http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/daily/2016/08/03/meg_whitman_s_treasonMeg Whitman's Treason
August 03, 2016
Listen to it Button
BEGIN TRANSCRIPT
RUSH: Right. So I just saw it. I just saw it up there on CNN. They're ballyhooing and they're promoting Meg Whitman, who was referred to as "a Republican donor," and she may well be. What did she start? Did she start eBay? What did Meg Whitman do? (interruption) She's one of the founders of eBay. Okay. Yeah, and I remember that McCain had her on his... Well, I don't know if she was on his short list, but I remember one day somebody asked him (this is back in the '08 campaign), "Is there anybody out there that you really admire, Senator McCain?
"That you think represents the future of the Republican Party and might be a running mate, da-da-da?" And he listed off some people. He threw Meg Whitman's name in there and I said, "Who?" And that's how I first heard of her. Anyway, what's happened... By the way, greetings, and welcome back. It's 800-282-2882 if you want to be on the program. We have a good call roster coming up. What has happened is that Meg Whitman not only said that she is going to vote for Hillary Clinton; she is going to help her.
Meg Whitman is a Republican in Name Only. She's a RINO Republican. But she's gonna go out there and she's not just gonna vote for her; she's gonna help her. She is going to assist Hillary, and she is saying she's going to recruit as many people as she can to vote for Hillary and to help Hillary. Now, I have to tell you that -- just to me -- is treasonous. Intraparty treason. You can say what you want about Donald Trump. You may not like Donald Trump. You may think Donald Trump's whatever you think of him.
But to have somebody who has been thought of as a potential vice presidential running mate, who has been a Republican candidate for office out in California and has gotten beat every time she's tried, and has been a Republican fundraiser, to publicly -- and she's not alone. Somebody from the Jeb Bush advisory team, Sally Bradshaw, the other day she said she's gonna do the same thing, or pretty close. This is -- and I don't mean treason against United States.
I'm talking about it's just treasonous to the party to whom you have sworn allegiance. People are free to do whatever they want to do. Don't misunderstand. I'm not saying she shouldn't be permitted to do it. I'm saying the methodology she's using. She is actively... She's announced that she is going to actively involve herself in helping to undermine the values, political values she has claimed to have all of her life. She's been a Republican. That has stood for something. Well, it used to.
But for many of the years in the past, it stood for something. What it usually stood for, what people understood it to be was a belief in small government, limited role of government, entrepreneurism, individual liberty, freedom to be who you are and what you want to be to the best of your ability. All within the realm of compassion, advancement of everybody in America. It is rooted in the concept of American greatness and American exceptionalism.
This was the Republican Party. And okay, so you have a nominee you don't like. So you just chuck all that, everything you've been for all your life? I know there are Republicans in Name Only. I know there's a lot of liberal Republicans out there. Don't... I'm not naive, folks. Don't misunderstand. But this is more than just not supporting Trump. This is undermining the party. This is not... She can't even lay claim to trying to rebuild the Republican Party.
Some of the anti-Trump people are claiming they're doing this to save the party, to try to rebuild the party, strengthen the party, 'cause Trump is weakening it. That's not what she is doing. She is willingly, happily participating in the dissolution of it. And so if there are people out there who have been suspicious of her as a Republican all these years, it seems your suspicions have been justified. Now, what is the practical result of this?
Well, let's circle back to Bill Hemmer's insightful question on Fox today to Karl Rove. I'm paraphrasing: "Karl, what if everything we think we know about politics is upside down this year? What if everything we think we know about how you advance in politics and how you get support in politics -- how you hold onto support, how you build it...? What if everything we know about it is wrong? What if what we see as a Donald Trump campaign imploding with a staff near mutiny, and Hillary's polling numbers rising, doesn't mean anything?
"Because the people collating information, reporting it, the polling -- putting it all together -- don't know how to analyze all this?" Now, if the answer to Hemmer's question is, "Yeah, there's something to it," then I have to think that what Meg Whitman is doing is only going to strengthen the resolve of people who are supporting Trump. And when Trump supporters find out about this and other people and actions such as that taken by Meg Whitman, I think it's going to strengthen their tie to Trump.
I think it's gonna make them even more intensely desirous of Trump winning, 'cause this is exactly the kind of thing that Trump supporters are fed up with about the Republican Party, how easy it is for so many in the Republican Party to sell out the party and join the Democrats -- or not sell out the party, but stay within the party and advance the Democrats' agenda, be it with amnesty and immigration, abortion, who knows whatever it is.
Isn't this one of the reasons Trump has tapped into all of this what we will call country class emotion? Isn't it the Meg Whitmans of the Republican Party and people like her who do what they do which has put the Republican Party in the position that it's in? So, if there is something to Hemmer's question, you have Obama yesterday going on and on and on and on about how unqualified Trump is, how he might be mentally the imbalanced, how he's unsuitable.
And then Obama says, "By the way, you know, Mitt Romney and McCain, I don't agree with them, but they would have been okay. I could have been satisfied with them." I mean, it was the most arrogant display from Obama I've seen, and that's saying something. He says he does not agree with them but at least he understood that they wanted to respect the Constitution. "I mean, that wanted to make me throw up. At least Romney and McCain, they respect the rule of law. At least Romney and McCain, they understand their limitations.
"At least Romney and McCain... Why, but Trump? My God, he's unfit! He's ill-tempered, he's unsuited, he is not qualified, he's unsuited to be president." The next question's obviously: "What are you gonna do if he wins, then?" But that performance that we got from Obama yesterday? I predicted it. He just got into it about four months, five months sooner than I thought 'cause that's exactly what Obama's gonna do when the next president is inaugurated.
If the next president does anything that might look like it's taking on or unraveling the Obama agenda, that's exactly what he's gonna do. He won't be able to go to the Oval Office or the pressroom, but he'll be able to go anywhere he wants and blow his dog whistle for the media to show up, and that's exactly what he's gonna do. He's gonna question the new president's veracity, qualifications, and say how he just can't sit idly by and watch the eight years of sweat and hard labor he put in to transforming this country be unwound by somebody who's not qualified or may be unfit.
And I think he would say that about whoever the next president is, in that circumstance. So you got a little bit of an advance view of what our future looks like with Obama as ex-president. But my point is, what if all of this stuff that Meg Whitman's doing and Obama's performance yesterday, is actually cementing support for Trump out there and everybody's missing it because what they see is Trump apparently not knowing what he's doing, misfiring, aiming at the wrong targets, talking about things he ought to have dropped by now? What if none of that matters? What if what matters is that people are fed up with people like Obama and Meg Whitman and all these others that make up the political elite class? Because, believe me, that's why Trump's there.
That's why Trump is winning, is because that group of people is big enough to enable him to beat 16 challengers in the Republican primary. (interruption) No, I'm not -- no, no. No, I'm not doing that. I'm not trying to get everybody to not panic. I'm just responding to a question I heard Bill Hemmer ask. I thought it was an interesting question. Because so much of what's going on, a lot of people in the establishment haven't understood it since day one.
And they to this day I think a lot of them don't understand why Trump has the support that he's got. And I'm not here in denial. I'm not sitting here thinking that Trump's running a masterful campaign. Don't infer that from what I'm saying. I guess my point is this. That the movement that appears to be put together and led by Trump actually existed before Trump came along. The people fed up with the Republican Party, the Tea Party types, the people fed up with the Republican Washington establishment, Democrats included. When Trump came along -- and this is not to put him down.
Now, don't anybody misunderstand. He came along and connected with it. Whether he intended to or not, he came along and connected with it, and the people loved him and trusted him and probably still do. They look at him as a fighter, and they look at him as somebody that's not taking guff from anybody, be it Khizr Khan, be it Hillary or what have you.
But the political professionals see a campaign imploding, and they also see a campaign staff in mutiny. They see the staff of Trump in mutiny. And there are stories out there that Manafort, the guy brought in is getting frustrated, Trump won't listen to him, Trump won't listen to anybody. Howard Fineman had a tweet yesterday saying he had it on good authority that Manafort was close to quitting. He wasn't gonna quit but was frustrated 'cause Trump won't listen to anybody give any advice.
So they're putting the stories that there's a mutiny going on in the campaign. The stories are also out there that Trump is lost, he has no idea what he's doing. Now there are even the stories, "Rush, you should have know, Trump's mission is to destroy the Republican Party." People are now saying that this is all part of the plan, that Trump's out there to get Hillary in the White House, to destroy the Republican Party based on his record, all of these disparate, various explanations for what people don't understand.
Let me ask you this. Mr. Snerdley, in your lifetime -- and you are, what, 45? Fifty? Okay, 60? Okay. In all of your life, have you ever seen a presidential campaign like this that is not third party or not fringe or what have you? Never. Nothing even close to it, right? So all you can do, therefore, is measure it against what you have seen, which is the usual well-oiled, highly scripted, very expensive television ad after television ad after television ad campaign featuring public appearances with stump speeches by the candidates that are always the same. You have never seen a candidate literally defend himself day in and day out. Even if they accuse him of having gout, he goes after them. We've not seen this.
And so since the only experience you have is of these well-oiled machines with strategists and consultants and ads and polling and focus-grouping then it would be easy to say, "My God, this is out of control. This doesn't make sense. This is not how you did it. This is horrible." But you only say that because you've never seen it before. In fact, if you've ever seen anything like this, the closest to it's Perot, and Perot is not even that close. Perot didn't want to win. He had another agenda. But Perot even had a much more structured, what would characterize as well-oiled campaign and staff.
BREAK TRANSCRIPT
RUSH: Meg Whitman is exactly what I was talking about in my monologue of the previous hour about cronyists. Meg Whitman's a billionaire. She has decided to throw in with whoever's gonna win the election in her world. She's decided that she wants to sidle up to Hillary. She wants to participate in the cronyism. She wants to be on Hillary's good side. She doesn't want to be thought of by Hillary as an enemy, as a member of the Republican Party.
So Meg Whitman is just the latest addition to the billionaires for Hillary bandwagon. And it's all rooted in cronyism, not patriotism, not party loyalty, nothing to do with issues. Meg Whitman wants to be close to power. She doesn't care if it's Hillary Clinton, she doesn't care if it's Barack Obama. All she knows is that if Trump is president, he's not gonna be crony with her. Trump is not gonna do any special favors for her. So she's gonna throw the Republican Party overboard and sidle up to Hillary, and not just say she gonna vote for Hillary, she's gonna help Hillary.
And then there was this yesterday from the Wall Street Journal. "Hedge-Fund Money: $48.5 Million for Hillary Clinton, $19,000 for Donald Trump." So $48.5 million hedge fund, Wall Street, big bank money to Hillary Clinton, $19,000 for Donald Trump. "Political donations from people at hedge funds have vaulted this election," and it's all going to the Democrat Party. And yet everybody out there in low-information land thinks that all these Wall Street fat cats are a bunch of fat Republicans who are racist, sexist, bigot homophobes. And yet they're all Democrats sidling up to power.
END TRANSCRIPT
