RUSH: Grand Rapids, Michigan. This is Diane. Thank you for waiting. It’s your turn.

CALLER: Hi, Rush. Thank you for taking my call.

RUSH: Yes, ma’am.

CALLER: So I am a converted-by-my-husband conservative. So I’ve been paying attention to this Kavanaugh business. I’m listening, reading, and just looking at this woman, the new accuser and her accusations, the first thing that popped into my head — which you may have already answered in your last segment — was, “If she’s truly seeking justice,” which is what we have to assume they would be doing, “why wouldn’t she have named the man who actually raped her or held her down or any of that, but possibly a couple of guys who were standing in line in maybe another room, if that’s how she described it all? Doesn’t she see that this is just making such a mockery of women who actually have valid…?

RUSH: No. I’m convinced that there’s not… People give lip service to that aspect of this, but obviously that’s not a factor or none of this would be happening at all. If people were worried about the effect this is having on women who really, really have been abused and raped and mistreated, that’s nothing but words. I don’t think… It sounds good and it makes you look like you’re thoughtful and so forth, but I don’t think that enters into anybody’s minds on the Democrat side in this. That’s out the window.

Your question, however, she is at these “rape train” parties and after the tenth one it happens to her but she only remembers the guy standing around. She only remembers the guy who spiked the punch but she doesn’t remember the guy who did the nasty. Now, maybe because she was scared, panicked, traumatized, drunk, drugged, or what have you. It was dark. There could be any number of explanations for that. But you still do remember two other people.

How do you do that? How do you so easily remember the two people that weren’t actually doing that? They just were in the setup phase like the grounds crew, you know, getting the playing field ready to go, and they go to the dugout while the action happens. You remember those guys. But you don’t remember the perp. That’s a good question, Diane. Do you have an answer yourself for it? Can you put yourself in her shoes and how would that be?

CALLER: Well, other than stating the obvious, that it seems to be a possible witch hunt and that she’s just being used. Like you said, you had a caller yesterday who they’ve been looking for people to do this all summer. So she just happens to be somebody willing to step up and put herself out there. But to me it’s just unbelievable because she’s a woman and if she had a valid complaint, you would think she would have come forward long before this.

RUSH: Well, she had to make sure her coming forward made a difference, mattered.

CALLER: Right.

RUSH: It had to be after everything else had bombed out. You have an interesting pedigree. You said you were a relatively new conservative. You used to be a liberal; is that right?

CALLER: That is correct.

RUSH: Okay. How long ago was it that your transmogrification occurred?

CALLER: (giggles) Well, it wasn’t that recent. When I started dating my husband, he listened to you daily. We probably still have boxes of cassette tapes of your show in your garage somewhere.

RUSH: You need to send those to Legacybox. You need to save those! Can you still listen to those? You still have a cassette player?

CALLER: Oh, sure, we have cassette players. (giggles)

RUSH: Oh, okay. All right. Okay. Well, the reason I’m asking is because, as former liberal, that’s what you were born as, and so you probably still have certain things that tug at the suppressed or defeated overcome liberalism within your being. Does this tempt you to go back to liberalism? Does this sour you on conservatism or conservatives, that it’s only — not only, but these are the guys being accused, other than Weinstein and the hollered people? Does it worry you or do you think it’s all bogus?

CALLER: Oh, it doesn’t worry me in the least bit. It only gives me a stronger conviction of what the Democrat Party is capable of, and the sad thing is, Rush, that they would… You know, I have very good friends, very good friends, family members — very liberal, very snowflakish — and you can’t say a word around them. But the problem is, they don’t actually listen. So the way that I was able to actually continue dating my husband was I started listening to your program because if I didn’t, I had no ammunition to, you know, fight back with. But, you know, strangely enough the transformation happened after I started listening because you start realizing that you’re missing out on a big portion of the story of what’s actually happening. So, no, not at all. This does just the opposite to me.

RUSH: Good. I’m glad to hear that, because as a transmogrified conservative, there’s always a temptation to… I have a theory. It’s actually not mine. It’s John O’Sullivan’s, who was an aide to Margaret Thatcher, an editor at National Review. It’s called the Sullivan law, theorem, doctrine, or whatever. It basically says that any person or group that is not actively, daily conservative will become liberal. Because it’s the most gutless choice you can make. It doesn’t take any intellect commitment at all. All you have to do is feel. Conservatism is… Even though it’s just flat-out nothing more than common sense, given the pop culture dominance of liberalism, conservatism is a fight. It’s an active, daily pursuit. And the fact that you’re able to hold on to your conservatism in the midst of all this? This is heartening to me.

CALLER: Well, it shouldn’t be that difficult actually. Like you say, it’s common sense, and the information’s out there for everyone, but it’s totally easier to be liberal and just to feel good about, you know, everything that’s going on and that you want to do, but —

RUSH: Now, wait. See, that’s very… They don’t. They feel. It’s easy to be a liberal because you look at suffering, “Oh, my gosh, I hate that.” That makes you a good person. Doesn’t take much to be a good person in liberalism. All you have to do is suffer. See suffering and suffer. You don’t have to fix it, you don’t have to solve it, you don’t have to do anything but find out somebody to blame for it. — and it makes you a good person. But I didn’t say you’re happy.

They’re not happy. There isn’t a one of them that’s happen. They don’t even laugh! They are in constant state of rage or anger. As discussed yesterday, liberalism is really… It’s encroached on our politics, but it’s a psychological disorder. And they have various psychological maladies and distorted which they have entered the political process in an attempt to get even, fix, punish whoever is responsible for what’s ever happened to people. And in that sense…

I just saw Jeff Flake speaking from the floor of the Senate talking about how our politics has just become so debased. Our politics is so low and we’ve got to stop it. This isn’t gonna stop. The debasement of our politics, the debasement of our system is not gonna stop until the psychological disorders that are liberalism are kept out of politics and solved and fixed and addressed somewhere else. But as long as psychological disorders become embraced by the Democrat Party with promises of government solutions…

The reason they’re never happy is ’cause they never get any of these problems solved. They never get anything fixed, and when they do get what they want, it’s never enough. So as long as… I’m being literal here. It’s a theory Jim Geraghty had at National Review, and I happen to understand it and I agree with it. As long as psychological disorders become evidence of political bias, discrimination, and unfairness, we don’t have any hope. When the political system is blamed for and then responsible for addressing and fixing what are psychological disorders, there’s no hope. That’s not what politics is. But it is what it’s become.

And that is why, you know, decent or normal people, however you… I think most people know what decency and normalcy is, versus indecency and abnormal. But as long as the indecent and abnormal can overwhelm the system with their disorders and demand that the purpose of government and politics is to address these disorders… Remember these disorders result from these people are victims because somebody’s done something to ’em. Somebody was mean to ’em, mistreated them or whatever.

“The political system has to fix that!” (sigh) That can’t happen. We’ve been trying. We’ve had the Great Society. We have had you name it. We’ve had government programs to address every freaking liberal problem there is, and all they’ve done is become more widespread. They’ve not become fixed or repaired because it can’t be done. So liberalism now proceeds on the basis that there are people responsible for the unhappiness, the misery, the inequality, the injustice that the psychologically disordered are feeling.

That happens to be us, folks. We conservatives, Christians, are largely responsible for the unhappiness and misery because we’re racist, sexist, bigot… You know the drill. So we have to be erased. We have to be eliminated, because we’re mean-spirited and all that, and the political system then has to accommodate. And since the political system can’t fix any of these disorders, they have to be treated or accommodated — which usually is money and punishment aimed at people who are said to be responsible for the unhappiness.

So that’s how you get Black Lives Matter hating cops. That’s how you get militant activists on the left hating religion, and any of the other institutions that have defined America and its greatness. It’s why the Constitution is not safe. They believe the Constitution in it has it inbred unfairness and discrimination and so forth. So that pretty much sums it up. But you wouldn’t even find a lot of agreement with the principles I’ve just stated, the concepts. But I think they’re undeniable.