Everyone Knows She's a Liar, But She'll Be the Democrat Nominee Because There's Nobody Else

RUSH: Ladies and gentlemen, if you permit me a brief personal aside, here: Everybody is sending me e-mails about Hillary Clinton. Do any of you really, really think she's not going to be the nominee? Come on, let's get serious! There isn't anybody else that's gonna be the Democrat nominee. All of this doesn't mean anything. ... For crying out loud, you see what happened with Ed Rendell, Fast Eddie?

A couple of days ago -- we've even got the sound bite here -- Fast Eddie comes out and says, "You know what? I'm really, really alarmed about the e-mail scandal." The next morning he found a horse head in his bed or something 'cause he's on the Hillary team. Doug Schoen, Fox News, says (paraphrased), "I don't think that she can make it. She's in real trouble. I think this is worse. This is bad. Democrats have never seen this!"

Folks, we're talking about a crime family here. We're talking about people who've accepted donations from thugs and nations all over the world and expect her to be president. Now, there's a big Democrat confab in Miami, I guess, over the weekend. And Hillary's showing up, and she's telling everybody -- Biden and whoever else -- to shut up. She's already got the votes; she's got more than she needs.

All of this is just a smokescreen. You've gotta realize who we're dealing with here. I know it's a fantasy to think that Hillary might not make it and it's also... It's a great fantasy. They're asking Trump, "Will you take the third-party pledge?" I'd like somebody to ask Hillary that. "Hillary, if you don't get your party's nomination, would you promise not to run as an independent?" I'd like just one journalist to ask her that question.

RUSH: Ladies and gentlemen, back to Mrs. Clinton. It was a Quinnipiac University survey, 1,536 registered voters nationwide, margin of error, plus-or-minus 2.5 percentage points. Question 16: "What is the first word that comes to mind when you think of Hillary Clinton?" Now, the numbers that follow are totals; they are not percentages. And the table here that I have reports only words that were mentioned at least five times, so people were given a chance to supply their own word.

There was no list of words to choose from. It was not multiple choice. As we mentioned yesterday, number one, "liar," 178 people. Number two, "dishonest," 123 people. Number three, "untrustworthy," 93 people. The next two were "experience" and "strong." The next word... So we're now at number six. Top three: "Liar," "dishonest," "untrustworthy."

Number six, "Bill." That's the first word that comes to your mind when you mention Hillary Clinton.

Next word that comes to mind, "woman." Then "crook," "untruthful," "criminal," "deceitful," then "Democrat." "Intelligent," only 15 people. "E-mail," 14 people. "Politician," 13 people. "Benghazi," "corrupt, "crooked," 12, 12, 11. "Capable," 10. "Determined" 10. "Good," 10. "Leader," 9. "Murder," 9. "Qualified," 9. "Trustworthy," 9. "Bitch," 8. What? Sorry, folks. I just read it. B-I-itch, 8. "Competent," 8. "Phony," 8. "President," 8. "Cheat," 7. "Deceptive..."

Look at the words people came up with here. "Scandal," "sneaky," "ambitious," "arrogant," "brilliant," 6. "Dependable," 6. "Fair," 6. "Secretary of state," 6. "Thief," 6. "Confident," 5. "Corporate," 5. "Dedicated," 5. "Devious," 5. "First lady," 5. "Lady," 5. "Five people associate something feminine with..." (chuckles) "Liberal," 5. "Unqualified," 5. And have you heard Mrs. Clinton has decided to compare Republicans...? In the midst of this discovery of all the horrors going on at Planned Parenthood, Mrs. Clinton has decided to ratchet up the War on Women theme against the Republicans.

She said, "Now, extreme views about women, we expect that from some of the terrorist groups. We expect that from people who don't want to live in the modern world. But it's a little hard to take from Republicans who want to be president of the United States." She said that in a speech in Cleveland. "Yet they espouse out-of-date, out-of-touch policies. They're dead wrong for the twenty-first century America, and we are going forward. We are not going back."

You take a look at the people that have donated to the Clinton Library and Massage Parlor. You take a look at the people that have donated to the Clinton Crime Family Foundation -- the Bill, Hillary and Chelsea Foundation. You take a look at the number of people who no doubt about it have donated to her campaign, foreign governments, individual corporations from overseas, and you're gonna find a lot of countries that sponsor terrorism, fund terrorism.

You're gonna find probably donations from Saudis. You're gonna find a lot of people from a lot of parts of the world with a very negative view of women who have paid the Clintons and their foundation millions of dollars, and that is dead wrong for any century. Giving taxpayer money to criminal organizations that butcher women's babies for profit is extreme and wrong in any century, and Mrs. Clinton cannot muster one word of criticism for any of that.

And instead, she desperately tries to glom on to the real terrorism in this country is Republicans and their anti-abortion point of view. Ladies and gentlemen, would it be an extreme view about women to expect a pass from them after sexually assaulting them? I mean, is this not what women sexually assaulted by Bill Clinton are supposed to do? Just forget it? They're not supposed to talk about it.

They're supposed to just slink away, go away, be paid off, whatever, and not have to deal with it? What is that? If you want to talk about terrorism... I mean, the hypocrisy here is blatant, and I'm just pointing it out. I don't expect it to matter to anything. You know, everywhere I go... To the point of frustration, everywhere I go, no matter who I'm with, the questions now is always, "Who do you think's gonna get the Republican nomination?"

And it frustrates me because I know the people asking me are asking me from some point of traditional Republican-Democrat politics. The people asking me do not think that this is anything other than the next election, and is there somebody who can win, get an (R) next to their name. And if you mention somebody that can probably win you might have some Republicans, "No, can't support that guy," whatever, and then they always ask me about Hillary. The fear, the panic, the...

And there's a desperate hope that she not got the nomination. I don't see how that's possible this time around. There isn't any Obama out there that's gonna come along and, because of various characteristics, capture the media. I think after what happened in 2008 the Clintons have set in motion some things to prevent that from happening again. This e-mail scandal? Look, what more do we need to know about this?

Why isn't there a full-fledged indictment or much more than just a drip, drip, drip of news each and every day about little things added to the fountain of knowledge we have about her e-mail scandal? What more do we need to know here to know that the next step would be a serious allegation, accusation, indictment or what have you? Where is it? It's nowhere. It isn't gonna be Bernie Sanders. Bernie Sanders is not gonna get the nomination.

The Democrat Party's not gonna permit it because he means it. He means all this talk about busting up the alliance between rich fat cats on Wall Street, CEOs. And the Democrats, that's their new coalition. They're not gonna let Bernie come along and really blow that up. I mean, they're happy to have him talk about it, and their happy for Hillary to talk about it, but the fact of the matter is that is the New Democrat Coalition. It's not the little guy. It's not the unions anymore.

They've got them in their back pocket, anyway. The relationships the Democrat Party really values are these crony corporate relationships with huge... It's the Republican Party, same way. Martin O'Malley? Joe Biden? Joe Biden has not demonstrated he can win anything at the top of a ticket. It's wishful thinking. I'm part of the group wishing it'd be somebody else just for the fun of it.

RUSH: A couple of audio sound bites. Despite all of this, the Democrats behind the scenes are still worried silly about Hillary. I mean, all of this stuff matters. They worry because she's a demonstrated loser. If she gets the nomination, just because you got a (D) next to your name you're guaranteed, what, 200-plus electoral votes? It doesn't matter who you are, and they know that. But the real worry is after the nomination. How do you change these perceptions that people have of her? Here's Jimmy Kimmel last night on his program during the monologue.

KIMMEL: They did a nationwide survey that found that when voters think of Donald Trump the most common word that comes to mind is "arrogant." When the same voters think of Hillary Clinton, the most common word they use is "liar," and... True. And when they think of --

RUSH: That's it. He goes on to Jeb Bush. See, the biggest applause and laughter in a liberal comedy show audience: "Hillary, 'liar.'" They laugh and applaud. Now, CNN's Anderson Cooper 360 speaking with Ryan Lizza of New Yorker magazine about all of this last night and they had this little exchange.

COOPER: Ryan, I mean, the fact that if "liar" is the first word, you know, the voters in this poll think of when they think of Hillary Clinton, that certainly seems to imply she needs to deal with whether it's the e-mail issue or I don't know that it's just the e-mail issue, maybe that just feeds into kind of a longer-existing narrative. There is a rising swell in prominent Democrats who are adamant that she's gotta do something.

LIZZA: No doubt about it. Her character and trustworthiness has been the number one downside of her in politics since she was first lady.

RUSH: Really? Well, then how the hell has she gotten this far? If her "character and trustworthiness" has been an issue since 1993, how in the heck did she ever get this close to the nomination a second time?

RUSH: I want to stick with the Hillary theme for a second. We've learned even more, by the way, just to know that so you know that we're aware of things. I can't get everything in in the first hour of the program, and there's a lot of interesting things. The latest in the Trump campaign. We have a lot of what I call inside-the-Beltway... Well, not a lot, but we got a couple of inside-the-Beltway pundits who have admitted that they have ventured outside the Beltway and they've actually gotten a visa and they've gone out into the rest of the country.

And they've actually talked to people who are supporting Trump, and they admit to being shocked and surprised at what they're learning. They're learning that it's not just Republicans supporting Trump. It's not just conservatives. It's not just white people. They're shocked! I mean, they're literally shocked at what they're learning. They're literally shocked that so many people from all walks of life, from all demographics seem to have the same opinion about the incompetence of the elites inside the Beltway running everything.

RUSH: I want to stick with this Hillary stuff, because we have a lot of sound bites supporting this. And the Hillary stuff basically is all the Democrats that you think, they're deeply troubled by her prospects. They're troubled by all the lying. They're troubled by who she is. And because the polling data is showing that she's in big trouble, when Hillary isn't automatic, that's when people realize that she on her own can't carry a campaign. She on her own can't make a speech.

She on her own can't do an infectious, inspiring rally, for example. Hillary needs all kinds of assistance leading to stacked decks in order for things to happen, including no opposition or pointless opposition. And that's not gonna be the case in the presidential race. So there's deep worry about out there, and they've got themselves in a bind because there really isn't anybody else, when you get right down to it.

There isn't anybody else. It ain't gonna be Algore Algore, isn't gonna be Biden, isn't gonna be Kerry. Bernie Sanders will not be allowed to go much farther than he has now, and Martin O'Malley hasn't lit it up yet. Jim Webb hasn't lit it up yet. Unless she's indicted, I don't see it. Unless she's indicted, and that's up to Obama. That's totally up to Obama and his Department of Justice, whether she gets indicted or not.

It could well be they don't want to deny her the nomination. But the drip, drip, drip will continue and they'll make every effort they can to see to it that she isn't elected 'cause there's one thing Hillary knows how to do, and this is gonna surprise you: She knows how to fail. Oh, yeah, she's failed a lot. And her failures are big. Her failures are monumental. That's another thing that kind of shocks me about all these automatic assumptions that she is unbeatable, that she's the smartest woman in the world.

She's none of this. She's none of what the PR marketing campaigns have made of her since we first heard of her, and she knows how to fail big time. Her first effort at health care, 2008, she failed. Numerous political efforts inside the Clinton White House were botched, including a lot of "bimbo eruptions." So the cause for concern where Hillary is concerned in the Democrat Party is real.

They just don't know what to do about it. And like I said, Fast Eddie Rendell came out a couple days ago and, ah, said some things not flattering. He said them about the e-mails, and the next day he had done a 180, and nobody knows what happened. It's like he woke up with a horse head in the bed. So they still have some kind of juice behind the scenes to keep people in line if they stray off course.

The problem that The Democratic party has is a rigged election process that make it real hard to replace Hillary as there candidate. with Hillary controlling over 250 super delegates it is hard for them to choose some one else. The Modern Democratic party is More akin to communists on selection of a presidential candidate.

[...my prediction is she won’t be...]

And your prediction is absolutely correct. 0 is in the process of creating a full blown crisis for the demoncrap party.

In the end, he will have his ‘candidate’ revealed to save the party.

You can fill in the blank for whom it is but ,in my opinion, it will someone who can give 0 another term albeit by proxy.

Pathological lying is of ZERO concern to dem voters. The reason is that, by use of the worst sort of demagoguery, the dem politicians keep their base convinced that republican opponents are not only wrong, but SO EVIL, that democrats MUST turn out in droves to save the nation. Just witness the reprehensible demagoguery of Clinton over the last two days, comparing republicans to terrorists, and she will go farther than that if necessary.

If you lie about the right causes and destroy the right people, Democrats love liars...

Lefties have never cared about the means, its always about the ends.

It is how people end up in ovens. As long as its the right people, all is well...

In this rare case, Rush is wrong.

Prediction is Marco Rubio, polling badly among GOP, losing his Senate seat, and definitely not Trump’s VP pick, will pull a Crist to salvage his career and be the Democrat nominee.

The Dems have been awaiting a Hispanic savior for a long time, and Marco will be formidable.

True on all counts.

The Dems just HATE free and fair elections.

Even within their own coven.

Rush thinks there’s no chance the Democrats will nominate Bernie Sanders next year because it would be too crazy for them to do so.

But when have the Democrats NOT been crazy? Especially the Democrats of today, who, having lost numerous seats in Congress during the past few elections, are now made up almost completely of liberals with safe seats. There are almost no conservative Blue Dog Democrats left.

So why couldn’t Bernie get 51% of today’s Democrats to support him? He’s at 22% now, and every day he seems to add an extra percentage point.

Hillary’s current support among Democrats is at 45%, and it’s not likely to get any higher — particularly if Joe Biden enters the race and/or the Obama Justice Department continues to act like it could indict Hillary any day for her email offenses.

But even at 45% support, Hillary can’t win the nomination. Who can? We’ll have to wait until the Democratic Convention next year to find out, when the Clinton, Biden, and Sanders delegates will be at each other’s throats each group fighting to cobble together a majority.

At that point, the nomination will be worthless to either Hillary or Joe Biden, since if Bernie Sanders doesn’t win, he’ll pick up his considerable number of marbles and run as an Independent, making it impossible for the other two to win the presidency.

I mean, they're happy to have him talk about it, and their happy for Hillary to talk about it, but the fact of the matter is that is the New Democrat Coalition. It's not the little guy. It's not the unions anymore.

They've got them in their back pocket, anyway.

How does Rush square that statement with this:

I believe the latter statement to be more accurate. Just my personal observation but I'm a retired union member, I know union members who have never voted for a republican in their lives but they are all ga ga over Trump. I believe we are witnessing an unparalleled phenomenon in Trump's candidacy.

How does Rush square that statement with this:

In the first case, he's talking about the hardcore 'Rats in SEIU, NEA, AFT, ILGWU, ILA, and other pink unions and teachers' groups, the women's groups --- all the diehard 'Rat groupings. The thesis is that these locked-in groups are getting the same treatment Hildebeast learned from Slick : She is stepping out on them and seeing financial gorilla interests on the side, people who like to move the world with their money.

People like George Soros and Penny Pritzker and the gay superPAC money runners. The 13 top donors to American political campaigns (the ones that report to the FEC, anyway), all of whom contribute overwhelmingly to Democrats.

And that isn't even counting all the megacidal despots who're kicking in to the Klinton Library and the Klinton Triumviral Fund. People like John Huang's and Johnnie Chung's old bosses at the Chinese intelligence services. Riady, Kanchanalak, Sioeung, Yah Lin Trie -- all the guys who disappeared into the interior of China as soon as Fred Thompson's Senate committee called their names -- Remember them?

The Modern Democratic party is More akin to communists on selection of a presidential candidate.

Well, it's been in the grip of Communists since the "reforms" of 1971 were rigged to shut out the old Dem bosses and the "Defense Democrats", guys like Sen. Henry "Scoop" Jackson of Washington State, Sam Nunn of Georgia, and all the old-line "Solid South" Democrats who voted against Lyndon Johnson's Civil Rights Act of 1965.

But the grouping around the Clintons stinks more of late Republican Roman politics and its personality cults and family cults and hero cults.

For example, in the House of the Julio-Claudians, just in the first two or three generations of the Empire, there was a cult (not "popular" but deliberately fostered, with official status) of Octavian Augustus, another of his wife, Livia Augusta, yet another of Agrippina the Elder (daughter of Augustus's intimate and best general Agrippa, who presented a public model of probity and chastity).

These public personae were not projected for votes, but for public approval and therefore were spurious to some degree.

But the point is that Bill and Hillary Clinton do the same thing (the "smartest woman lawyer in America" shtick for her, the pizza-scarfing, issues wonk for him) and for the same reason the Caesars and the Peron family did: to connect with the people, to garner public support, and to consolidate power against competing constellations of political support in a non-democratic, post-republican political environment.

I suspect she won’t be as well; she isn’t just damaged by recent incidents, but 7 years ago her party threw her under the bus for a young mulatto nobody with no background at all (he was just a better whore for the hard left).

The aggrieved white females she draws as her base, just like the white males of the Republican Party, are a dwindling, marginalized share of the electorate; she brings in no swing votes (people either hate her or love her, and a lot less people love her than 7 years ago), and many of those white women will be voting for the Dem candidate regardless (as they did 7 years ago). Angry feminazi co-workers, furious at what they viewed as her betrayal by the party 7 years ago, still voted for Obama (despite the fact that there are few worse racists I’ve encountered).

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.