Rush: Like It or Not, Bush Leads

Rush Limbaugh ^ | January 8, 2004 | Rush Limbaugh

[ejdrapes]

Like It or Not, Bush Leads

January 8, 2004

Listen to Rush...
(…discuss the substance and politics of the immigration disagreement)

BEGIN TRANSCRIPT 12:10 PM ET

RUSH: What's still on everybody's mind out there is this immigration business. And we've got some audio sound bites on this and some stories. I want to start out though with a little ditty, if you will, how should I phrase this? I guess I could call it leadership.

And I do to want contrast some things going on here, President Bush with recent Democratic presidents, or a recent Democrat president, in the current crop of Democrat candidates. It's about this immigration business. I know there's outrage and anger out there and I think it's real, and, by the way, I know it's real and I know that there are many of you that are beside yourselves you don't understand this and you're just fed up and you think, "My gosh just being taken for granted and forgotten." And many of you are saying that this is pure politics, I don't like this, this is trying to secure the Latino vote, and there is no Latino vote, and they already got 30% of the Latino vote in the 2000 election, so what's the deal?

But let me ask you something. For those of you who think that this is a purely political maneuver on the part of the White House, do you disagree with the politics of it or do you disagree with the substance of it? I mean, you may say both, but you can't ignore the substance in this, can you? You disagree with the substance of this as much as you do the politics. In fact, some of you probably, I would venture to say that the vast majority of you who disagree with the announced immigration policy yesterday disagree more so with the substance of it than you do with the politics. The politics of it maybe you could somewhat understand, might disagree with it, but you don't understand the substance. And so the key is, to me here, we are in a futile disagreement over substances here as well as, if not more so, than politics.

But aside from the outrage and the anger on the right, there is something important to note here. Now I'm just going to throw it out there, and you're free to accept it and absorb it and process it and deal with it or you can reject it but I still want to throw it out there, because for better or worse what has happened here is the first Bush salvo of 2004. And it's not random. This is not throwing it up against the wall and hoping it sticks. This is not saying, "Hey, what we can do to make people like us today, hey, throw that out there, see if they like that, poll on where I should go on vacation." We're dealing with somebody who is coming up with substantive proposals here, whether you disagree with them or not, it's a planned, coordinated, timed announcement.

Now, the consensus seems to be that Bush is risking his base in order to gain Hispanic votes. The New York Times today theorizes that Bush is simply trying to be nice. This is just the new version of compassionate conservatism, that he's again seeking the votes of people that pay scant attention, who don't like stridency. New tone, think new tone, that this is just an outgrowth of the new tone. We're just going to be nice to people! And that it's a pitch for that group of people. But regardless of what it is, it is a planned and coordinated and timed announcement. As I say, the consensus seems to be that Bush is saying [raspberry sound] to the base in order to gain Hispanic votes. Now, oftentimes the consensus is right, but oftentimes it's wrong. Consensus opinion sometimes has a tendency to be way wrong.

Here's some things to consider about this as you stew in it, some things to consider as you consider to fume about this. What Bush has proposed is legal status, proposed, and I want to emphasizes proposed and this is something I began with yesterday. This is all going to be up for debate. He did not issue an executive order, he's not using the Clinton MO, he's not pardoning all Mexicans on the last day of his administration, he's not pardoning all illegals and then flying the coop with the White House silverware while Janet Reno makes a speech in some hangar. He is doing this out in the open. He's not using a judicial MO, there's no executive order, there's no fiat here, there's going to be debate about this. Debate has already begun. And the president, for better or worse, in terms of the substance of this, is taking on another leadership challenge. I mean it would be much easier to duck this. It would be much easier to duck it and wait for somebody in Congress to come up with their own version, or say, "You know what, I'd be safer if I don't do this. I mean, it's an election year, I've got a dunderhead out there named Dean who is screwing up every day. What do I have to do? I'll just sit back and relax at the ranch and play golf, I'll advance a couple tax proposals, but I'll take it easy." He's not doing that!

Here he is in the midst of an election year, this is a true substantive issue, and this is, he thinks, and the substance is something I want to focus on, because I've been thinking about that this morning because the debate has been going back and forth about whether this is wholly political. As I say, you can't take the politics out of it, but there's substance here, and admit it, folks. It's the substance of this that has you mad, not the politics. As I say the politics may have you upset - it's the substance of it that you just don't understand and you're just trying to figure it out. It doesn't make any sense so why do this, you know, why do this now? This is the kind of thing you do in an off year, this is the kind of thing do you when nobody will notice, this is the kind of thing you sign at two o'clock in the morning when even the press corps is still in the bars and they're not even going to be sober enough to write the story right in the first place once they hear about this. They did this under the full morning sunshine, well, afternoon sunshine yesterday. After a whole day of the nation talking about it, the president goes on interrupting 15 minutes of this program, a communication breakdown there, to announce the policy. And I'm struck buy this.

He could have said, "You know what, I think on this immigration thing we need to mend it but not end it," which is what Clinton said about what? Mend it - affirmative action. Yeah, we need to mend that but not end it. This is not that, this is not avoiding the issue, this is not sweeping it underneath rug, this is not letting somebody else deal with it, this is taking it on. And it strikes me that whether you agree with it or not, you've got some leadership going on here. You know, real leaders lead in the war on terrorism. The whole world thought that was a mistake. The whole world was lined up against us ostensibly, and the whole world said we shouldn't do it and everybody, the Democrats were aligning with the world in trying to talk to the president, he wouldn't be dissuaded, would he? Went ahead, stimulate the economy, tax cuts, going to do it, doesn't matter what people say, going to tackle it, needs to be done, coming out of a recession, when he takes office. And yeah, that's right, he ran touching the third rail of Social Security, risking political electrocution. You just don't do that, but he's talking about privatizing Social Security and that's going to be brought up, that's going to happen.

Now, for those of you - I know a lot of you think he's out there pandering for votes but remember his sister-in-law is Hispanic, his nephew is Hispanic. I mean, he's got Hispanics throughout his family. This business of pandering is, you know, if you want to think it, go ahead, I'm not going to try to talk you out of anything I just want to throw something out there else for you to consider.

Now, amidst all of this, we got the Democrats, we got the MoveOn.org crowd, we've got Wesley Clark and Howard Dean all these other guys are calling Bush an extremist. Now, if you look at the domestic agenda of this administration the last thing any Democrat would call it is extremist it's been pretty much what they want in a lot of ways, so why do these Bush-haters hate Bush? And I've advanced this theory once before, and I think it really comes home here in this issue again. One of the reasons Bush-haters hate Bush is because he's actually doing something he's actually leading. I mean these guys are trying to construct a legacy for their boy, Bill Clinton, and their boy doesn't have a legacy, that's why they're having to manufacture one out of whole cloth and thin air.

By comparison, regardless of what he is doing, Bush is leading. It is a matter of substance from issue to issue to issue and Bush by an A-B, side-by-side comparison is making their boy look really bad, and they love their boy, their boy is the greatest thing that ever happened to the country, if they could only get him back. And Bush is making this guy look as inconsequential as a president has ever looked. I mean, Bill Clinton said out there, "You know I worked harder than I ever have on this" on about 14 things that he never got done, and Bush is not talking about how hard he's working. He's getting things done. You could say that Clinton was all talk and no leadership. Bush is all leadership and no talk.

So, like this or not, we've got a problem here in immigration, and he's facing it, and he's doing what he thinks is right about it. Now, we're free to disagree with it, but it is an issue of substance, and again I'm going to admit and acknowledge that there's a political component to here to it, but the disagreement is primary on substance. And, remember now, this is up for debate. It may not ever happen. He did not demand this, and he did not put it on us with an executive order, he's throwing it up to the Congress, our elected officials, and I might say that in that very Congress, there are 180 Democrats who want every illegal given a green card today.

Now, let me give you this possibility. Let's say that you are the president, you are the president's team and you know that you've got 180 Democrats in the House, maybe more, who want this issue so badly because they, too, want the Latino vote, and they want to give every illegal a green card, amnesty, and citizenship today, nothing less. Well, you don't like that, you can't do that, how do you stop that? So you come up with your own plan that slows down what the Democrats are trying to do. Maybe doesn't stop them and maybe is not conservative enough but you know that that's going on, and you have to stop it somehow because that's not what you intend with this. There is no blanket amnesty here, and there is no blanket citizenship here, folks. All there is, as I said yesterday, is hope. All there is some opportunities for some of these people. But it is not a blanket amnesty, and it is not granting illegals automatic citizenship or legal status right off the bat in mass in toto.

Anyway, in the Washington Post today, I know I'm a little long here, "Democratic strategerist speaking on a not-for-attribution basis described the proposal as brilliant politics that could help to refurbish Bush's compassionate conservative credentials, appeal to moderate swing voters and make it much harder for Democrats to win several states on their target list." Quote from this guy who didn't want his name used, "They've done a lot to try to put the general election away, and at a minimum they may have taken Arizona and New Mexico off the table," and it's no coincidence that Bill Richardson, the governor of New Mexico is fit to be tied over this. At any rate, so what - Arizona, New Mexico, big deal. Folks, I'm not trying to persuade you of anything here. Throwing it out. You're going to make up your own minds on this anyway.

END TRANSCRIPT

[Sabertooth]

Are there REALLY that many, who are " upset " with President Bush, or could it be, that the most vocally upset are posting far more than their numbers would prove to be the majority of FR ?

You tell me.

Question ...

After hearing President Bush's speech, do you approve of his immigration reform plan?

Yes
324 votes - 21%

No
986 votes - 65%

Undecided
196 votes - 13%

1,506 votes total
FR poll link

Question ...

Do you approve of the plan to let some of the eight million illegal aliens in the United States move toward legal status without penalty -- but with social security benefits?

Yes
132 votes - 8%

No
1,346 votes - 85%

Undecided
97 votes - 6%

1,575 votes total
FR poll link

Chart: Distinct Posters
Week	Mon	Tue	Wed	Thu	Fri	Sat	Sun
2004.01.05	3,165	3,445	3,499	not available
2003.12.29	2,843	3,127	3,175	2,626	2,987	2,637	2,705

FR Daily Stats

Almost half of the distinct daily posters at FR are voting in these polls, and we are overwhelmingly opposed to what President Bush is proposing with regard to legalizing Illegal Aliens.

[Sabertooth]

Do you deport the parents and keep the kids, kick the kids out with the parents or ???

Deport the parents and let them take their children with them.

We don't stop American citizens from moving abroad with their chldren, even if they are citizens as well.

[Once-Ler]

I think Bush believes the best way to guarantee peace in the Mideast is by establishing zones of influence. Taking out Saddam was a logical place to start.

Well maybe, but since Saddam funded the first Twin Tower bombing, the assassination attempt on Dubya's dad, harbored fugitive terrorist Abu Nidal and terrorist training camps, and 12 years of thumbing his nose at UN resolutions while continuing to work on WMD...maybe Dubya really did think Saddam was a threat to the US.

I look at Dubya's eyes and hear the passion in his voice and I see a earnest and compassionate man who is guided by the Holy Spirit. If it is an act he deserves an Academy Award. This analysis of his character is reflected in Dubya's actions regarding AIDS, faith based initiatives, and school choice. You cynically pointed out Uzbekistan as proof that Dubya is motivated by military strategy or insincere politics, but no man can solve all the world's troubles. There are not enough hours in the day. Dubya did a good thing for the people of Iraq and the safety of America and pointing out all the other things that have yet to be done does not diminish the good things that have been done.

[bonfire]

I really think one's opinion is biased depending on what part of the country they reside in.

[Sabertooth]

Even you have to admit that if this President won't deport the Illegals today, then he won't deport the "guest workers" tomorrow.

[bonfire]

Let me make that clearer: If you don't have a problem with illegals in your state, town, schools, prisons, then it's not a reality.

[nopardons]

There are over 100,000 FREEPERS. Most didn't vote. I didn't even know about the polls.

You working for Dean, now ? No ? Clark ?

[kingu]

Biased how? By if one has to live with the results of the invasion of our country? Or if one is well away from the 'front lines' and can reflect on the novelty of a Taco Bell or the like?

Hell yeah, I'm biased. I can go to the market and watch food stamps being dealt to the cashier by someone who doesn't know a lick of English. I can go to the county hospital and see lines upon lines of Spanish speaking people waiting for free health care. I can go to schools and see classrooms full of twelve year olds learning how to speak English.

Are all these people illegals? Hmm, every legal immigrant I know, from Poland to Russia to China either knows English or tries their hardest to muscle through the language. Why? Because they want to become part of their new land. Yes, sometimes they might drop into their own native language to dig up a concept that they don't know how to say in English, but by and large they speak English.

I live in Los Angeles, the land of the consulate, ground zero for the invasion. I see a hell of a lot of hard working people, yes, but I also see a hell of a lot of Mexican flags.

[SerpentDove]

>>You working for Dean, now ? No ? Clark ?<<

You forgot "racist" "Bush-hater" "never was going to vote for Bush anyway" "DU troll"...

Did I leave out any cheap, inneffective, and transparent smear tactics?

[Sabertooth]

There are over 100,000 FREEPERS

There are over 100,000 screen names. There are inactive accounts and multiple screen names so it's anybody's guess how many there have been in the last six years.

The number of distinct daily posters is the relevant population from which the admittedly self-selected poll respondents originates.

Most didn't vote. I didn't even know about the polls.

About half of the distinct daily posters didn't vote. The polls are usually just above the sidebars on the News/Activism page. At least one of those I posted is stlll active, so you can still vote.

You working for Dean, now ? No ? Clark ?

They're worse on Amnesty President Bush.

You might take a look at #307.

[bonfire]

I agree with you 100%.

[nopardons]

I have NEVER accused others of some of those things. Cheap, inneffective,and transparent smear tactics are your and your ilk's MO; not mine.;^)

[kingu]

Even you have to admit that if this President won't deport the Illegals today, then he won't deport the "guest workers" tomorrow.

Deportation wasn't ever on the table, so far as I could see from the transcript. Considering the populations of illegals, I should be seeing a line of INS busses heading to the border. Yet most times, I just see those busses on the side of the road or in lots, empty, and not being used. But then again, no one seems to have the political will to actually uphold the law and deport them.

Do you foresee some dark horse candidate coming out of the woodwork and having a shot at winning on this single issue?

[SerpentDove]

I refer you to post #327.

[woodyinscc]

Ok I give up, have your Dean's or Clarks running this country. Have a 7-2 liberal Scotus. Get your taxes up to 50% where they want them, so they can use the money for socialized medicine. Last but not least watch them gut the military and throw in with the U.N. OBTW a side benefit of this will be blanket amnesty and citizenship for all illegals.

[bonfire]

Hey, come to my town. We are constructing a covered building for the illegals so they don't have to stand in the rain. Isn't that special?

[nopardons]

I don't have the sidebar thing set up. At first it messed with Webtv...now I have a laptop, but am still figuring out how to use it/set things up. I bet I'm not the only one, who missed the polls.

Yes, Dean and Clark are far worse. OTOH, many here,saying they won't vote for Bush, under ANY circumstances,will help Dean, or Clark, or whomever inadvertently. They don't care. Sooooooooooooo...is it to be Dean or Clark, or Kerry, or ........................ ?

[Sabertooth]

Do you foresee some dark horse candidate coming out of the woodwork and having a shot at winning on this single issue?

Nope.

A third party candidate can be a spoiler, no more.

That's a possibility, I guess. Not sure who it would be, because it's a kamikaze mission in national politics.

[nopardons]

Don't ask toothy...his crystal ball is cracked.

No, not a one, nada, zilch, bupkiss, ZERO supposed on the right fringer can, or shall win the presidency, or even get above .01% !

[SerpentDove]

That's another thing that bothers me. It seems Bush has thrown open the door for a spoiler, for no good reason.

I see parallels between Bush I and Bush II:

Seemingly invincible after war in the Gulf, riding high in the polls, ...then a disconnect with the conservative base and...

?????