All Episodes
Previous Next
Oct. 22, 2008 - Rush Limbaugh Program
36:40
October 22, 2008, Wednesday, Hour #2
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Hi, welcome back, Rush Limbaugh, the Excellence in Broadcasting Network, and the Limbaugh Institute for Advanced Conservative Studies.
Great to be with you, ladies and gentlemen.
Fastest week in media already Wednesday.
Telephone number.
800-282-2882, the email address, L Rushbow at EIBNet.com.
Mike, a quick change.
I'm going to go to Cut 1, and then after Cut 1, we're going to go to 25 and 26.
They got overflowing audio sound bites today.
Folks, you who live in Kansas City and who read the Kansas City Scar, you have an idiot on the editorial page.
I'm not even going to try to pronounce his name because I don't see how.
But he has written a piece saying that the socialist label that McCain and his running mate Sarah Paylor are trying to attach to Obama has long and very ugly historical roots.
So far so good because socialists, that label, refers to a lot of dead white guys.
When you think of a socialist, can you name one black leader you think of as a socialist?
When you hear the term socialist historically, I mean you might think of Robert Mugabe now.
And you might think of the guys running uh South Africa, but I bet you can't name them.
You'd have to really, really work at it to come up with some historical black leaders who are socialists.
I mean, you might want to throw in E.D. Amin da da.
Uh I I other thing, you've got to really work at when you think of socialists.
You think of Mussolini.
You think of Hitler.
You think of uh Hugo Chavez.
I mean, you you you think of you think of uh and then from there you go to communism, and from there you go to Nazis, and they're all white guys.
You think of the Soviet Union leadership of the Politburo.
Uh you you you think of people like Mao Tse Tong, or Mao Zedong, depending on which pronunciation you prefer.
This idiot at the Kansas City Scar said J. Edgar Hoover, director of the FBI from 24 to 72, used the term liberally to describe African Americans who spent their lives fighting for equality.
McCain and Palin have simply reached back in history to use an old code word for black.
No, socialist is uh is not a it's not a code word.
It has a specific definition.
It's a socialist.
It doesn't matter what race, it doesn't matter what religion, doesn't matter what sex, orientation, gender, whatever a socialist is a socialist.
The guy goes on to say it set whites apart from those deemed un-American.
Well, I'm sorry, uh Mr. Idiot at the Kansas City Star, but up until now, most Americans considered socialists to be unAmerican.
It wasn't the way our system was.
We are capitalist.
Socialist was considered to be an enemy.
Socialism was something we fought against.
Socialism is something we liberated people from.
And this guy's now saying the word socialist is a code word for black.
I went to the urban dictionary.
The urban dictionary, to find out what in the world this idiot writing for the Kansas City Star could possibly have been thinking of.
There are 26 definitions of socialist, and not one of them in the urban dictionary indicated blackness.
Number 14 referenced whiteness.
Let me read to you from the Urban Dictionary.
26 different definitions of this word.
And here's number 14.
A socialist in democratic capitalistic Western countries is a person who has more often than not been raised in a white middle class family and adopts a socialistic political worldview to vent the guilt felt by such an upbringing.
This cathartic measure is a form of psychological flagellation.
And an attempt to identify with poorer people in countries.
The socialist realizes that the hand they were dealt was not contingent on their being special, but lucky.
That's definition number 14.
What, snerdly?
Snerdly.
Mm-hmm.
Yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah.
That's a stretch.
That's a bit of a stretch, but this guy's such an idiot, it may you may have a point.
Let's let's read this again and figure out where this idiot at the Kansas Car might have been confused here.
That socialist is a code word for black.
A socialist and democratic capitalistic Western countries is a person who was more often than not raised in a white middle class family, and well, that is Obama.
And since Obama's black, maybe it's convoluted.
It's convoluted.
You know, if if if a few people back through history got the distinction between racism and socialism mixed up, that was their problem.
The USSR, the ChICOMs, North Korea, other socialist countries we think of today can hardly be considered strongholds of black activism or civil rights activism.
The fact that this this employee of the Kansas City SCAR decided to equate anti-socialism with racism is itself such an obvious racist ploy that it it it's it's embarrassing.
It's embarrassing.
This is a this is so typical of the drive-bys and who they hire and who they have working on their newspapers there.
This is the in the editorial page.
Now I mentioned in the yes, uh program observer has a question.
What's question, sir?
Make it quick.
Mm-hmm.
Why is it white liberals know all the code words and the rest of because they make them up as we go.
They're the ones that make up the code.
Look at socialist is now a code word.
Community organizers a code word.
Pass association is a code phrase, spreading the wealth, a code phrase.
Middle name Hussein can't say it.
White grandmother can't say it except when Obama goes to visit.
Jeremiah Wright can't talk about him.
Bill Ayers can't bring him up.
Michelle My Bell, don't talk about her.
We got duct tape on her mouth anyway.
We can't talk about his big ears.
We can't talk about anything here.
Anything we bring up is racist, and a code word for racism.
And by the way, and I hate to be a I told you so, but this was one of the things I feared, and one of the things I predicted the way this campaign would play out is that any criticism of Obama is going to be said to be racist.
And by the way, if he does win the election, that's going to continue.
That's not going to stop.
Everybody thinks, oh well, if we elect a that's the end of the racial strife in the country.
Oh, love and sweetness all around.
No, oh, oh no.
Because any criticism of Barry as president is, I mean, the race industry leaders from the Reverend Sharpton, the Reverend Jacks are gonna be all over the place.
Uh keeping the race business alive and well.
Now I mentioned in the previous hour a piece that I saw yesterday by Orson Scott Card.
Now this was uh originally published last page originally published in the Rhinoceros Times of Greensboro, North Carolina.
But now it has spread throughout the uh internet.
I looked him up on the internet.
He is a Democrat.
The editor's note here says Orson Scott Card's a Democrat, a newspaper column.
Uh he is a full-fledged Democrat.
He is uh pro-gun control.
He thinks that the Republican Party in the South is still very racist.
But this piece, it's nothing you haven't heard before on this program.
It's about the mortgage crisis.
But Mr. Card here takes a shot at the media.
Would the last honest reporter please turn on the lights?
An open letter to the local daily paper, almost every local daily paper in America.
I remember reading all the president's men and thinking, wow, that's journalism.
You do what it takes to get the truth.
You lay it before the public because the public has a right to know.
This housing crisis didn't come out of nowhere.
It was not a vague emanation of the evil Bush administration.
It was a direct result of the political decision back in the late 90s to loosen the rules of lending so that home loans would be more accessible to poor people.
Fannie Mae and Freddie Mack were authorized to approve risky loans.
What's a risky loan?
It's a loan that the recipient is likely not to be able to repay.
Now the goal of this rule change was to help the poor, which especially would help members of minority groups.
But how does it help these people to give them a loan that they can't repay?
They get into a house, yeah.
But when they can't make the payments they lose the house along with their credit rating.
They end up worse off than before.
This was completely foreseeable and in fact many people did foresee it.
One political party in Congress and in the executive branch tried repeatedly to tighten up the rules.
The other party blocked every such attempt and tried to loosen them.
Furthermore, Freddie Mack and Fannie Mae were making political contributions to the very members of Congress who were allowing them to make irresponsible loans.
The why quasi federal agencies were allowed to do so baffles me.
It's as if the Pentagon were allowed to contribute to the political campaigns of Congressmen who support increasing their budget.
Isn't there a story here?
Doesn't journalism require that you who produce our daily paper tell the truth about who brought us to a position where the only way to keep confidence in our economy was a $700 billion dollar bailout?
Aren't you supposed to follow the money and see which politicians were benefiting personally from the deregulation of mortgage lending?
I have no doubt that if these facts had pointed to the Republican Party or to McCain as the guilty parties, you would be treating it as a vast scandal housing gate, Fannie Gate.
Instead it was Senator Christopher Dodd and Congressman Barney Frank, both Democrats, who denied that there were any problems, who refused Bush administration requests to set up a regulatory agency to watch over Fannie Mae and Freddie Mack, and who were still pushing for these agencies to go even further in promoting subprime mortgage loans almost up to the minute they failed.
As Thomas Sowell points out in a Townhall.com essay, Alan Greenspan warned them four years ago, so did the chairman of the Council of Economic Advisors.
So did Bush's Secretary of the Treasury.
These are facts this financial crisis was completely preventable.
The party that blocked any attempt to prevent it was the Democrat Party.
The party that tried to prevent it was the Republican Party.
Yet when Nancy Pelosi accused the Bush administration and Republican deregulation of causing the crisis, you in the press did not hold her to account for her lie.
Instead you criticized Republicans who took offense at this lie and refused to vote for the bailout.
What?
It's not the liar but the victims of the lie who are to blame?
Now let's follow the money right to the presidential candidate who is the number two recipient of campaign contributions from Fannie Mae.
And after Freddie Reigns, the CEO of Fannie Mae who made ninety million dollars running it into the ground was fired for his incompetence one presidential candidate's campaign actually consulted him for advice on housing.
If that presidential candidate had been John McCain you would have called it a major scandal you and we would be getting stories in your paper every day about how incompetent and corrupt McCain was but instead that candidate was Obama and so you've buried the story.
And when the McCain campaign dared to call Reigns an advisor to the Obama campaign because the campaign had sought his advice, you actually let Obama's people get away with accusing McCain of lying merely because Reigns wasn't listed as an official advisor to your campaign.
You would never tolerate such weasily nitpicking from a Republican if you who produce our local daily paper actually had any principles, you would be pounding this story because the prosperity of all Americans was put at risk by the foolish, short-sighted, politically selfish and possibly corrupt actions of leading Democrats, including Obama.
If you who produce our local daily paper had any personal honor, you would find it unbearable to let the American people believe it somehow Republicans were to blame for this crisis.
There are precedents.
Even though President Bush and his administration never said that Iraq sponsored or was linked to 911, you could not stand the fact that Americans had that misapprehension, so you pounded us with the fact that There was no such link.
Along the way, you created false impressions that Bush had lied to them and said that there was a connection.
If you who produce our local paper had any principles, then surely right now when the American people are set to blame President Bush and McCain for a crisis they tried to prevent and are actually shifting to approve Obama because of a crisis he helped cause, you would be laboring at least as hard to correct that false impression.
Your job as journalists is to tell the truth.
That's what you claim you do when you accept people's money to buy or subscribe to your paper.
But right now you are consenting to or actively promoting a big fat lie that the housing crisis should somehow be blamed on Bush, McCain, and the Republicans.
You have trained the American people to blame everything bad, even bad weather on Bush.
And they're responding as you have taught them to.
If you had any personal honor, each reporter and editor would be insisting on telling the truth, even if it hurts the election chances of your favorite candidate.
Because that's what honorable people do.
Honest people tell the truth even when they don't like the probable consequences.
That's what honesty means.
That's how it trust is earned.
Barack Obama's just another politician.
He's not a very wise one.
He has revealed his ignorance and naivete time after time, and you've swept it under the rug, treated it as nothing.
Meanwhile, you have participated in the borking of Sarah Palin, reporting savage attacks on her for the pregnancy of her unmarried daughter while you ignored the story of John Edwards' own adultery for many months.
So I ask you now, do you have any standards at all in journalism?
Left?
Do you even know what honesty means?
Is getting people to vote for Obama so important that you will throw away everything journalism is supposed to stand for?
You might want to remember the way the now gang threw away their integrity by supporting Bill Clinton despite his well-known pattern of sexual exploitation of powerless women.
Who listens to nags anymore?
We know they stand for nothing.
They have no principles, and that's where you in journalism are right now.
It's not too late.
You know that if the situation were reversed, the truth would damage McCain and help Obama, you'd be moving heaven and earth to get the true story out there.
If you want to redeem your honor, you'll swallow hard and make a list of all the stories you would print.
If it were McCain who had been getting money from Fannie Mae, McCain whose campaign had consulted with its discredited former CEO, McCain who had voted against tightening its lending practices, and then you'll print them.
Even though every one of these true stories will point the finger of blame at the reckless Democrat Party, which put our nation's prosperity at risk so they can feel good about helping the poor and lay a fair share of blame at Obama's door.
You'll also tell the truth about McCain that he tried as a senator to do what it took to prevent this crisis.
You'll tell the truth about President Bush that his administration tried more than once to get Congress to regulate lending in a responsible way.
This was a Congress-caused crisis beginning during the Clinton administration, Democrats leading the way into the crisis, blocking every effort to get out of it in a timely fashion.
If you and our local daily newspaper continue to let Americans believe and vote, as if President Bush and the Republicans caused this crisis, you are joining in that lie.
You're just the PR machine of the Democrat Party.
It's time you were all fired and real journalists brought in so that we can actually have a newspaper in our city.
That's Orson Scott Card, a card-carrying Democrat, writing in the Rhinoceros Times in Greensboro, North Carolina.
Back in a sec.
Now, ladies and gentlemen, in an effort to keep you engaged, in an effort to keep you enthused and upbeat.
Let me go back in time to the recent past and remind you of my prediction about polls.
I said the polls are going to be used to affect your thinking.
The polls will be used to influence your thinking.
And your your attitudes and opinions.
The polls will be used to depress you.
The polls will be used to dispirit you.
And I said, as we get close, however, the polls are going to have to tighten up.
so Because at the end of the election, at the end of the day, pollsters do have their credibility to be concerned about.
They all want to get it right at the end of the day.
They hope to influence Obama winning big with all the pre-election polls.
But you get down to the wire and they have to start getting close, and lo and behold, A new AP poll just posted shows the presidential race has tightened after the final debate.
McCain gaining among whites and people earning less than fifty thousand dollars two weeks before the election, McCain and Obama are essentially running even among likely voters.
It's Obama 44 McCain 43 among those voters who are considered likely to vote on November 4th.
AP says the race is still volatile.
Three weeks ago, the same poll found that Obama had a seven-point lead.
There's a new Fox poll out today that's just crazy.
4940 Obama, but yet 80 to 52 on who people think is more qualified to be president.
80 to 50 to 80 to 30, something.
It's an it's astounding number in McCain's favor in terms of qualifications, but Obama's up 4940.
Hello, Bradley Effect.
We'll be back.
Stay with us.
Okay, going to the phones, and we're building up a backlog of audio soundbites that I gotta get to, so a lot coming up here on the program as yet to unfold.
And this is Jan in uh Pito, Oklahoma.
Nice to have you on the program.
Hello.
Hi, Rush.
It's an honor to talk with you.
Thank you.
Um I was uh I I call you often and can't get through, but when you mentioned my favorite author this morning, I was determined to dial until my battery went dead, or I got through, and I got through.
Let me guess if your favorite author is Vince Flynn.
Oh, I love him.
Well, I tell you what, uh, you but what don't when we finish our conversation, I want you to hang on.
Okay.
And we're gonna get an address here we can send you the latest uh copy of his book, Autographed by the man himself.
Oh, I'm so excited.
I knew you would be I knew you would be.
Oh I read his first one paperback, and then after that I just couldn't wait until the hardbacks went out, and I went to the bookstore at the first of October because I knew it was coming out in October, and she said, Well, it wouldn't be out.
I thought she said the twenty-fifth, and so I was just waiting, you know.
Well, you know, it came out, it came out yesterday, the twenty first.
But as a powerful, influential member of the media and a close personal friend of Mr. Flynn.
I've had a box of about 24 of them for a couple weeks.
That is great.
Well, you know, I used to live in the Middle East, and it just amazes me how right on he is uh over there.
Uh it's just it just amazes me.
I mean, he's it's just like he's lived over there forever.
You know, it really does amazing.
He may have.
We don't know.
Um, listen, I have a theory, and then I've got a question for you.
Yes.
Okay.
Uh for about well, until this week, I have been convinced that McCain was gonna win.
Yes.
I have been faithfully saying my rosaries and my notes.
All right, so what happened to cause you to lose confidence?
Uh it yesterday the polls, the polls.
And and I bet uh yesterday I wasn't feeling well.
I didn't listen to you.
I warned you about this.
I was I know you are very I know you are very optimistic and you you build me up and hold me up, but I'm just it it you know and the other thing is that bothers me so much is just the lies that are getting through.
You know, he's just lying and lying.
You can make a list of all of the things that this guy is and he's nothing.
He's nothing.
How can this man be our president?
Ugh.
Jan, listen to me.
Okay.
I will tell you when it's time to give up.
All right.
I'll tell you when it's time to panic.
Now we can't have this.
Okay.
You miss my show one day, and look what happens to you.
This is unacceptable.
You by the way, do you have a computer?
Yes.
Are you a subscriber to Rush 24-7?
No, because I don't use the computer.
My husband does.
Does he know how to use it?
Oh, gosh, yes.
All right.
Well, then I'm also going to make you a complimentary subscriber for one year to the limbow letter, the newsletter, and rush 24-7.
Oh my god, he's a big thing.
Because that you will never ever miss a program that way.
You could have last night listen to yesterday's program, and you wouldn't even have called me today.
You'd have been so unhappy.
In a good mood.
Now he doesn't have that, but he can hear some of it because when he works, he comes home and listens to as much as it's not.
Doesn't matter.
He will have it.
It'll be we're gonna tell you how to get it.
We're gonna it's it's it's simple as it can be.
Don't fret.
Don't fret.
I don't say can't.
Okay.
Don't say won't.
Okay.
But okay, but just don't want that kind of attitude here.
Now the AP, The AP just hit their latest poll.
It's a dead heat today, 4443.
Okay.
Now, you might want to well, no, Rush, no.
I I saw the New York Times at 13 point.
Oh, you want to believe the Times poll?
As opposed to the AP.
I mean, look at it it's all up for grabs.
I'm telling you, the the uh the Gallup likely voters is down to plus five today from plus seven.
This race is close.
It has never been not close.
It has never been a landslide.
It's never been, it may not be now.
Uh th this is we g we got less than two weeks to go, and this is they're gonna they're gonna come at you as intensely as they have and are gonna try to create every day the attitude you had yesterday.
Well, another thing that bothers me is they are just lying, they are getting they're getting votes, they're getting dogs to vote.
I mean, they're doing this.
They've done it every time, but they're really doing it now.
I understand that.
Okay, listen, my theory is okay, say he does win, and the and the Congress is all Democrats.
Yeah.
I think the good news is that in two years, these people, the stupid people that voted for him, are gonna be like dear in the headlights.
They're gonna say, Oh my God, what have we done?
Well, she's making a very, very rash and dangerous assumption, and that is that there will be elections two years from now if Obama wins.
Oh my gosh.
We might be in such a we might be in such an international and domestic crisis that the elections will have to be suspended in order to maintain stability.
Well, listen, you heard what Biden said.
I know.
Don't hang up on me out there, Jan, because we gotta talk to you about getting these addresses to you.
But we got the full Biden tape coming up.
NBC's been shamed into playing the whole thing now.
Uh and there's no way they can spin.
You know, Biden's out there, he's i it look it, he did it twice.
Saturday, San Francisco, Sunday, Seattle.
This was not happenstance.
He got the briefing, foreign policy briefings, such as the McCain did, and he's going out there and he's trying to show how smart he is.
I guarantee you we're gonna get hit, something's gonna happen first six months, and you're not gonna like our response, and we need you to hang in with it.
We need you to stay with it, we need you to support us, we need you to keep loving us, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah.
They can try to spin this all they want.
Well, every president's tested.
Um but but clearly uh it is it is something that he thinks Obama is gonna have the wrong reaction to.
So, yes, they're out there lying.
Yes, they're out there cheating.
It isn't new.
Yes, the media is in the tank.
The media has always been in a tank for Democrats.
It's worse this year than ever.
It just means we have that much more to overcome.
Not that we give up.
We keep telling as many people as we can about the deceit, about the fraud, about the bias.
We try to warn them of who Obama is and what might happen to the country.
We do the best we can.
We let the chips fall where they may.
And more often than not, we're happy.
If you go back in my lifetime, we are more often than not, the media's candidate loses.
I'm talking about a national, you know, referendums, presidential elections.
All right.
Now don't don't hang up out there, Jan, because we got to get information from you in order to get you Vince's book and the uh complimentary subscription to Rush 24-7.
Linda from uh unknown parts of upstate New York.
Hello.
Hi, Rush.
Uh upstate New York, Western New York.
Upstate Western New York.
Not to be confused with Western Pennsylvania.
Right.
Well, nothing wrong with Western Pennsylvania, except a bunch of racist rednecks there, according to uh Jack Mertha, their congressmen.
We're uh we're not that far from Western New York, so uh we you know, we have a lot of friends right across the border down here.
Anyways, uh I have a couple of important points I do want to lead off with this first one because it sort of ties into what with with what you're gonna play next.
Uh I'm just wondering, you know, what does Biden really know?
Why don't the American people know what he knows?
Uh what is he not?
Well, and no, no, these are classified briefings.
I can guarantee what happened.
I mean, I can't guarantee it, but I know for a fact what happened.
Last week, both campaigns were given briefings as part of the you know, the advanced transition process.
They were given briefings on international threats, and obviously Biden heard it and took what he heard into a couple campaign appearances.
Yeah, well, if it's a credible threat, we should know what it is.
And uh Well No, I I I disagree with that.
I mean part of the you know we we don't want them to know we know it.
That's true.
I I I see that point.
The other thing is, and and and you were talking about this before.
Uh if the but if the drive-by is are gonna refuse to uh you know, they're in the tank, like you said.
If they're gonna refuse to report the truth about Obama and his intention to destroy capitalism and replace it with socialism, who's gonna tell the American people of the truth?
I mean, I know you are, a few people are, but I mean, what will I was joking in the previous call saying the elections in uh 2010 will be suspended.
What'll happen?
The truth will be the truth will show up.
Here's here's the danger.
You can talk about the 2010 midterms and a bunch of Democrats being thrown out and so forth and uh big referendum Obama uh in 2012, but this ignores something that's uh we got a lot of people on our side to say, go ahead and let Obama win.
Show the American people how rotten he's gonna make the country make sure that people find out the truth about Democrats if the and and then socialists like this if the media won't tell them.
Problem is that Barack Obama is gonna have four years to repopulate the Federal Judiciary, not just the Supreme Court.
And I I can see three immediate retirements in the Supreme Court upon Obama's inauguration.
Maybe even before that.
Ruth Buzzy Ginsburg, John Paul Stevens, and maybe even soother.
Souter maybe even be tired.
And then the but but beyond the Supreme Court, you've got the circuit courts, the appellate division, you have the district courts.
These people are appointed for life.
This is how liberals populate the country, the bureaucracy, with people who would never be able to win elections, and they are in there for life, and they legislate from the bench at all levels.
Then you talk about the fellow traveler buddy friends of his who share his his radical ideology that he will appoint at the housing and urban development.
Uh the Health Department, all of these various agencies.
And then we look at what he's going to do to the economy with his tax increases.
You might say, oh, yeah, 2010, the American people see the truth, but there's going to be a lot of damage done by 2010.
And it's the kind of damage that's going to take a generation to roll back.
Now, one thing, I I have a a great piece here by Tony Blankly that appears today at uh I don't know where it's townhall.com.
Real Yeah, yeah, creators.
It's syndicated column, Creators uh syndicate.
And it's uh it's entitled The Birth of the Me Too, Conservative.
And his theory about what's going to happen is that there will be a brand new conservative movement that will have to be born if Obama wins.
Because the conservative movement as it exists today is rudderless.
Uh with here here's, you know, the you n you I mean you know the names, and I I I sometimes am hesitant to mention the names because I don't have anything personal here, but you know that there are a bunch of people off our reservation in the conservative media.
And just lately the names being bandied about are Peggy Noonan, David Frum, uh David Brooks.
Now I don't know to what extent these people ever really were on our side, to tell you the truth.
Uh Christopher Buckley.
He's never been a doctrinaire conservative uh like his father was.
He set out to distance himself from his father like all sons do, and Kathleen Parker.
Now, the these names may not be household names to you, but they are pseudo-conservative writers.
And now they're all requested on television all the time because they're ripping Sarah Palin, they're ripping the conservative movement, they've got this new idea of what conservatism ought to be.
And uh they're trying to redefine it.
These this is the crowd saying Reagan uh era of Reagan is over.
Uh these are the people who are embarrassed by Sarah Palin because she's not an intellectual and she didn't go to Harvard or whatever, have a college degree from approved universities, and she drops her G's from words like morning and says morning.
She just she's embarrassing.
And I think something el I I think something else really bothering these people is that they believe that she may become one of the key leaders of the conservative movement beyond 2004 if uh if she and McCain lose this.
But what's happening, you know, I I I've been trying to analyze what's happening to the conservative movement on on our intellectual side.
And by the way, I don't consider myself on the intellectual side at all.
Neither do they.
You know, I'm...
Intellectuals are people that have what they think is an IQ and an educational commonality.
Of course, I'm disqualified from any of that.
thankfully so, because I don't have a college degree.
I just chewed college to pursue my dreams.
But but but they're they're they're just they're all over the place, and there's an realignment here on the conservative side.
It's taking place on the basis of so-called intellect.
And that's why some of these people are drifting to Obama.
He sounds smart, sick and tired of Republican leaders who can't communicate.
And they don't think McCain can communicate.
They don't like the fact that Bush couldn't.
And the reason this is happening, people say, how come the conservative movement is fracturing when there's a blueprint?
There's a blueprint for winning it.
1980.
There's a blueprint.
McCain is not the blueprint for how Republicans win landslides.
Going after moderates independence and all these yokels is not the blueprint, the blueprints there.
1994, taking back the house, the blueprints there.
Why are these people ignoring it?
I'm a little long, so let me take a break.
I'll explain this when we come back.
It's not complicated.
Okay, so why all of these defections, if you will, to Obama from people that you've always thought were conservative?
Well, again, these are conservative elites, uh, conservative intellectuals, and they simply are embarrassed that McCain can't speak in their minds that Bush haven't been able to talk, and that Sarah Palin's a hick.
I mean, they they're just embarrassed.
And so they they align on the basis of style, not substance.
That's that's what you know these people are not associating or drifting to Obama because of his substance.
It's not that they have a ban of conservatism, it's that they like the style.
They're just they're just they're they're fed up with no style.
Now, would this be happening if there were a strong elected Republican conservative who were showing the way?
It would not.
Since there is not a strong elected conservative anywhere, then conservatism right now is in a it's sort of like wandering in the distance with every conservative thinking they're the smartest person in the room trying to show the way to the light.
The way to the light is plainly visible.
But everybody wants to be considered the smartest people in the room, so they come up with all these new things like the era of Reagan is over.
One of the most recent things going on in the conservative movement is to figure out how we too can become distributists, redistribute, redistribu.
How how we too can become smaller I can't say the word.
I can't, I just it bugs me to say it.
We've got people on our side are trying to figure out how they too can make our party one that wants to redist reistribute it.
But but smarter.
But but better.
These are people who think the Republican Party has lost the Walmart class because we don't care enough.
We're seen as not caring, we don't get so the way to show that we care is to also redistribute wealth, but smarter and bet and this would never be happening.
This would never be happening if there were an elected genuine conservative who were showing the way.
Well, so we're in a vacuum right now.
Tony blankly writes about this today, the birth of the me too conservative.
Until the election of President Reagan five decades later, these me too Republicans supported rather than opposed Democrat Party policies, but claim they would administer them better.
Of course, this led to a half century of Democrat dominance of American government and politics.
Here's the last paragraph.
Well, last two paragraphs.
I suspect that the conservative movement we start rebuilding on the ashes of November 4th, even if McCain wins, will have little use for overwritten, overdelicate commentary.
The new movement will be plain spoken, socially networked, up from the interneted streets, suburbs, and small towns of America.
It certainly will not listen very attentively to those conservatives who idolatrize Obama and collaborate in heralding his revival.
The new conservative movement will be facing a political opponent that will reveal itself soon to be both multiculturalist and euro-socialist.
We will be engaged in a struggle to the political death for the soul of the country.
As I did at the beginning of and throughout the Buckley, Goldwater, Reagan, Gingrich Conservative movement, I'll try to lend my hand.
I certainly will do what I can to make it a big tent conservative movement.
But just as it does in every great cause, one question has to be answered correctly.
Whose side are you on, comrade?
So this is what I mean.
We're gonna one step at a time.
We drag McCain across the finish line and we start rebuilding the conservative movement.
It's gonna happen whether he wins or loses, but especially if he wins, too.
Back in a second.
And right on schedule, yet another poll.
The IBD tip poll now has it tightening to 3.7, right on schedule, as I told you.
▲
Export Selection