RUSH: Now the left is upset at where they’re going to be sent, saying they will be better off kept at Club G’itmo, but Club G’itmo was the absolute worst place on earth to keep these people because we’re so rotten and inhumane. Well, the Washington Post also had a story yesterday by Dan Balz, and it plays off the latest polling data from Carville and Stan Greenberg and their Democracy Corps Group, whatever they call it, and the headline is this: For Democrats, a Troubling Culture Gap. “Dissatisfaction over the war in Iraq, the economy and rising health care costs might spell trouble for Republicans, but a study by Democratic strategists warns that their party’s failure to connect with voters on cultural issues could prevent Democratic candidates from reaping gains in upcoming national elections.
“Then came the bad news: ‘As powerful as the concern over these issues is, the introduction of cultural themes — specifically gay marriage, abortion, the importance of the traditional family unit and the role of religion in public life — quickly renders them almost irrelevant in terms of electoral politics at the national level,’ the study said. Many of these voters still favor Democrats on economic issues. But they see the Democrats as weak on national security, and on cultural and moral issues, they view Democrats as both inconsistent and hostile to traditional values. ‘Most referred to Democrats as “liberal” on issues of morality, but some even go so far as to label them “immoral,” “morally bankrupt,” or even “anti-religious,”‘ according to the Democracy Corps analysis.” What have I told you people? I’ve told you that this is exactly how the mainstream of America sees the Democratic Party, precisely this. This is why I told you that there would not be any anti-Republican backlash over the Schiavo case.
If anybody gets hurt by the Schiavo case it’s going to be the Democrats, and this study by Carville and Greenberg proves it. Actually, it’s not Carville here. It’s Karl Agne and Greenberg, they conducted the focus group. They said, “Democrats need a reform-oriented, anti-Washington agenda to overcome the culture gap. At this point Democrats are in no position to capitalize if there is a clear backlash against Republicans. No matter how disaffected they are over Republican failures in Iraq and here at home, a large chunk of white, non-college voters, particularly in rural areas will remain unreachable for Democrats at the national level.” Well-l-l-l. Now, what do you think this is all about, folks? What do you think this is really all about? This is why the Democrats are out there trying to find such things as George Lakoff (rhymes with) and other linguists to help them try to fool people into thinking that they are mainstream when it comes to cultural issues, but they’re not. This survey really nails it.
“Most referred to Democrats as liberal on issues of morality, but some even go so far as to label them immoral, morally bankrupt, even anti-religious.” Why do you think there was so much Democrat backlash against the NARAL ad? Precisely for this reason, and I’m going to tell you Democrats something. You can sit out there and you can try to claim that you are religious and that you are moral and that you share the same views of morality and values that mainstream America does, but as long as you continue to make abortion the most important issue culturally, you are dead, because it is not a majority issue for, it hasn’t been for a long time, and your association with groups like NARAL and People for the American Way and the NAGs, the National Association for Gals, rubs off on you, and it is clear that that’s the only thing that matters to these people — and it’s also clear that they don’t like morality. They don’t like the concept of it. They don’t want to have to answer to somebody’s morality.
They don’t want there to be any judgmentalism, and you combine that with the Democrats’ obvious weakness on national security, and it explains why the Democrats are so panicked — and it is why they’re so panicked about these Supreme Court nominations. Now, let’s bring something else in here. Let me go back to one of these paragraphs here that the Democrats, according to the Balz story, really have to have a come-to-Jesus meeting with themselves about. It’s this paragraph. “As powerful as the concern over these issues is,” the war in Iraq, the economy, blah, blah, blah — “the introduction of cultural themes…” and look what’s mentioned first here.
“–specifically gay marriage, abortion, the importance of the traditional family unit, and the role of religion in public life quickly renders Democrats almost irrelevant in terms of electoral politics at the national level.” Well, let’s take these issues. Gay marriage. Now, you don’t hear Democrats talking a whole lot about it. Why is that? I mean, most gay activists think the Democrats are on their side in this issue. But where are the Democrats leading on the issue? Do you hear them leading on this issue? No. Why? Take a stab at it, Mr. Snerdley. Why are the Democrats not leading on an issue that their constituents think that they ought to be leading on? Because it’s a three-state issue, and the vast majority of Democrats are opposed to it as well, and in fact to illustrate this, I have here in my formerly nicotine-stained fingers a San Francisco Chronicle story today by Carolyn Lochhead: “Gay Issues Destined for Top Court.” Listen to some of the stuff in this story: “Abortion may dominate next month’s Senate hearings on whether to confirm John Roberts to the U.S. Supreme Court, but gay rights is the stealth issue.
Democrats aren’t as eager to push for same-sex marriage as they are to protect abortion, but there is little question that the leading edge of civil rights law involves lesbians and gays rather than more settled questions of gender and racial equality. Over the next decade or more — and if confirmed, the 50-year-old Roberts could be on the court for 30 years — activists on both sides expect the Supreme Court to decide the constitutionality of state bans on same-sex marriage.
“Several such cases already are moving through lower courts, though they may be several years away from the Supreme Court. ‘I don’t think there’s any question’ such cases ultimately will come before the Supreme Court, said Tony Perkins, president of the Family Research Council, a leading social conservative group, who supports President Bush’s nomination of Roberts to the court. Jon Davidson, legal director of Lambda Legal, a gay advocacy group, agreed. ‘Whoever gets appointed is going to be on the court for a long time, and eventually, these issues are going to reach the Supreme Court,’ Davidson said. Although the stakes are high, both sides are downplaying the issue for strategic reasons.
Some gay leaders warn against making gay issues a focus of the confirmation hearings, fearing such a move could backfire.” Why? Why would it backfire? There must be a lot of opposition to it. Hmm. “Very few Democratic senators support same-sex marriage, and the public remains largely opposed to the idea. Activists are advising the Senate Democrats to address the issue indirectly under the rubric of a constitutional right to privacy… Religious conservatives want to avoid imposing a litmus test on gay rights so that liberals cannot demand one on abortion. Bush himself has carefully avoided doing so.”
Now, the point that I take away from this story and the Dan Balz story, is that the Democrats cannot even be honest. They have to shelve what they really believe. They have to zip their lips on it. If the Democrats open up — and by the way, you know what this Greenberg survey proves? It proves the Democrats message has gotten out. As I have said all along, ever since the 2002 midterm elections, the Democrats are out there complaining, “We didn’t get our message out,” and I said, “Oh, yes, you have. Your message has gotten out loud and clear, and that’s why you’re losing,” and the Democrats’ own group survey indicates it. How else do the Democrats surveying people they think should vote for them come up with this idea that, as powerful as the concern over these issues is, the introduction of cultural themes quickly renders Democrats almost irrelevant in terms of electoral politics at the national level. The only way they can be rendered irrelevant is if everybody knows what their positions are.
So (clapping) congratulations to all of you Democrats! You have gotten the message out! You have gotten it out loud and clear and it’s coming back now to bite you. So it’s a huge dilemma, conundrum, whatever for these people — and they’ve got a constituency group out there that’s very much for a lot of things, but Democrats don’t dare say it. Now, I’m telling you this is not a position you want to be in when you’re running for political office, national office especially. You can’t do this kind of thing. You can’t win big majorities and form big leadership coalitions running as a stealth party.
BREAK TRANSCRIPT
RUSH: I want to go back to one of the paragraphs in the San Francisco Chronicle story, because I think it’s somewhat important. “Very few Democratic senators support same-sex marriage, and the public remains largely opposed the idea. Activists are advising the Senate Democrats to address the issue indirectly under the rubric of a constitutional right to privacy.” Alright. We should, by the way. Go on offense and we should explore this issue of privacy rights, because it leads to anything goes. If you establish the rubric of the right to privacy under the Constitution, then bar the doors, folks! I mean, same-sex marriage, polygamy? Want to marry your dog? You can marry your dog if you do it in private, as long as you never take the dog out to dinner. As long as the marriage between you and your dog occurs in your house who can stop you under the right to privacy? Where would the line be drawn? Where would the liberals draw the line on the right to privacy? I mean, if you can marry somebody of the same sex, can you marry a third person of the same sex?
Can you have a marriage of four people? If you’re going to destroy and blow up the definition of marriage, then it can include pretty much anything if it occurs under the rubric of right to privacy. You’re either for privacy in the bedroom or not, and if your bedroom is private then maybe even incest will end up being okay. Make the liberals defend their position on this. Don’t let them hide behind the right to privacy. You know, liberal activist groups are advising Democrats, “Don’t talk about same-sex marriage when you talk about these nominees. Don’t as if Roberts will be opposed to it. Don’t say that Roberts will stop it,” because they know they’ll lose on it. They know that the country would rally to that. “We want to go at this in a stealth way. We want to get the same-sex marriage by not even going for it. We want to go for the right to privacy and then anything goes.”
Okay if that’s the strategy then the liberals need to be asked, “What are the limits? What limits are you willing to go for on the right to privacy? Bigamy? Polygamy? Incest? Where you going to draw the line? I mean, what do they mean by privacy rights? They need to define this kind of thing. If they’re running a stealth campaign, as it were, to get what they want under the right to privacy, better get some specific definitions from them as to what they mean so the public can know, so the public can have some idea of what the plans and the intentions are by the American left, and why shouldn’t we debate other issues? Recent polls showed the American people are very concerned about the court’s rulings in which they gave due-process rights to terrorist detainees. Libs are weak on that one, too. That, you know, what was it, the DC circuit, DC circuit or was it the Fourth Circuit? Overturned that federal judge, that Clinton-appointed federal judge that said detainees have a right to a layer and that military tribunals were unconstitutional. Was it the DC circuit? Yeah, Roberts. In fact Roberts was one of the three judges. That’s right.
Roberts was one of the three judges that overturned — in a majority opinion, by the way — that stupid, idiotic decision of the lower court judge that was a Clinton appointee. Liberals are very weak on this, and there’s no reason to keep playing defense. The reason we’re playing defense on this is because — well, it says here anyway — that “religious conservatives want to avoid imposing a litmus test on gay rights so that liberals cannot demand one on abortion.” What? The liberals already have! What do you think Chuck Schumer’s litmus test is? What do you think Pat Leahy’s litmus test is, or Barbara Boxer’s or any of these people? There’s already a litmus test on abortion, and it’s on that basis that they are going to end up opposing any nominee whatsoever.