RUSH: On TEXAS and Presidential Politics

www.rushlimbaugh.com ^ | September 21, 2011 | Rush Limbaugh

[Yosemitest]

On Texas and Presidential Politics
September 21, 2011

BEGIN TRANSCRIPT

RUSH: George in South Windsor, Connecticut, you're first on the phones.
Great to have you here, sir, hello.

CALLER: Yeah, Rush, you know, the first and only time I did order your tea, by the way, was during the last contest, and I have to say:
It was everything you said.
Taste, the packaging, how quick it came.
So I like it.

RUSH: I'm glad to hear that. It is. (chuckles)
You know, people would expect me to say it's the best simply because it's got my name and my visage of Rush Revere on it, but it is.
It's just it's every time we taste it ourselves... We're really proud of it.
Let's just leave it at that. We're very, very proud of it and I appreciate your comments on it.

CALLER: Yes, it is good.
You give a lot of things away but that's what I'd choose if I got a gift from you
but I'll tell you why I called:
Like you, I don't like the media picking my candidate.
There's so many issues out there, you can't find one candidate, one Republican candidate stands for all.
So I say the three most important that are a winner for any Republican candidate are:
One, jobs and the economy;
two, energy independence which gives you jobs and a better economy; and,
three, repealing Obamacare --
and again he's into the first one in terms of jobs and the economy.
Just those three things, and I don't care what Republican you put out there, but running on just those three items,
don't get sidetracked with Social Security and all that other,
if you run on those three, and you will win hands down.

RUSH: Well, those are three really important things to stay focused on.
They all are related economically.
They can all can be boiled down and put under that umbrella, every aspect that you mentioned.
Now, I'm like with you:
I don't like the media picking our candidates, either,
and I actually don't think that's going to happen.
You'd make a great campaign manager:
Keeping people focused on what's important.
The Social Security and Ponzi scheme stuff was important when it was referred to as a Ponzi scheme, and everybody dumps on Perry.
It was important to point out all the other people throughout history who have referred to it that way,
and I also think that sometimes some people look at illegal immigration as a sidetrack issue in this campaign.

"No, don't go there. Stay focused on the economy."
But even illegal immigration is an issue that comes underneath that economy umbrella.
But there's a more important aspect to illegal immigration.
I touched on it last week, and this cannot be said enough.
As far as presidential politics is concerned, it boils down to 235 electoral votes.
However you get there, you need 235 electoral votes.
Now, the Republican Party surrenders before a vote is even cast two huge states:
New York and California. They are lost.
Now, New York 9 and the election results there could be a harbinger of potential change in New York state,
but you can't count on it -- and I don't know how much money Republicans are gonna spend campaigning in New York during the presidential race.

California, for all practical purposes, is gone.
Therefore we can't lose Texas. From a presidential politics, Electoral College point of view. You just can't.
If the Republicans cede New York, California, and Texas before the election even starts --
if those three states are thrown out -- we're cooked, and it doesn't matter what issues we're running on.
It doesn't matter.
They could nominate Alfred E. Newman, and as long as their voters show up and vote for Alfred E. Newman as long as he's got a (D) by his name, that's all that's gonna matter.
No issue is gonna matter.

So how does this relate to illegal immigration?
Well, Texas has a lot of it -- and Texas politics, from the governor on down, is its own separate animal on this issue
because of the length of the border and all the other issues that come with it.
Perry and his in-state tuition business is simply his way of trying to get Hispanic votes in Texas.
Now, most people look at that and they just can't abide it
and some people are willing to throw Perry overboard and off the bus because of it.
George W. Bush was, in a political sense, in bed with as many Hispanic organizations as he could in order to get some of that vote in Texas.
So there's all kinds of compromises have to be made down the road.

BREAK TRANSCRIPT

RUSH: I want to give you an example here of what I'm talking about, 'cause I don't want to be misunderstood about this.
I don't want anybody to think that I am softening my position on illegal immigration here.
Don't think that.
But presidential politics is what it is.
Barack Obama is counting on attracting and getting the vast majority of the Hispanic vote, and we know how.
You know, you look at the story that the Politico has today about Obama and the independents not liking what they're hearing and seeing, the independents running away from Obama.
He doesn't really care at the end of the day.
What he's focused on is dependents. He needs and wants to create as many dependent-on-him people as he can.
And that's how he looks at Hispanics, it's how he looks at every minority.

Here, listen to sound bite 28. This is Obama.
Remember, now, this is an annual address, the president always addresses the General Assembly of the United Nations.
Traditionally this speech is always a lecture from the United States to the rest of the world about freedom and human rights, standing up for freedom, defending liberty, and spreading it.
That's traditionally been the message.
And presidents have not shied away from warning the thugs and the dictators around the world that they have an enemy,
that they have an obstacle in their way, that it is the United States.
I mean heavy, weighty, serious matters of grave concern that have to do with tyranny, torture, the basic squalor that most humans encounter in their daily lives,
the unabashed pride in describing American exceptionalism, which this president does not share.
This is traditionally what this address to the General Assembly is all about.

We don't get anything like that from Barack Obama.
We get a collection of "I did this" and "I said that" and "I am going to this"
and "I made that happen" and "I caused this to happen" and "I'm going to cause that to happen."
On the one hand he goes out and tries to take credit for the Arab Spring.
On the other hand he blames the Arab Spring for the current economic malaise our country.
So he's all over the board. There is no sincerity, not even any seriousness.
What we got today from Obama was a campaign speech.
Here's a little sound bite of 15 seconds that illustrates it.

OBAMA: No country should deny people their rights to freedom of speech and freedom of religion,
but also no country should deny people their rights because of who they love,
which is why we must stand up for the rights of gays and lesbians everywhere.

RUSH: Now, I'm not opposed to that, but this is not the forum for this.
This trivializes what the United Nations is about.
And once again a potentially really good forum for a president of the United States to establish, set an agenda and so forth, has been corrupted here and used as a campaign opportunity.
So Obama is intent on, I think, around the world creating as many dependent people on him, his party, as he can.
And the Hispanic vote, it's clear, it's how he looks at it.
He's not interested in their prosperity. He's not interested in their economic growth.
He's interested in how they vote, pure and simple.
And that's true of every other constituency in the Democrat Party,
and you look at the those constituency groups and you tell me where they're making any economic progress.

Once the Democrat Party has put you under their wing, you are in trouble.
If they become your official defenders, you don't have a prayer.
So it takes me back to this whole point about not losing Texas.
Now, people got ticked off at Perry for his in-state tuition policy for children of illegals in the state of Texas.
It's a tough thing because we can't afford to lose Texas and those electoral votes because Florida is not a lock and Ohio is never a lock.
But Texas right now is for us. We can't lose it.
We can't lose New York and California and Texas,
'cause then nothing else matters, it's over.

I remember when I lived in Sacramento there was a senatorial race out there,
Alan Cranston, the incumbent, who, if he were alive today, would fit right in with the extremist bent, the Marxist leanings of today's Democrat Party.
He was a forerunner, a front-runner.
The guy that won the Republican primary that year to run against him was a guy named Ed Zschau,
and he lived in the Bay Area, and Ed Zschau was not a full-fledged conservative.
He was better than a RINO, though, but he was pro-choice.
This resulted in a lot of Republicans just not even showing up to vote.
So Cranston won reelection. And the Republicans, "I can't vote for a guy that's pro-choice." That mattered to them.
Turnout on the Republican side was low, Cranston was reelected.

Shortly thereafter, I forget, it might have been the Bork confirmation hearing, something came up.
If we had had another Republican vote in the Senate -- might have been Bork,
this is the eighties now, my memory on this is a little foggy
-- but if we had had Zschau in the Senate and not Cranston, and Zschau could have won if the Republicans had shown up and voted,
it was that close, then we wouldn't have had a bunch of grief that did ensue from being one vote shy.
I forget specifically what it was. I think it was the Bork.
It'll come to me at some point. I'm not saying that I changed my mind on illegal immigration.
I'm trying to explain why a guy like Perry might have a policy.
And, by the way, George W. Bush, you'll recall that Bush and Karl Rove both thought meaningful comprehensive immigration reform was the way to make the Republican Party a majority party forever,
and that was one of their motivations behind their comprehensive immigration reform objectives.

And people said, "Why does Bush have such affection, adoration for the Hispanics?"
And Jeb Bush in Florida, same thing.
Bush is governor of Texas, it's an issue there that's higher on the priority list than it is in other places.
Well, yeah, look at Prop 187, is another example, too.
That's California where the people of the state, in California, en masse, voted, and said
we're not any longer gonna use our tax dollars to provide the education, welfare, health care and all that for the children of illegals, just can't afford it.
Federal judge threw it out saying that people basically didn't know what they were doing and it was unconstitutional
and who do you think you are, we in the judiciary run this country, not you voters, (raspberry) you.

It really is tough and all this stems from this caller saying, "Look, there are three issues,"
and all of the issues he mentioned are all related about economics, and illegal immigration of course has economic implications as well,
but there's far more, cultural, border, security, all kinds of things.
I'm not defending Perry. I'm just saying that there is something to think about in all this.
We desperately have to get the Democrat Party out of power.
That is at the top of the priority list and there's nothing else close to it because so much is associated with it.
We've got to have control of the Senate, and we have to get rid of Obama.
There cannot be somebody with a D next to their name as president.
If that happens, if Obamacare isn't repealed, if a number of these agenda items that have been put into place are not stopped and rolled back,
we're gonna be dealing with a different country than you and I have ever seen.
And it's one that we have never envisioned,
we've feared, but we never envisioned it as actually something coming to pass,
and it's in the process of coming to pass.

BREAK TRANSCRIPT

RUSH: We constantly have to try to put things in perspective here, folks.
Even here at the EIB Institute for Ideological Purity, we gotta face some realities.
I just got an e-mail:
"What do you mean? How could we ever lose Texas?"
How could we ever lose California? We used to own California!
Ronald Reagan was governor, then coming out of there as president, the eighties.
It wasn't 30 years ago we owned California.
How could we lose Texas?
It does seem like a stretch right now,
but, for crying out loud, to think that it's not possible is a little shortsighted.

END TRANSCRIPT



Read the Background Material...



• New York Times: Perry Video Calls Obama 'President Zero'


*Note: Links to content outside RushLimbaugh.com usually become inactive over time.

[Yosemitest]

Rush, you're right as usual.
BUT, .... I just can't do it.
There's no way in hell I can compromise my values.
You said about "illegal immigration" and "Perry's in-state tuition business" :

Now, most people look at that
and they just can't abide it
and some people are willing to throw Perry overboard and off the bus because of it.

Well ... that's me. There's no way in hell that I can support that Anti-American crap.
I just can't, and I won't!
I won't even think about it.

Jack Kerwick wrote an article on May 24, 2011 titled The Tea Partier versus The Republican and he expressed some important issues that I agree with.

Thus far, the field of GOP presidential contenders, actual and potential, isn’t looking too terribly promising.

This, though, isn’t meant to suggest that any of the candidates, all things being equal, lack what it takes to insure
that Barack Obama never sees the light of a second term; nor is it the case that I find none of the candidates appealing.
Rather, I simply mean that at this juncture, the party faithful is far from unanimously energized over any of them.

It is true that it was the rapidity and aggressiveness with which President Obama proceeded to impose his perilous designs upon the country
that proved to be the final spark to ignite the Tea Party movement.
But the chain of events that lead to its emergence began long before Obama was elected.
That is, it was actually the disenchantment with the Republican Party under our “compassionate conservative” president, George W. Bush,
which overcame legions of conservatives that was the initial inspiration that gave rise to the Tea Party.

It is this frustration with the GOP’s betrayal of the values that it affirms that accounts for why the overwhelming majority
of those who associate with or otherwise sympathize with the Tea Party movement
refuse to explicitly or formally identify with the Republican Party.
And it is this frustration that informs the Tea Partiers’ threat to create a third party
in the event that the GOP continues business as usual.

If and when those conservatives and libertarians who compose the bulk of the Tea Party, decided that the Republican establishment
has yet to learn the lessons of ’06 and ’08, choose to follow through with their promise,
they will invariably be met by Republicans with two distinct by interrelated objections.

First,
they will be told that they are utopian, “purists” foolishly holding out for an “ideal” candidate.

Second, because virtually all members of the Tea Party would have otherwise voted Republican if not for this new third party,
they will be castigated for essentially giving elections away to Democrats.



Both of these criticisms are, at best, misplaced; at worst, they are just disingenuous.
At any rate, they are easily answerable.

Let’s begin with the argument against “purism.” To this line, two replies are in the coming.


No one, as far as I have ever been able to determine, refuses to vote for anyone who isn’t an ideal candidate.
Ideal candidates, by definition, don’t exist.
This, after all, is what makes them ideal.
This counter-objection alone suffices to expose the argument of the Anti-Purist as so much counterfeit.
But there is another consideration that militates decisively against it.

A Tea Partier who refrains from voting for a Republican candidate who shares few if any of his beliefs
can no more be accused of holding out for an ideal candidate
than can someone who refuses to marry a person with whom he has little to anything in common
be accused of holding out for an ideal spouse.
In other words, the object of the argument against purism is the most glaring of straw men:
“I will not vote for a thoroughly flawed candidate” is one thing;
“I will only vote for a perfect candidate” is something else entirely.



As for the second objection against the Tea Partier’s rejection of those Republican candidates who eschew his values and convictions,
it can be dispensed with just as effortlessly as the first.

Every election season—and at no time more so than this past season—Republicans pledge to “reform Washington,” “trim down” the federal government, and so forth.
Once, however, they get elected and they conduct themselves with none of the confidence and enthusiasm with which they expressed themselves on the campaign trail,
those who placed them in office are treated to one lecture after the other on the need for “compromise” and “patience.”

Well, when the Tea Partier’s impatience with establishment Republican candidates intimates a Democratic victory,
he can use this same line of reasoning against his Republican critics.
My dislike for the Democratic Party is second to none, he can insist.
But in order to advance in the long run my conservative or Constitutionalist values, it may be necessary to compromise some in the short term.

For example,

as Glenn Beck once correctly noted in an interview with Katie Couric,
had John McCain been elected in 2008, it is not at all improbable that, in the final analysis,
the country would have been worse off than it is under a President Obama.
McCain would have furthered the country’s leftward drift,
but because this movement would have been slower,
and because McCain is a Republican, it is not likely that the apparent awakening that occurred under Obama would have occurred under McCain.


It may be worth it, the Tea Partier can tell Republicans, for the GOP to lose some elections if it means that conservatives—and the country—will ultimately win.

If he didn’t know it before, the Tea Partier now knows that accepting short-term loss in exchange for long-term gain is the essence of compromise, the essence of politics.

Ironically, he can thank the Republican for impressing this so indelibly upon him.

Well Rush, in closing, I'm fresh out of "patience", and I'm not in the mood for "compromise".
"COMPROMISE" to me is a dirty word.
Let the RINO's compromise their values, with the conservatives, for a change.

The "Establishment Republicans" can go to hell!

[Happy Rain]

Rush is struggling with Perry's unconservative unAmerican inexcusable and all round miserable record on dealing with the illegal alien invaders—but he fears Perry may win the nomination and doesn't want ill will over the issue to cause Obama to win.
Like many of us,we want a REAL conservative to win the nomination,but the RINO elite with all the party money have their hearts set on their hommies Romney or Perry...
Rush,we feel your pain.

[SMGFan]

Not that it is important, but Rush should have said 270 electoral votes are needed. There are 435 Congressman. 538 total electoral votes.

[9YearLurker]

Exactly. Come up with 235 electoral votes—and he’d fail as a campaign manager.

[Cowboy Bob]

If enough Tea Party members are elected to congress, they can force the next President support the borders. Just as the Republican controlled congress in the 1990s forced Clinton to support Welfare reform.

[9YearLurker]

Rush isn’t right as usual.

Texas isn’t about to suddenly vote for Obama if Perry isn’t the GOP nominee. Perry doesn’t even have a positive approval rating in his own state. (Though I fully expect he’d take Texas in the primary, because voters do get swept up with “their guy” as prez.)

If the GOP capitulates on illegal immigration so openly as to name Perry as their nominee, we might as well forget about the GOP as a party—and the US as a country.

I’ve been disgusted with Rush’s playing footsie with the Perry candidacy since he emerged as a president. Rush has been completely absorbed into the GOP Establishment at this point—and cleaved from the will and understanding of the people.

If he doesn’t wise up Mark Levin could replace him as our #1 “talker” by the end of 2012.

[Christie at the beach]

I really like Rush though he seems to be wandering down a road that I don’t agree with. Either you have convictions or you have people help you to make a decision. No one can be perfect and 100% with point on everything in life-don’t even try it— but some of us do practice what we preach and we don’t have the power which he holds.

[cricket]

Heard Rush today. This caller unable to let "reason' penetrate""- an all to typical response these days. (Understand per 'value'; just not in self-wounding/country destroying, application.) Thought for sure the Cranston example would be a breakthrough, but a mind like a steel door, is just that

America; our values; our future; close to being buried. Our potential irretrievable. To survive, we need a huge shovel. But, survival requires, that if only a small one appears, we must take it, and use it; until a bigger - more perfect one - shows up. The choice to not dig; but rather, to keep 'hands-in-pockets' and hold one's breath; until bigger/better choice comes along, is a fatal decision.

And given the scope of that personal decision, consider it a Treasonous choice as well.

That said; God Bless Rush for trying. . .

[stilloftyhenight]

Yes, jobs are #1.

Rush needs to check out this release from the Center for Immigration Studies. It has mega-stats on jobs/illegals in Texas.

Among the findings:

*Of jobs created in Texas since 2007, 81 percent were taken by newly arrived immigrant workers (legal and illegal).

*In terms of numbers, between the second quarter of 2007, right before the recession began, and the second quarter of 2011, total employment in Texas increased by 279,000. Of this, 225,000 jobs went to immigrants (legal and illegal) who arrived in the United States in 2007 or later.

*Of newly arrived immigrants who took a job in Texas, 93 percent were not U.S. citizens. Thus government data show that more than three-fourths of net job growth in Texas were taken by newly arrived non-citizens (legal and illegal).

*The large share of job growth that went to immigrants is surprising because the native-born accounted for 69 percent of the growth in Texas’ working-age population (16 to 65). Thus, even though natives made up most of the growth in potential workers, most of the job growth went to immigrants.

*snip*

As for his attracting businesses to Texas, just how many businesses does California have to grab? It worked for his state but is absurd on a national level.

[C. Edmund Wright]

You are right. Rush was right. I’ve said many of the same things and around here you get flamed.

Rush was not talking compromise as much as he was the wisdom of choosing your battles. Those are often confused by those who like to warp themselves in a false purity, but they are not the same thing.

The one battle we absolutely CANNOT afford to compromise on in 2012 is the removal of the socialists from power, period. And he’s right. His point is this: if we get too distracted on any other issue and it causes us to not take power back from the Democrats, then all is lost and nothing else matters.

Rush is not a compromiser and certainly no friend of the establishment elites - and he constantly says the way to win is unabashed conservatism. And he’s a strong borders guy and always has been. But he is ultimately pragmatic and logical. The Titanic is sinking and the water is rushing in through the hole created by Democrats in charge. If we don’t plug that hole, we are sunk. Period.

Everything else is a matter of arranging deck chairs.

[catfish1957]

Rush is struggling with Perry's unconservative unAmerican inexcusable and all round miserable record

Huh???...I must have read a different article. You Palinites crack me up.!!!!!!!

[ballplayer]

The same argument he made about George W Bush against McCain.
I recall him Saying Bush was The More Conservative in the Race between those two,So take it for what its worth on How you think Bush acted,and how you think Perry would.
Saw Perry Last Night on Hannity and when asked about Social Security and what he would do and hes back to saying he wants to have a Conversation,well tell me what the Hell you are going to propose and how it would work,I am tired of hearing what the Freakin Problem is,I KNOW WHAT THE PROBLEM IS!
Folks we are screwed if this is the Best we have

[Cincinatus' Wife]

Rush is explaining the facts (”undeniable truths,” if you will).

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2760888/posts#32

I love your, “unconservative,” “unAmerican,” “inexcusable,” “miserable,” “RINO elite” descriptive montage...

VS

REAL conservative.

[Cincinatus' Wife]

.........Conversation,well tell me what the Hell you are going to propose and how it would work,..........

Watch it again I guess you left early.

And after the break

[ballplayer]

Yeah sure like STATE EMPLOYEES getting to Opt out! This guy is a Freakin Fraud,these Rinos always think the same way,Government workers get to opt out, I love that thinking,the Peons can get screwed but the Precious Union Government workers ,who we know Make all the Sacrifices get the Breaks.
This along with Illegal Immigration,his crony Capitialism with the Millions he gives out on Speculative ventures ,who needs MORE of that crap.

[ballplayer]

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2782017/posts

[Cincinatus' Wife]

I figured right.

[SumProVita]

“Rush was not talking compromise as much as he was the wisdom of choosing your battles. Those are often confused by those who like to warp themselves in a false purity, but they are not the same thing.

The one battle we absolutely CANNOT afford to compromise on in 2012 is the removal of the socialists from power, period. And he’s right. His point is this: if we get too distracted on any other issue and it causes us to not take power back from the Democrats, then all is lost and nothing else matters.”

....not to mention getting another anti-Bork as a member of the Supreme Court....and a ton of others on the lesser courts.

[alicewonders]

Can anyone tell me what Romney’s plan is for Social Security? Bachmann’s? Palin’s?

I appreciate Perry’s willingness to get the conversation going. I saw him last night on Hannity & he talked about various solutions - one thing he was adamant about was that seniors are not going to have their benefits changed at all. Young people are eager to have the conversation and get to the business of overhauling SS so they can have the security of knowing something will be there for them as well.

Perry’s got flaws - so do ALL of the others. I think, when you look at the big picture - Perry is the one that can carry us to victory. We’ve also got to get the Congress lined out too - then we can hash over these kinds of issues. Right now, we have to win.

[1010RD]

I’d like to see a move toward the Chilean plan. It was done here in America for three counties, but it is illegal now.