Liberals Don’t Understand Us But We Understand Them

RUSH: Well, the Wall Street Journal op-ed page in the break here at the top of the hour has requested from me an op-ed on the conservative crackdown, as opposed to the conservative crackup for their Monday edition. So I agreed to do it. I’ll sit down pen in hand — well, keyboard at fingertips — and get this going, because I’ll tell you, folks, this is going to be one of those seminal moments that the left is going to be scratching their heads about all next year not understanding what went wrong, just like they don’t understand to this day what went wrong in 2002 at the Wellstone memorial. They didn’t understand what went wrong in 2000. They don’t understand what went wrong in 2004 — and especially when it comes to us. They’ll never understand conservatives. It’s not in them. They’re not capable of it. They never will, no matter how open and how honest we are and I think that’s one of the problems they face. They just don’t know how to deal with honesty. It’s like when Bush campaigned in 2000 and 2004, then set out to do what he said he was going to do, the Democrats said, “That’s a trick! Politicians don’t do that. They lie during campaigns, and then they go do what they want to do. Bush is tricking us! He’s actually doing what he said he was going to do!” So don’t let this Miers stuff or any of that get you down in the dumps here, folks. This movement is too big. There’s a new media. The media monopoly is over. The shift, the paradigm shift that’s long been in the works the last 15 years, has got a lot of momentum. It’s going to keep going.
I’ll tell you something else. You know, you talk about this base being fired up. Let me tell you what I know about you people. I know that a lot of this audience is the conservative base, and there’s a lot of the conservative base not listening to the program right now for one reason or another who are of the same mind-set here that I’m about to describe. The liberals have no concept of how they are perceived. The media, Democrats, have no concept of how they’re perceived, but I’ll tell you what we haven’t forgotten. We haven’t forgotten forged documents to try to bring down a president. We haven’t forgotten “Bush is a Nazi.” We haven’t forgotten Abu Ghraib. We haven’t forgotten Club G’itmo. We haven’t forgotten the efforts to demonize and criminalize Republicans and conservatives simply because they are conservative and Republican. We haven’t forgotten all of the character assassination, the filibustering of qualified men and women to sit on the federal appellate bench. We haven’t forgotten any of this — and we’re not going to forget it because an attack on all of those people is an attack on us. We have not forgotten that they think we are racist, sexist, bigot, homophobes. We are nowhere near having settled the score with these people, and letting them know exactly where their words and their policies have taken us, and I’ll tell you something else the vast majority of this base knows better than anything else: This country’s national security cannot be trusted with the likes of any Democrat seeking the presidential nomination in charge of it.
We cannot trust the national security of this country to a Hillary Clinton. We cannot trust it to a John Kerry or an Al Gore or whoever on their side wants to win the nomination. We simply can’t. And the conservative base, the Republican base is an issue oriented voting bloc. It is not a personality oriented voting bloc, and it is educated and informed on these issues. It is not brainwashed, and there is absolutely no effort; there’s no inclination whatsoever on the part of the Republican base to cede defeat to the people, especially the left, especially the way they’ve gone about trying to achieve it. The party of Cindy Sheehan, the party of Michael Moore, the party of books on how to assassinate President Bush? We haven’t forgotten these things and we’re not going to forget these things and they’re going to be part of any campaign that comes up next year or in 2008, and Democratic candidates are going to be forced to either side with the people who have made these outrageous claims or distance themselves from them. If you want Michael Moore sitting next to you at the Democratic convention, you’d better be prepared to have him at your campaign rally in 2006. You want these liberal left-wing blog extremist kooks that have become the Democratic base? You want them formulating your policy, you better be ready to damn well support them and to mention them by name and praise them; because if you don’t people are going to know that you’re a little afraid because we’re going to remind people of it. Who the left is, we know. We know them like every square inch of our glorious naked bodies.
BREAK TRANSCRIPT

RUSH: Then there’s David Broder today in the Washington Post. “For Democrats, a Path Back to Power.” Tim Russert said on the Today Show today, Democrats are “giddy” over these poll numbers that have come out. I just told you that Bush’s low-point poll numbers are higher than the seven previous presidents at their low point. None of that gets reported. It’s all ignored because they think it’s over.
“Oh, we got Bush right where we want them! Conservatives are cracking up,” and so forth. So I’m going through this Broder piece — and listen, Broder at least gets the power and influence of these activist extremists on the Internet, these Democrat bloggers. “Because that path…” This is an excerpt. “Because that path aims down the political center, it will not be easily accepted by many of the activists…” Meaning there’s a group advocating that the Democrats become more moderate, and Broder is saying — Third Way is the name of the organization, “the Third Way.” It’s a bunch of people that again want to lie about who they are. A liberal is a liberal is a liberal, folks. There is no left-wing extreme liberal, moderate liberal. They’re all liberals. It’s just you have degrees of liberals trying to cover it up and liberals honest about who they are, and the liberal activists on the blogs, they’re the honest liberals. They’re the ones that say, “Hey, this is who we are. This is what we believe. This is the language we use. This is the language we want to hear.” Then you’ve got all these subgroups of Democrats who mask themselves to one degree or another, or camouflage trying to hide just how liberal they are.
So they’ve got this group called “the Third Way” proposing a more moderate approach, and Broder says, while ” that path aims down the political center, it will not be easily accepted by many of the activists in the organizations that control the Democratic Party at the grass roots and dominate its fundraising, whether they be Hollywood millionaires or Internet Deaniacs,” and they’re not just Deaniacs, Mr. Broder. “These men and women — who provide most of the energy in Democratic campaigns,” these are the kooks; it’s become the base, “ardently oppose both the domestic and international policies of the Bush administration and yearn for candidates who would reverse President Bush’s direction on Iraq, taxes, gay rights, abortion and other issues. Because of the work they do and the money they raise for the Democratic Party, elected officials — especially in Washington — heed their views.” Yes, they do! They won’t invite them to their parties, and they won’t show up at their rallies, but they do speak their language when it’s time. “Their influence…” The kook base. “Their influence is reflected in Democratic votes against everything from the Central American Free Trade Agreement to the Supreme Court nomination of John Roberts. Then he goes on to say that “the perception [sic] that the Democrats are weak on confronting activism and hostile to culture of the deeply religious has cost the party dearly, especially among married women and Catholics.” By the way, that’s not going to change, because this hostility to the deeply religious — and the deeply moral, I might say — is a foundational building block of liberalism. They’re not going to moderate on this. Now, Broder thinks that they can, but they can’t.
He says, but IF they can, IF they can change course on that. This is like saying, “If you could automatically become a girl, you could have a baby.” It would be that hard. You know, if you’re a guy in the audience, and I say to you, “You know what? If you could become a girl you could have a baby, it is possible.” Oh, really? Same to a liberal: “Hey, look, if you can change your viewpoint on the deeply religious and the deeply moral, then you might win the election.” Right. The religious and the moral offend liberals like nothing else does. They’re not going to moderate on that. But Broder then, after assuming that this is possible, says this: “This opens the way for Democrats to recoup ground if they find a candidate who conveys strength of conviction on national security — the opposite, say, of Kerry saying, ‘I actually did vote for the $87 billion (for Iraq and Afghanistan), before I voted against it.’ It would help,” Broder writes, “if the candidate also had a solid marriage, a churchgoing habit and an ability to express sympathetic understanding of those who disagree with his or her personal support of abortion and gay rights.” Well, what is Mr. Broder suggesting the Democrats need in order to win the White House? A Republican! That’s what’s laughable about this. It reminds me of the time I was at the Democratic convention in San Francisco in ’84. Mondull was the nominee, and a good friend of our family…
I’m from southeast Missouri, Cape Girardeau, and a little town south of us is Sikeston. There’s a good friend of our family’s who was a very powerful player in the Democratic Party in Missouri who was at the convention, and my dad told me to look him up when I went out there, and I did and he invited me to one of the receptions. It’s where I met Gephardt and a bunch of these other guys. It was one of these fancy, bancy little hotel blooms that you don’t think Democrats ever go in because they’re “the men and women of the little people.” There they were with their cut glass and crystal and gold surroundings in this ballroom, sipping champagne and accepting money from other rich Democrats with Tip O’Neill arriving in a limousine and so forth. But this friend of the family came up to me, and he said, “You spot me a hundred electoral votes and we can win this election.” I looked at him and said, “Spot you a hundred electoral votes? You mean you’re that close?” [1984 Outcome: Reagan 525 | Mondull 13] This is no different than when Broder says, “If the Democrats could find a candidate who conveys strength of conviction on national security, and a candidate who also had a solid marriage, a church-going habit, and an ability to express sympathetic understanding to those who disagree with his or her personal support of abortion and gay rights.” You have a candidate like that surface in the Democratic Part — if you can find him or her, and that’s the challenge they would first face, if you can find that person — then they cajole that person to actually become the nominee, this kook left-wing base is going to destroy that person!

It ain’t going to happen. So Broder is essentially saying, “The Democrats need a Republican candidate in order to win the White House.” That’s what he’s saying. So don’t fall for this business here, folks, that this crackup is happening and that all the left has to do is sit around and watch and then get the vote out and show up and they will win, because the truth of the matter is, the one thing the left never does is examine itself. The one thing the left-wing media never does is honestly report it itself, and they are not facing their problems, and they are not admitting their problems, and as such, they’re not working on solving their problems. So they’re sitting around finally thinking that all this negative attack business that they’ve been engaging in for all these decades has finally worked. They think, when the conservative movement is mad at George W. Bush — who they still continue to run against. If I didn’t know better… You know, people ask me today, “Rush, who do you think the ’08 nominee is going to be?”
I’d say, “Bush.”
“What do you mean? He can’t run again!”
“Well, as I listen to the Democrats; that’s who they’re running against!”
So I think Bush is going to change the Constitution. Rove is going to change it, whatever, and Bush is going to be on the ballot in ’08. That’s who the Democrats are running against. Well, they think they’ve finally split Bush’s coalition. That means they’ve beat Bush; that means they win. It’s cockeyed. It is loopy, but that’s where they are. We often say there is a saying: “If your enemy is destroying himself get out of the way and let it happen,” but that’s not what’s happening. Their enemy is not destroying themselves; there’s not a crackup from within or anything of the sort. In the meantime, they’re not doing one thing to address the problems they’ve got, and as you read things like Broder what they need to do to win. Oh, yeah, it all sounds great, but in reality it can’t happen. You can’t keep the base that they’ve got by nominating essentially a Republican as your nominee and calling him a Democrat. It ain’t going to fly.
END TRANSCRIPT