http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/daily/2016/02/25/if_trump_will_lose_to_hillary_why_doesn_t_the_washington_post_want_him_to_be_the_republican_nomineeIf Trump Will Lose to Hillary, Why Doesn't the Washington Post Want Him to Be the Republican Nominee?
February 25, 2016
Listen to it Button
BEGIN TRANSCRIPT
RUSH: We've got Romney, I'm convinced, trying to freeze any positive, continued or up-yard movement toward Trump with the allegation here that Trump's got questionable taxes. Trump, of course, responded. "Well, this is typical..." I'm paraphrasing. "Here's a guy who lost -- a lousy, lousy candidate. He had his taxes examined last campaign and didn't do it right or some such thing." He was not moved by Romney's threats. But the Washington Post and The Politico today both have, essentially, editorials.
The Washington Post is an editorial, and they're scared. The headline to this thing is: "GOP Leaders, You Must Do Everything in Your Power to Stop Trump." Washington Post. Now, I want you to stop and think about something for a second. I'm gonna give you details of this of what they say, but you stop and think here of the premise and think about the polling data that we have that's out there, that says what it says. Most of the polling data. There are just a couple that don't say this.
Most polls indicate that Hillary Clinton would beat Trump in the general election, and most of the polls that say that Hillary would beat Trump say it would be easy, that it would not be much of a contest. Additionally there is another poll out today, and it's a combination of polls and exit polls, and I forget off the top of my head the source of it, but we'll get to it as the program unfolds, and it's new information on Hispanics that 75 to 80% of Hispanics disapprove and dislike Trump nationwide. Seventy, 80% dislike Trump. So you have that.
You have the polls that say that Hillary would beat Trump.
And there are a couple that say the opposite. So the question is, if beating Trump is foregone conclusion if Trump's the nominee -- if you're sitting out there and you're a liberal, you're in the Drive-By Media, you're a Democrat, and you've got this polling data says Hillary Clinton beats Trump -- why wouldn't you want him to be the nominee? The logical thing seems to me to be that if you are dead set on Hillary Clinton being the next president and you've got polling data suggesting that she would allies defeat Trump, why wouldn't you be trying to encourage that outcome?
And yet what we have here is the Washington Post: "GOP Leaders, You Must Do Everything in Your Power to Stop Trump." Let me give you some excerpts. "The unthinkable is starting to look like the inevitable: Absent an extraordinary effort from people who understand the menace he represents, Donald Trump is likely to be the presidential nominee of the Republican Party. At this stage, even an extraordinary effort might fall short. But history will not look kindly on GOP leaders who fail to do everything in their power to prevent a bullying demagogue from becoming their standard-bearer."
Now, again, why do they care? They're not Republicans. The Washington Post editorial board is not going to vote for a Republican no matter who it is. They're in the tank for Hillary. They have polling data suggesting Hillary will win easily over Trump, most of the polls. Again, there are a couple that say every Republican, by the way, beats Hillary. Trump, by the smallest margin, but still beats her. I can't think of the poll off the top of my head. The poll I'm thinking of, though, says that Rubio beats Hillary the best or the easiest.
But that they all do, but Trump just barely. So we have here a full-court onslaught against Trump. We have The Politico with a similar piece to this today. The Politico piece headline: "Is Trump Making the GOP Greater Again? -- coalition is a lot broader -- and more diverse -- than is often assumed." This kind of echoes one of my frequently made points here. But the Washington Post, back to their editorial here. "[W]inning would not erase the bigotry and ugliness of Mr. Trump's campaign, nor remove the dangers of a Trump presidency. ...
"A political party, after all, isn't meant to be merely a collection of consultants, lobbyists and functionaries angling for jobs." Exactly right, and that's exactly what most of the rest of everybody running has. The fact of the matter is, political parties have become a collection of consultants who in many cases run the whole damn campaign. Next come the lobbyists, and then the functionaries angling for jobs, and then the suck-ups and the front-runner suck-ups who I described yesterday. And then the people who want a slice of the money, which is also some of the consultants.
The Washington Post says, "It is supposed to have principles," political party, "in the Republican case, at least as we have always understood it, to include a commitment to efficient government, free markets and open debate." Soooooooooo! We're learning the Washington Post actually knows what we stand for; they choose to distort it. They know what we stand for: Efficient government, free markets, open debate, and more. But now with Trump coming along here and in the leadership position, they're scared.
My only question is: Why are they so scared? What does it matter to them? He's not a Democrat! He's not going to beat Hillary in the primary; he's not running against Hillary in the primary. The polling data suggests he will not beat Hillary in the general, so what do they care? Oh, no, there is an answer to all these questions I'm asking. I'm just asking them rhetorically for now. So here we have the Washington Post -- and I find this kind of interesting -- calling on the leaders of Republican Party to destroy a candidate who says he's committed to stopping illegal immigration and preventing amnesty.
Which will spell the end of the Republican Party if it's not stopped. I mean, if the Republican Party goes along with this Democrat Party "immigration reform," it's the end of the Republican Party. Need I remind people of this again? If amnesty happens... I understand amnesty, by the way, is becoming a word that's been so overused that it no longer has any impact. Let me just put it this way: If the Republican Party goes ahead and helps the Democrats get what they want on immigration, it's the end of the Republican Party.
And there are two Republicans in this race standing up and saying they're not gonna let it happen. One's Trump and the other is Ted Cruz. And here comes the Washington Post. I thought the Washington Post had the power to destroy candidates! I thought the Washington Post could make or break everybody. I thought all they need to do was editorialize, stack the news coverage, be a little biased here and there. It's interesting; all these different news outlets are essentially admitting they can't do anything about Trump themselves.
They can't stop Trump.
So now they gotta turn to the Republican Party to stop him. But why do they want him stopped? If they believe their own polls and he can't beat Hillary, wouldn't they want him to win? In their worldview, doesn't Trump make the Republican Party look odd? Doesn't Trump make the Republican Party have an image problem? Doesn't Trump do everything they would love to happen to the Republican Party? So why are they urging Republicans to take him out? Why such dire warnings in a major newspaper editorial?
Here's the next paragraph in this editorial against Trump: "He wants the United States to commit war crimes, including torture and the murder of innocent relatives of suspected terrorists. He admires Russian dictator Vladimir Putin and sees no difference between Mr. Putin's victims and people killed in the defense of the United States. He would round up and deport 11 million people, a forced movement on a scale not attempted since Stalin or perhaps Pol Pot."
Well, that's a crock. Eisenhower deported six million Americans back in the day. "He has, during the course of his campaign, denigrated women, Jews, Muslims, Mexicans, people with disabilities and many more. He routinely trades in wild falsehoods and doubles down when his lies are exposed." Wow. They're really frustrated here, and they're members of a quite large group of people who are frustrated.
END TRANSCRIPT
