RUSH: There’s a lot of teachable moments out there today. Oh, I should point out, I should say that the efforts being made to mischaracterize what I said, my analysis of what the election meant, the efforts to, shall I say — what’s the right way to put it? Well, let’s just say on the conservative media side of things, there is an effort to mischaracterize what I say, or said.
And it’s best understood by just telling you that there are members of the conservative media running around and saying, “Well, you know, Rush, yeah, he’s only half right. We gotta do more than stop Obama. That’s not what this meant. They didn’t mean stop. We gotta get things done.”
They’re not mentioning my name, but they’re running around saying, “These people that say all the election meant is stop Obama. No, no, no. We’ve got to advance conservatism.” And I listen to this in total incredulity, as though it is possible to believe that I, El Rushbo, am not in favor of advancing conservatism. It’s mind-boggling to me. But such is the nature, ladies and gentlemen, of competition everywhere.
Now, I spent an inordinate amount of time last week explaining my take and doubling down on expanding it, making sure that nobody could possibly misunderstand what I said, and they continue to act as though — some do — continue to act as though I only got it half the right. I’m not gonna beat you over the head with it again today. I just wanted to reference the fact that if you’re out there and you happen to be casually tuning in media, and you hear people say, “Well, you know, this idea we gotta stop Obama, yeah, but that’s not all,” that is an effort to mischaracterize what I said.
Does anybody really believe — look, as I say, I don’t want to beat this horse dead again, but it seems to me common sense. Stopping Obama is indeed all about advancing conservatism. But even if it weren’t, I stated what we should do, and I’ll do it again. You advance conservatism by teaching it. That’s the best opportunity we have. How do you teach it? You come up with legislation, since that’s what people say the election meant, we need to get things done. Okay, let’s do things.
Let’s come up with precious legislation such as repealing, I don’t know, a couple things in Obamacare. Then you get a public opinion poll on it, showing that 60, 75% of the American people support getting rid of X, Y, Z in Obamacare, and you send all of that up to Obama. You send the bill, and you send the public opinion poll results. You publicize it all and then you make him veto it and you make him the obstructionist. You make him the guy that’s the party of “no.”
By the way, I think Obama — this is kind of funny. In the immediate aftermath of the election, Obama was hell-bent on making sure that it wasn’t his fault, right? It was everybody else’s fault but his. He had nothing to do with it. Then Valerie Jarrett or somebody got to him, says, “No, no, you’re gonna have to accept some responsibility.” So he went out and he basically said, “The message that I took from this election, and we’ve seen this in a number of elections, successive elections, people want to see this city work,” Obama said. And in that little quote, does Obama think he’s the mayor of Washington, or does he think he’s the president of the United States?
It’s not about seeing the city work! That is the trap everybody is falling into here. “They see Washington gridlocked and they’re frustrated, and they know one person in Washington and that’s the president,” and so, yes, I must take some responsibility. They see Washington gridlocked? They don’t see Washington gridlocked. The Obama agenda is moving forward. The Obama agenda is advancing, and this is why people voted the way they did. They want it stopped. They want the end of the Obama agenda, pure and simple. It isn’t even complicated.
But he’s out there now trying to claim a little responsibility for it by claiming, “Well, I know people want to see this city work.” Mr. President, you’re not the mayor. You are the president of the United States. He said, “I’ve gotta take responsibility for the Democrat loss in the midterms.” See, I don’t think Americans see gridlock. They see Obamacare jammed down their throats.
They see and hear that Obama is going to grant amnesty to however many millions of illegals — many of whom are sick, many of whom have serious criminal records, some feared to be terrorists — flooding the Southern border. They see their careers being downsized to part-time jobs. This is not gridlock that they’re upset about. That’s a convenient excuse for the elected political class to fall back on, because that’s easy to solve.
All you have to do is write some legislation!
Write some bills and then have a few debates and then send it up to the president, and, “Voila! Washington’s working again.” That’s not what this election was about. People of this country are not out there wringing their hands over the fact that Washington doesn’t work. That’s another left-wing media trick designed to convey the false impression that the American people only care about whether or not things are happening in Washington.
They care about what kinds of things are happening in their personal lives that are being ordered, directed, or otherwise steered from Washington. If the American people thought gridlock was the problem, they wouldn’t have elected the opposition party in overwhelming numbers to go up against Obama. They would have sent a bunch of Democrats up there so that gridlock could end and get all kinds of things done.
But they don’t like the kind of things that have been done, and they want them stopped. Mr. Snerdley, am I…? (sigh) When I say, “I really don’t see why this is so complicated,” am I missing something? (interruption) See, I actually think if… Well, how can I put this? Given the nature, ladies and gentlemen, of competition — and it’s everywhere. There’s competition in the left-wing media. There’s competition in conservative media.
If, say… I’ll pick a name out of my hat. Let’s say… (muttering) Pick a name. If any analyst at Fox, said exactly what I said, it would be… Oh, Karl Rove. If he had said it, it would be brilliant. If Karl Rove was echoing exactly what I said, it’d be genius and that’s all they’d be talking about. “Oh, man, this is really right on the money! It’s brilliant.” But because I’m not on Fox and I said it, it’s got to be mischaracterized and misstated a little bit.
But don’t be distracted by it, folks, because it’s really not complicated. You know what you did. You know why you voted. You know exactly what you want to happen. You want Obama’s agenda arrested, stopped in its tracks. No more. It’s not complicated.