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.

[alicewonders]

I know a guy from Singapore and he was telling me that they had a similar problem with their social security type plan - they now have a private investment account for each worker where the government matches their contributions. The account is in the individual’s name & is assured to be there when the person retires.

Kudos for Perry moving this forward - instead of using it as an issue to once again, strike fear and get everyone to shut up about it. Romney and the others really just want to kick the can down the road - they don’t have the spine to put it out on the table.

[Gadsden1st]

IF Perry is the next “ONE”, I will vote straight Republican EXCEPT for President. I will vote for Obama. I will not vote for Perry no matter how much lipstick you smear on him.
He is no different than every other “ONE” who talks one way and ACTS another.

[Yosemitest]

I can't vote for Perry or Romney, no matter what.
For general information on the candidates, try OnTheIssues.org . I'm not really fond of this site, but you can get a rough idea of where they stand.
My favorites in order are Palin, Bachmann, Cain, and Gingrich.

Perry, Romney, Ron Paul, and Huntsman won't ever get my vote.

Perry doesn't have a real plan to secure the border, at least one you could have any trust it.
Perry's a bad liberal joke when it comes to security and Immigration.
Here's a real plan.

Let's review what Palin has said:

From Great Van Susteren ON the Record, May 10, 2010


PALIN: I'm proud of Jan Brewer for standing up for the constituents in her state, sending a message to Washington, sending a message to President Obama saying,
Hey, you need to do your job, sir.
And if you're not going to do it, OK,
then we are compelled to do the job for you until you get it right.

President Obama has been suspiciously silent on this issue, hasn't he?
We don't even know where he stands on immigration reform or securing our borders.
He doesn't talk about it. He gets to punt on that one.
And that's unfortunate because this is a big issue. It's all about national security.
It's about our sister border states that are inundated with violence and with crime
because people illegally crossing the border, engaging in illegal activities for too long now.
And some of these border states are saying, Now we've had enough.
I admire Jan Brewer for taking a stand.

VAN SUSTEREN: Why do you think -- I mean, for 20-some years, maybe even longer, even going back to President Reagan --
everyone has always said, We're going to secure the borders.

PALIN: Yes.

VAN SUSTEREN: Nobody has done anything.
I mean, or almost nothing.

PALIN: Because they've made it political and they haven't understood that unsecure borders isn't fair to anybody.
It's not fair to American citizens who ware here legally, paying taxes, following the rules, doing all the things that an American citizen is expected to do.
It's not fair to them.
But it's not fair to the illegal aliens, either, here.
They want to come pursue an American dream. Some of them do want to be here to work.
But they're forever going to have to hide because, you know, government's going to crack down on them when (INAUDIBLE)

So they need to follow that path of legal citizenship, obviously.
But these politicians, presidents in the past who have not secured the border, they've made it a political issue.
They haven't wanted to tick off a potential base of Hispanic voters, so they haven't made the tough decisions.
And that's no way to solve the problem.
That's no way to solve any challenge in America,
by ducking and hiding and creating division and making these partisan issues out of it.

VAN SUSTEREN: Both parties have made promises.
I mean, we pull up sound bites where, you know, both sides, you know, Democrat, Republicans, say, you know, Secure the border, secure the border.
And then once in office, we certainly don't see a whole lot of action.
Had the election gone another way, or even if you were president, what would you do about immigration?

PALIN: The very first thing is literally secure the border!

VAN SUSTEREN: How?

PALIN: People mock the idea of a fence.
What's wrong with building a fence?
Yes, let's physically secure the border. Let's ramp up border control.
Let's provide the tools for those who are putting their lives on the line in order to stop illegal immigration of these aliens.
Those are a couple of things.

And then you don't start talking about amnesty, either, kind of as this last-minute,
Oh, anybody who's here in the country right now, we're going to provide you amnesty,
and even though you've broken the law and we are a nation of laws, you've broken that, we'll still give you --
because then there's going to be a huge influx of those wanting kind of at the last minute to come over the border
because they know that they will forever then receive that amnesty.

So you don't start talking about that,
but the very first thing you do is physically, literally secure those borders.
It baffles me and most Americans why for all these years presidents, administrations have spoken about it but never done it.


Then what did Palin say From the O"Reilly Factor Interview July 9, 2010

O'REILLY: So you're president of the United States, Sarah Palin.
You send how many National Guard to the border right away to secure it?

SARAH PALIN, FORMER GOVERNOR OF ALASKA: However many you need. This is a top priority.
This is a national security issue.

O'REILLY: All right, but I'm talking Texas, California, New Mexico, all of them.
So you'd send maybe 10,000, 15,000 National Guard down there to assist the Border Patrol, yes?

PALIN: Whatever it takes. Whatever it takes.

O'REILLY: All right, so you'd militarize the border.
You'd finish the fence, finish building the fence from Brownsville to San Diego, yes?

PALIN: Yes.

O'REILLY: Ok, the people watching this program have it.
We have it. We assume that you, as president, would secure the border.
I have confidence that you would do that.
But now you have to look inward, all right?
And you've got 12 million people staring at you.
What are you going to have them do?

PALIN: You're not going to give them a free pass.
You're not going to say, OK,
you and anybody else who wants to scurry across this porous border between now
and when we finally do finally get it fenced in and physically secure, we're going to give you a free pass.

O'REILLY: All right.

PALIN: And just because you've broken law in the past…

O'REILLY: So no amnesty.

PALIN: …we can trust you? No, no amnesty.

O'REILLY: But what do you do with these folks?

PALIN: Which means…

O'REILLY: Do you make them register with the federal government?
Do you tell them they have 60 days to get out of here before we put you in jail?
What do you do with them?

PALIN:Do we make them register with the federal government?
Yes, we do.
We're not going to give them a free pass.

O'REILLY: So you make them register with the federal government.

PALIN: We're not going to reward the bad behavior.

O'REILLY: And if they don't register with the -- say you gave them 60 days to register with the federal government.
There's a form at the post office they have to send in like a Census form.
All right, say they didn't do it.

PALIN: You deport them.

O'REILLY: OK.

PALIN: You have to get them out.

As to jobs, American citizens who are here lawfully, they need to be the ones with the first shot at getting these jobs.
We cannot make it easy on those who have chosen to be illegally here to disobey our laws.
No.

O'REILLY: No, we can't make it easy, but they're here.
And we can't starve them to death.
And if they can't work, if they don't have a green card to work, they're going to be hosed.
I mean, they got to pay rent, they got to buy groceries…
whoever the next president is, is going to have to deal with 12 million people.
And that's going to be very, very difficult.

All right, let me switch gears here.
This is frightening me, governor. I'm getting very, very afraid of mama grizzlies.
And you are, I guess, the mama grizzly chieftain.
Am I -- why don't you explain what the mama grizzly deal is?

PALIN: Mama grizzly in a political sense is
someone who is watching what is going on that is adversely affecting our cubs, our children, the future of America.
And there are a lot of common sense, constitutional conservative women who are willing to put it all on the line and run for office
or support candidates willing to run for office to take this country back…

O'REILLY: All right, so this is a clarion call.

PALIN: …and not allow the Pelosi, Reid, Obama administration and agenda continue to put us on a path towards insolvency…

O'REILLY: OK.

PALIN: …to put us on a path toward a less secure and less free nation.

O'REILLY: So you are trying to mobilize mama grizzlies all over from Anchorage to Key West from San Diego to Bangor, Maine, to get involved,
either run themselves or support candidates they like.
This mama grizzly movement is going to take over the country.

PALIN: It's all about stopping Obama, Pelosi and Reid
and what they are doing to our country, to our children and our grandchildren and their futures.

You can't get anymore clear and pro-LEGAL/anti-ILLEGAL than that.
It's a crying shame that Perry doesn't have that kind of backbone.
It's very simple. Build the fence. Build a real fence.
Then when the border is secure, we can fix immigration, both ILLEGAL and legal.

[alicewonders]

Palin is not a candidate.

[Yosemitest]

Not yet, but the election hasn’t happened yet, either.

[alicewonders]

Even Palin said, “vote for ABO” (anybody but Obama).

[Yosemitest]

I won't even think about it.
The RINOs can comprise. I've voted for my last RINO.

[cricket]

Agree...for certain we do not want a ‘second Titanic’. There is still time. May the rational and pragmatic, prevail. We need Republicans in control and in those deck chairs.

[C. Edmund Wright]

yep, in control, plug the major socialist hole that threatens our very existence - and then we can all debate the arrangement of those deck chairs on issues that are important, but not as critical as that socialist hole being filled first.

[C. Edmund Wright]

yep, in control, plug the major socialist hole that threatens our very existence - and then we can all debate the arrangement of those deck chairs on issues that are important, but not as critical as that socialist hole being filled first.

[1010RD]

That there are so many excellent and proven alternatives to our SS problem proves that the underlying reason to retain SS is control - People (Seniors) and OPM.

Romney and the others really just want to kick Rick Perry.

Perry's calculated that his SS 'attack' will be a distinguishing feature of his General campaign. I suspect he'll use this to pull the other candidates into an ambush by pulling out Chile, the three Texas counties and now your Singapore examples. It will be an effective tool against both the GOP field and Obama.

If he can do it he'll capture the middle aged and the seniors and stifle a lot of the youth vote for the Democrats. It is a game changer. I like what I am seeing from Perry.