘Cause this story is absurd. It’s absurd to even put this story out. This story is self-defeating. Everybody knows what the polling data is on immigration. There is no way that a story like this benefits the Republicans. To have it out there that amnesty has a better chance of passing if the Republicans win the Senate? Well, somebody’s putting this out there. Somebody’s leaking this. If I had to guess, it might be a couple senators. But more likely it’s people who are trying to create a mandate.

Let’s say it’s the consultant class. Let’s say a bunch of Republican consultants who are also financially intertwined with these big money interests, let’s say that they feel the need to also pay back if they achieve victory. What better way to at least create a mandate, have a news story out there that amnesty has a better chance of passing and becoming a reality with a Republican victory in the Senate.

I know it’s a stretch. But on the surface, if politics to you is strictly issue oriented, this doesn’t make any sense. This is in fact almost a suicidal move, to put it out there that amnesty has a better chance of passing if the Republicans win the Senate? It is crazy. There’s a lot of hogwash in this article. Don’t misunderstand. It’s convoluted and I’m not gonna treat you to all the details ’cause the premise itself is skewed enough. But if the Republicans do win the Senate and control Congress and turn around and vote for amnesty, I shudder. It would be the end of the Republican Party, which, of course, the Democrats are fully aware of, and it may not be a stretch to say the Democrats are behind this story, too. ‘Cause it is so suicidal.

Pin It on Pinterest

Share This