Skip to comments.
RUSH: Why Aren't They Begging Rubio?
www.rushlimbaugh.com ^
| September 29, 2011
| Rush Limbaugh
Posted on 09/30/2011 12:35:26 AM PDT by Yosemitest
Why Aren't They Begging Rubio?
September 29, 2011
BEGIN TRANSCRIPT
RUSH: It's Emmy in Loveland, Colorado. Great to have you on the EIB Network.
CALLER: Hi, Rush, it's great to talk to you.
RUSH: Thank you very much.
CALLER: Hey, I'm no fan of the establishment.
They irritate me most of the time, but what if they want Christie to run for the same reason I want him to run?
Because he's the best at articulating conservatism, besides you and maybe Marco Rubio,
but there's no one else out there.
RUSH: That's an interesting question.
Let me ask you, why do you think they're not begging Rubio to run?
Rubio has been just as adamant as Christie that he doesn't want to run.
In a contest of conservatism, Rubio wins versus Christie.
So why are they not asking Rubio to run?
CALLER: You know, I don't know. Maybe it's --
RUSH: Well, part of it is -- (crosstalk)
CALLER: He'd be my second choice.
RUSH: Part of it is, I think,
that they genuinely believe that whoever the other nominees are can't win.
That's another thing that frosts me.
I think Bugs Bunny, Elmer Fudd could beat Obama in this election coming up because I think this is going to largely be about Obama.
It's going to be a referendum on his outright destruction of the wealth-creating genius of this country.
I think Elmer Fudd could win, but I'm more concerned than that.
I don't want to just get rid of Obama,
I want to take advantage of the opportunity we have to finally get a genuine, full-fledged, unapologetic conservative
because this is going to be a major task, Emmy, rolling this stuff back.
It's going to take more than one election, and it's going to take somebody fearless.
And we're not going to roll this stuff back having compromise and bipartisanship as our primary objectives.
CALLER: I agree.
RUSH: I think as far as the establishment's concerned, there are two things.They don't want a conservative to win for that reason,
plus they do want to win.
And I think they probably thinkChristie has a better chance than anybody else up there of beating Obama.
That's my guess. But I think what will happen is this:Whoever gets the nomination, if it is somebody outside the approval of the establishment,
what then will happen is that all these establishment types will then start trying to buddy up to the winner,
want to be part of his administration,
and then spend the rest of their lives saying they were there at the right hand of this great, terrific president.
That's what happened to Reagan.Half the people that opposed Reagan did end up, especially in the second term, doing things in his administration,
and they made the rest of their life career out of it.
To this day, some of these people still guest on television shows as Ronald Reagan's X, or Ronald Reagan's Y.
Even the during the era of Reagan is over period, which Mitch Daniels also uttered, I should say, even when they were saying the era of Reagan was over,
still some of these marginal characters in the Reagan Administration's second term are still out there, claiming they were there, they were in the inner circle, they were making all these decisions. (interruption)
I know it's a serious question, Snerdley.
Why aren't people telling Rubio it's not up to him?
You've got Chris Christie saying, "It's got to be in me.
It isn't in me."
"Well, it's not up to you."
Why aren't they saying it to Rubio?
Because Rubio would win in a walkover.
Rubio would win in a landslide over Obama.
I'm hearing Bob McDonnell, Virginia, is the preferred veep candidate.
I wouldn't waste that on Rubio.
Emmy, thanks for the call.
Folks, it's not true that other conservatives are not well articulating our beliefs.
What's happening is that they're all competing with each other for time during these debates.
That's a crowded stage up there
and they are having to actually face each other and contrast and compare themselves to each other.
Christie doesn't have to do this.
And this could be a well-planned strategery.
Look at it this way:You've got the people that have announced and they're on the stage of these debates.
They have 30 seconds here, a minute there, but some of them get an unfair amount of time.
Some of them don't get very many questions asked of them.
Some, the questions that are asked are gotcha types.
They don't have clearly an unfettered opportunity to explain themselves on such a crowded stage.
They actually having to face each other, contrast and compare themselves to each other.
But Governor Christie isn't having to do any of that.
He can go give a speech at the Reagan Library or release a YouTube video,
and there's no challenge on the issues and there's nobody out there disagreeing or contrasting or harping on it.
He can say what he says about global warming or gun control, immigration, what have you,
and he's not getting dirty in the process. Nobody's opposing him.
Nobody is disagreeing with what he's saying.
He has a free ride, so to speak.
Perry, same thing.
Perry had a free ride before he jumped in.
Look at what happened to Perry when he got in.He announces, he gets in, automatically jumps to the top of the list, becomes the target of everybody on stage.
He's not an accomplished debater and wasn't prepped for it.
Look what has happened to Perry.
Christie is not running that risk. Could be a good strategy.
Christie is out there making these speeches and YouTube videos and they stand all alone. No disagreement, no challenging to any of it.
But Perry jumped in, very little was said about the specifics of his record.I'm not attacking his record. I'm just saying it was not as carefully scrutinized.
Christie would go through that, too, if he got in.
So as far as Christie is concerned, there's an understandably good strategy in not getting in now.
Now, at some point he's going to have to.
But he gets a free ride all the way down the road where he's not in.
Once he gets in, everything changes. Everybody on that stage will be gunning for him,
and things about his record that some of you may not know will surface.
And then you'll be scratching your heads going, "Gee, can't we all get along?
Why are we tearing each other up?"
Nature of the beast.
But Rubio, Rubio would win in a walkover.He's conservative. He's articulate. He's great-looking.
He's Hispanic and sounds very smart.
How can he possibly lose?
If this were the Democrat Party, the party father would probably tell Obama to step aside and let Rubio run,
if Rubio were a Democrat.
There are more Hispanic voters now than there are blacks,
and Rubio's got more experience than Obama had when he decided to run.
I don't know how many times Rubio has voted "present" versus Obama.
Here's Richard, El Segundo, California.
Great to have you on the EIB Network. Hello.
CALLER: Hi, Rush, great speaking with you.
Long-time listener, first-time caller.
RUSH: Great to have you, sir.
CALLER: Your theme this morning has been Republican enthusiasm. Of course that equates to the voter turnout.
I understand that one of the major factors in us losing in '08 was that Republicans were, quote, mad at Bush and many stayed home.
To me, that's ridiculous and childish.
We can't afford another four years of anything close to this socialist agenda.
RUSH: That happened in '06, by the way, too.
CALLER: I'm sure it's happened a number of times.
RUSH: Republicans stayed home because they were mad at Republicans in Congress spending all the money.
CALLER: Yeah. I don't recall an election in my lifetime where it wasn't a choice of the lesser of the evils.
We've got to make some intelligent choices here
and it's absolutely essential that we must turn out in droves in order to overcome this obstacle.
RUSH: Frankly -- it's still 14 months out -- but I don't think that's a problem here.
CALLER: I hope you're correct.
We have to all do whatever we can to gin up the enthusiasm level and get these people to the polls.
They've got to understand what's at stake.
RUSH: I think they do. I think you'd be surprised.
I think you're going to be stunned. The voter enthusiasm...
The Gallup poll that's out today finds a 27 percentage point lead in voter enthusiasm, Republican over Democrat. (interruption)
Well, frankly, I'm not hearing people saying if it's X, they're not going to vote.
If I start hearing that, I'll talk to them about it. I'll fix it.
I'm not going to put up with that this time.
I'm not going to put up with that, "If it's X I'm not going to vote." (interruption)
Who? (interruption)
No. Shoot them at me!
If you've got some people who say if Romney is the nominee they're not voting,
shoot them at me.
Let me just say, I haven't actually heard that specifically.
It doesn't surprise me. Some people think that.
I do know that there's a lot of passion for the proposition that Romney can't win,
and that if he does it's not enough to actually start rolling back what's going on.
Anyway, look, the reason why they're not pushing Rubio... I'm going to answer my own question.
That's what I do.
I ask myself the best questions I'm ever asked and, therefore, I give the best answers.
They're not pushing Rubio because while they praise him, they don't think he has had enough experience yet.
And Rubio is -- sorry to say this, folks -- another example of the RINOs being wrong.
In case you have forgotten, Rubio was not initially supported by the Republican establishment.
Charlie Crist was.
I have not forgotten this.Crist was supported by the Republican Senatorial Committee, the Republican millionaires and billionaires.
Crist was supported by McCain and Graham, and on and on.
Rubio was the Tea Party candidate.
Rubio was the conservative candidate, the candidate supported by conservative talk radio.
Rubio was the outsider. But look what's happened.
Now that Rubio has won, "Oh, yeah, everybody was involved in the campaign!
Everybody had a role in electing Rubio!"
You people have forgotten:Charlie Crist was the guy,
and Rubio kept coming on and on and on, and the conservative energy behind him and his conservatism triumphed
-- and Crist started talking to Democrats about a role in the party.
The RINOs had nothing to do with Rubio triumphing.
The RINOs weren't even in his camp to start with.
Another reason why they're not pushing Rubio is he's too conservative for them.
With Obama on any ballot, this whole notion of "lesser of two evils," I don't think exists.
Nobody's in that camp on our side.
There is no "almost an Obama" on our side, even Romney.
I think this "lesser of two evils" business gets thrown out, too.
There's a whole lot of conventional wisdom here that's going to be stood on its head before this is all over.
Don't doubt me.
BREAK TRANSCRIPT
RUSH: You know, the Rubio/Crist election is almost a great microcosm of what we are talking about:The Republican establishment versus an insurgent conservative Tea Party.
If you go back and try to remember that, Rubio came from nowhere.He was seen as unelectable."Way too extreme. Too much of a risk.
Charlie Crist, he's the elected governor. He's the sure bet.
Charlie Crist will give us the majority in the Senate.
Charlie Crist is the way we need to go.
Who cares that Crist may as well have been a Democrat?
We need another (R), somebody who has an (R) beside their name.
We don't care whether they're conservative or not.
We just need the numbers here because we want to be in charge of the money.
We want the committee chairmanships."
You remember who the first prominent politician to support Rubio was?
It was Jim DeMint, South Carolina Senator.
Jim DeMint was the first prominent politician to come out and support Rubio.
Rubio, the outsider, fighting his way in.
Now, after he wins, the RINOs, the establishment come to his side (after Charlie Crist imploded) and they talk him up for vice president.
But don't forget:There wouldn't be any Marco Rubio in the Senate todayexcept for the conservative movement and Tea Party movement
and a conservative effort to beat back the establishment.
Rubio, I'm not saying he had no role. Don't misunderstand.
He was, of course, key, but he had the Republican establishment against him.
It's almost, as I say, a microcosm of what we are talking about and facing today as we choose a nominee.
END TRANSCRIPT
Related Links
RUSH:
TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Crime/Corruption; Editorial; Extended News; Politics/Elections
KEYWORDS: articleii; christie; citizen; constitution; deanchaskins; elkvwilkins; emmerichdevattel; lawofnations; liberal; marcorubio; naturalborncitizen; naturalborncuban; reagan; rush; tinhat; usvwongkimark; wongkimark
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 161-180, 181-200, 201-220, 221-223 last
To: philman_36
You can back Marco
,b>"Gang of Eight PRO-AMNESTY BILL" Rubio if you like.
But I'm backing a REAL CONSERVATIVE, TED CRUZ!
When it comes to Marco "AMNESTY" Rubio, CRUZ WINS hands down.
Rubio stood with Barack Obama and Chuck Schemer and supported a massive amnesty plan. But TED CRUZ chose to stand with others like Jeff Sessions and Steve King and the American people, to secure the border.
They can't stop CRUZ.
Source: ... Cruz even indicated he would back deporting those who came here illegally -- another proposal he has usually rebuffed.
"I would enforce the law," Cruz said, explaining that he would first deport criminals without proper papers.
"Federal immigration law provides thatif someone is here illegally and is apprehended,
that they should be sent back to their home country."
Cruz has recently begun stressing that he believes the number of undocumented immigrants would decrease with strict border enforcement.
...
"The only people I'm under fire from are reporters who want to throw rocks," Cruz said in Harlan.
"Once we've demonstrated that we can solve the problem, then we can have a conversation about what to do about whatever people remain illegally."
The Rubio campaign ...
"He has attempted to muddy the waters," Cruz said on the stage. "Where there was a battle over amnesty
and some chose, like Sen. Rubio to stand with Barack Obama and Chuck Schemerand support a massive amnesty plan.
Others chose to stand with Jeff Sessions and Steve King and the American people
Let's get VERY CLEAR on TED CRUZ and Immigration: Immigration
As the son of a Cuban immigrant, Sen. Cruz celebrates LEGAL immigration.
He has championed measuresto secure the border,
reform the LEGAL immigration system,
and uphold the rule of law.
Americans, and particularly Texans, have witnessed the harmful effects of an unsecure border,endangering the lives both of citizens and those who enter illegally.
President Obama's policies have encouraged drug smugglers, child abusers, murderers, and other dangerous criminals to traffick immigrant children into our nation under life-threatening conditions.
In the summer of 2013 we witnessed a humanitarian crisis at our Southern Border, propelled by PROMISES OF AMNESTY FROM THE WHITE HOUSE .
Immigrants deserve a better system in which they will be welcomed to the United States safely and with dignity.
As a critical step to protecting families and inviting more people to enter LEGALLY, in 2014, Sen. Cruz proposed legislation TO PREVENT OBAMA FROM ILLEGALLY EXPANDING AMNESTY .
The House acted to solve the ongoing crisis and passed bills that closely mirrored Sen. Cruzâs proposals,but regrettably the Senate DemocRATS REFUSED TO ALLOW A VOTE on the measures.
In 2013, Sen. Cruz proposed amendments to the "Gang of 8";bill that wouldstrengthen border security,
expand green card opportunities,
increase high-skilled 'H1B'visas, PREVENT ILLEGAL ALIENS FROM RECEIVING WELFARE BENEFITS ,
and enforce the rule of law.
ALSO from On The Issues :Ted Cruz on Immigration
End Obama's illegal amnesty via Congress' checks & balances
Q: How to respond to the split within your party on immigration?
What you're saying isthat the Republicans should vote to fund the governments for all departments except one:no funding for the Department of Homeland Security,
which handles immigration, rescinding President Obama's executive action,
and if he vetoes that, he's responsible for shutting down the department.
The problem isthat's almost exactly what you did with the government shutdown across the entire government in 2013 with ObamaCare,
and it backfired badly on your party.
CRUZ: All across this country, Republicans campaigned, saying: if you elect a Republican Senate, we will stop President Obama's illegal amnesty.
We need to HONOR WHAT WE SAID .
We should use the constitutional checks and balances that we have TO REIN IN THE ABUSE OF POWER OF THE EXECUTIVE.Step #1 is IF the president implements this LAWLESS AMNESTY, that THE SENATE WILL NOT CONFIRM ANY executive or judicial nominees.
Defund amnesty; and refuse any nominees until rescinded
Q: How would you rescind President Obama's executive action on immigration?
CRUZ: We should use the constitutional checks and balances that we have TO REIN IN THE ABUSE OF POWER OF THE EXECUTIVE .Step #1 that I have called for is the incoming majority leader should announce IF the president implements this LAWLESS AMNESTY, that THE SENATE WILL NOT CONFIRM ANY executive or judicial nominees,other than VITALl national security positions,
for the next two years,
UNLESS AND UNTIL the president ENDS THIS LAWLESS AMNESTY .
That is AN EXPLICIT AUTHORITY given TO the Senate.
Q: Are you saying the Senate should REFUSE TO CONFIRM the president's new nominee for attorney general?
CRUZ: We have to REIN IN the executive.
And step #2, we've got is THE POWER OF THE PURSE,and we should FUND ONE AT A TIME the CRITICAL PRIORITIES of the federal government,but ALSO USE THE POWER OF THE PURSE TO ATTACH RIDERS .
No path to citizenship for 1.65 million illegals in Texas
When discussing what to do about the 1.65 million ILLEGAL immigrants living in Texas, . . . CRUZ again saidHE DID NOT SUPPORT A PATH TO CITIZENSHIP FOR ILLEGAL immigrants living in America, . . .
Give police more power to ask about immigration status
Cruz accused Dewhurst of using his position as head of the Texas Senate to KILL A BILL last year that would have given police more power to ask anyone they detain about their citizenship status--a charge Dewhurst denied.
Both agreed that the US has FAILED TO SECURE ITS BORDER with Mexico,
and said they OPPOSE AMNESTY for ILLEGAL immigrants and the Obama administration's new directiveallowing many young illegal immigrants brought to the US as children to be exempted from deportation.
Boots on the ground, plus a wall
Border wall: James and Leppert OPPOSE A WALL,
Dewhurst and CRUZ tout "boots on the ground" AND A WALL IN SOME PLACES .
Triple the size of the Border Patrol
CRUZ on immigration: Wants to TRIPLE [the]SIZE of Border Patrol.
Says Dewhurst supported in-state tuition for kids of ILLEGAL immigrants.
Dewhurst: I have always been against an amnesty program."If they want to be a citizen, they ought to go home and reapply."
Dewhurst says he was against tuition for children of illegal immigrants.
Strengthen border security and increase enforcement
Ted Cruz has worked to STRENGTHEN BORDER SECURITY and help ensure that America remains a nation of laws.
Among other efforts, he has worked on efforts to INCREASE PENALTIES for felons WHO ENTER THE COUNTRY ILLEGALLY .
Ted authored a U.S. Supreme Court amicus brief on behalf of 10 states in Lopez v. Gonzales,ILLEGALLY .
Let's take a close look at what TED CRUZ said at that time about his amendment to the "Gang of Eight amnesty/ citizenship bill" :
Cruz In 2013 On Providing Legal Status To Illegal Immigrants ( 2:14 )
Published on Nov 12, 2015
U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee, Hearing, 5/21/2013:"And I'd like to make a final point to those advocacy groups that are very engaged in this issue
and rightly concerned about addressing our immigration system
and, in particular, about addressing the situation for the 11 million who are currently in the shadows.
If this amendment is adopted to the current bill, the effect would be that those 11 million under this current bill would still be eligible for RPI status.
They would still be eligible for legal status and indeed, under the terms of the bill, they would be eligible for LPR status as well so that they are out of the shadows,
which the proponents of this bill repeatedly point to as THEIR principal objective to provide a legal status for those who are here illegally to be out of the shadows.
This amendment would allow that happen, ...
"But what it would do, is it would REMOVE the pathway to citizenship, for REAL consequences that RESPECT the RULE OF LAW,
and that treat LEGAL Immigrants with the fairness and respect they deserve,
And a second point to those advocates that are so passionately engaged,In my view, if this committee rejects this amendment,
and I think everyone here views that it is quite likely that this committee will indeed reject this amendment,
In my view that decision will make it much, much more likely that this entire bill will FAIL in the House of Representatives.
I don't want immigration reform to fail.
I want immigration reform to pass.
And so I would urge people of good faith on both sides of the aisle,if the objective is to pass common sense immigration reform that SECURES THE BORDERS, that improves LEGAL immigration, and that allows those who are here illegally to come in out of the shadows;
then we should look for areas of bipartisan agreement and compromised to come together.
And this amendment,
I believe, if this amendment were to pass, the chances of this bill passing into law would increase dramatically."
The intent was TO EXPOSE the "ESTABLISHMENT REPUBLICANS" AND THE DemocRATS for their dishonesty.
THEY were trying to LEGISLATE the ILLEGAL ALIENS a PATHWAY TO CITIZENSHIP.
TED CRUZ was trying to amend the Bill so as TO STOP THEM,by REMOVING the pathway to citizenship,
for REAL consequences that RESPECT the RULE OF LAW,
and that treat LEGAL Immigrants with the fairness and respect they deserve.
221
posted on
01/21/2016 2:26:35 AM PST
by
Yosemitest
(It's SIMPLE ! ... Fight, ... or Die !)
To: Yosemitest
You can back Marco...I've not backed anyone. I probably won;t back anyone again just like I haven't in the past.
Sadly, my support is easy to obtain yet I've been unable to provide it. Nobody running for the las several election cycle seems to understand that America is a Constitutional Republic. They seem to think, for some strange reason, that America is a democracy.
My reply was to the eligibility issue and your comment about deferring to the thinking/belief of others and their's being that which you follow instead of thinking for yourself...
...and they say Rubio's eligible, ..., and I believe them.
So you let others do your critical thinking for you and you just act like a parrot. Got it.
An aside...who helps you put your screeds together if you're so ignorant on the issue?
222
posted on
01/21/2016 4:38:40 AM PST
by
philman_36
(Pride breakfasted with plenty, dined with poverty and supped with infamy. Benjamiin Franklin)
To: philman_36
Think whatever you like.
Unlike you, I at least go and research the FACTYS and THE LAW.
You just parrot LIBERAL College Professors' bilge.
223
posted on
01/21/2016 7:16:44 AM PST
by
Yosemitest
(It's SIMPLE ! ... Fight, ... or Die !)
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 161-180, 181-200, 201-220, 221-223 last
Disclaimer:
Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson