RUSH: The media is doing… They’ve all gone all Palin all the time on Trump. But the call, I said, was going to suffice as a transition to other stories, and here is one of them. The Politico. The Politico has a group of people they call The Insiders. These are strategerists, consultants, elected officials, donors, lobbyists, fundraisers. These are the cream of the cream.
The creme de creme. The elites of the Washington establishment. They are this group that The Politico consults every now and then for their opinions on matters relating to politics, such as the campaign. And the latest installment from The Politico and their political insiders is that it’s time for Trump to drop out. “Amid widespread chatter that Donald Trump could drop out of the presidential race before Election Day, Republican insiders in key battleground states have a message for The Donald: Get out.
“That’s according to The Politico Caucus — a panel of activists, strategists and operatives in 11 swing states. The majority of GOP insiders, 70%…” This is the group of people The Politico puts together now, so these are going to be Drive-By Media-approved elite establishment activists and strategerists and operatives. “The majority of [Republican] insiders, 70% said they want Trump to drop out of the race [now] and be replaced by another Republican candidate — with many citing Trump’s drag on Republicans in down-ballot races.
“But those insiders still think it’s a long-shot Trump would actually end his campaign and be replaced by another [Republican].” They think he should drop out. But they think it isn’t going to happen. It’s such a long shot. No way, no how. But they’re advocating for it. And of course The Politico is now eagerly printing, publishing their wishes. Do you know who the last person was to drop out of a presidential ticket? Can you think off the top of your head?
How often does this happen? Can any of you think off the top of your head the last person? Not necessarily the presidential nominee, just the last anybody to drop out of a ticket? Thomas Eagleton. Does the name ring a bell? Thomas Eagleton, who was George McGovern’s VP. Thomas Eagleton was a senator from Missouri, and when it was discovered that he had electroshock treatments for a mental illness of some kind, that was it, and Eagleton had to go.
A lot of insiders at the time said that that was a significant factor in McGovern losing every state except Massachusetts (and DC) to Richard Nixon. Now, another one of these Republicans in The Politico Caucus: ‘”I’d rather take our chances with nearly anyone else than continue with this certain loser who will likely cost the Senate and much more,’ said a New Hampshire Republican…” They’re all speaking anonymously, by the way. None of them will use their names.
Remember, this “certain loser,” Donald Trump, was ahead of Hillary Clinton just last week going into the Democrat convention. They’re all assuming it’s over now. We’ve had all these different metrics. First off, “Polls in June,” the media told us, “are the best indicator of who is going to win in November.” That was when Hillary had an 11-point lead. Then the following week, after the Republican convention, Trump gets a bump, erases the 11-point lead. In some cases, he had a 11-point deficit, and then had a three-point lead.
The media dropped the idea that the election can be decided via polling data in June. Now that the Democrat convention has happened, now that Hillary has gotten her bump out of that, now the wisdom (as we shared with you from David Rodham Gergen yesterday), is presidential approval is the greatest indicator to the outcome of an election in November. Presidential approval coming out of the Democrat convention.
So you have two things — Hillary gets a bump and Obama’s approval number — and the Drive-Bys are saying, “Forget it. We were not quite right about polling data in June being the determining factor and the great indicator. Right now, presidential approval is. As long as Obama’s approval numbers remain high, that’s it, it’s over; you can take it to the bank.” That’s the conventional wisdom of today.
Just a week or ten days ago, Trump was in the lead. But now all of these Republican insiders, The Politico Caucus are saying that Trump is a certain loser and must leave. “A Trump exit from the race after he’s been formally nominated would trigger a rarely used vacancy rule in the national Republican Party’s rulebook.” You can see that they’re already consulting this.
“That [rarely used vacancy] rule empowers the Republican National Committee — a 168-member [people on the committee] — to select a replacement. The RNC is also authorized to reconvene the national convention” if they wanted to, if Trump drops out and it’s time to pick a replacement. Anyway, that’s The Politico. That’s the news from The Politico, and it will be picked up everywhere, and that’s going to be what most Americans think is happening on the Trump side of the presidential race today and into the weekend.
RUSH: The Politico Caucus is Republican insiders. Well, not all, but the Republicans that are part of the Caucus, they’re insiders. They are think tankers, consultants, political operatives. And they think Trump ought to drop out. I’ve been thinking about that. If Trump drops out, who would be ideal to take over for Trump? I put a lot of thought into that during the most recent break, folks. I think I’ve got a suggestion. … Who better…? I mean, look: All these Republicans already joined the Hillary campaign, and we can’t draft Meg Whitman.
We can’t draft Richard Hanna. There are a number of Republicans that have refused to endorse Trump, who say they just can’t bring themselves to do it. Now, some of them have not crossed the aisle and sidled up to Hillary but many have. So you have to take those Republicans off the list. Who would be ideal? How about…? Just hear me out on this before your knee-jerk reactions. How about Khizr Khan as the replacement Republican nominee for Donald Trump?
I mean, how can Hillary even run against the father of a war hero? How could Hillary run against him? She couldn’t say a word. She couldn’t criticize him. That’s what we’ve learned from Democratic convention. You can’t criticize Khizr Khan! Now you can criticize Pat Smith, but you couldn’t put Pat Smith up there, and we couldn’t put Charles Woods up there, because it’s been established you can criticize them, even though they lost sons in battle.
But Khizr Khan is above it. You can’t criticize him! Not even Mrs. Clinton. He’s a Muslim to boot. (snorts) Double insurance against any criticism whatsoever. Now, I know what you’re thinking. I know what you’re thinking. There’s already a push to get Khizr Khan to run for office. I have the story in my Stack. It’s kind of convoluted, but they want him to run for the Virginia legislature. They want him to run for a seat that is held by a Democrat at the moment.
But get this… I think I’ve got this right. I don’t have the story right in front of me. But I think that one of the children of the son of the incumbent is in charge of a PAC that is set up to reelect the incumbent. Now, the PAC cannot have any direct contact with a candidate. It could be just a way that they’re suggesting to funnel some payment money to Khizr Khan. I know some of you are saying, “Wait a minute, Rush,” and I know you know I’ve thought of this.
You say, “Rush, he’s not… He’s foreign-born. He can’t run for president.” That can be fixed. Folks, they can have a bipartisan bill that can fix that in a couple of days, because nobody can attack Khizr Khan. If somebody puts him up, and he wants him to be president, you run the risk of being critical. Besides, I think that’s a xenophobic law to say anyway, to say that you have to be born in the United States in order to be president.
That’s typical of the arrogance and the conceit that is part of being an American. Who are we to think that? Who are we to tell anybody that you have to be born here in order to be our president? Do you realize how many qualified people there are to be president of the United States that weren’t born here? And to say that they can’t is to be purely xenophobic! That’s how the left would look at it, too. It’s the son of the guy pushing Khan to run that’s working for the incumbent that has the PAC.
So you have Khan versus Hillary, Khizr Khan versus Hillary. Mrs. Khizr Khan versus Bill Clinton on the campaign trail. (laughing) You ought to see the way they’re looking at me on the other side of the glass. (laughing) Well, add it all up. You can’t criticize him. He’s already been proclaimed an unassailable citizen. Even Mrs. Clinton couldn’t criticize him. Mrs. Clinton used him.
The Democrats brought him aboard. He knows the Constitution! He understands that. I mean, he can wave that around, and there’s no Republican… Can you imagine a Republican saying, “We can’t have that! There’s no future in that.” A Republican stands up and says, “No! No! We cannot have Khizr Khan. He’s not even a Republican.” “See? You are anti-Muslim! See, you are a bigot.” It’s made-to-order. (laughing)
RUSH: Open Line Friday. Here’s Woody in Hollister, California. Great to have you on the program today, sir.
CALLER: Good morning, Rush!
CALLER: All right. I want to talk to you about the [American] Dream Act, which was one of Bill Clinton’s — Bill Clinton and the Democrats’ — wonderful things they put out there so everybody would own a home. They modified the requirements for a loan so that they could make exceptions so everybody could own a home. When George Bush inherited the DREAM Act, by that time, there were so many crooked things going on, I don’t think he was paying any attention.
He inherited this mess. I was in college. I did an article… I didn’t write it; I did an article — in one of my college classes, in financial class, about how George Bush questioned these loans. At some point, he must have caught wind that there was something going on, and he was told that he was being mean and cruel to low-income people. (snorts) So Obama blamed George Bush for all of the bad loans, but that whole thing was started by the Democrats.
RUSH: Yeah, but —
CALLER: It was started by Bill Clinton.
RUSH: I know, it’s an eight-year-old story, now. Why do you want Trump to talk about this?
CALLER: Well, I think we have to understand that the Democrats, their programs have a tendency to put the country upside down. I mean, look at what happened to the country with something that the Democrats put into play, George Bush inherited it. And Obama beat George Bush over the head when the whole country was in the [toilet], and nobody seems to pay any attention to it.
RUSH: Well, I know that. I mean, you call it “the Dream Act.” I called subprime. But the whole subprime mortgage thing is why we had the economic collapse of 2008, and that economic collapse of 2008 is still blamed on George W. Bush. The American people still blame it on Bush. Obama has gotten a total pass on any negative economic news, statistics or activity since then. I chalk it up to the Limbaugh Theorem. Obama is being giving credit for trying to fix it, “But, man, it’s been so hard! It was such a deep recession.”
But given how few people understood it even then? I mean, when the majority of public opinion data shows that people blame Bush for it, to try to re-litigate that at this stage of the campaign? I don’t know. Because there’s so much low-hanging fruit that is of the moment, that is much easier explained. Plus, if you want to go into detail on subprime, you’ve got to go to places where the media is just going to fire both barrels at you. The reason for those subprime loans was minority housing.
So you start attacking that premise and they’re going to come at you as a racist. “Oh, what, you think they should be kicked out of their homes, Mr. Trump?” or some such thing. But you’re right in terms of the truth in the statement that that whole collapse should have been tied to the Democrat Party. But, again, even the Republicans back then weren’t trying to do that. Look, there’s a reason why Trump is the nominee. The Republicans were doing…
Here’s the great (pause) dichotomy, if you will: Outside of national races, the Republicans have been kicking butt. You look at all the races. I talk about this so damn much. The Republicans in the 2010 and 2014 midterms just cleaned the Democrats’ clocks! The Democrats have lost over a thousand seats nationwide, from governorships to the House of Representatives and Senate all the way down to dogcatcher locally.
And yet the perception is the Republican Party couldn’t win diddly-squat. Well, they won the House, they won the Senate, but what is there to show for it? They wanted to go along with the Democrats on immigration. They won re-election campaigning as conservatives, and they got there and didn’t do conservatism. They didn’t… So it really… All this is amazing when you stop and think about what’s happened. But Trump won those primaries for a reason.