You want to know how bad it is for the Democrats right now?
Even Willie Brown, the mayor, former mayor of San Francisco, in a column over the weekend, said Hillary Clinton is going to lose.
The speaker has a column in the San Francisco Chronicle.
And he wrote that Hillary Clinton's going to lose.
He said, everybody keeps asking me, why did this happen?
Beats me.
When it came to the elections, I was a dreamer who thought the Democrats were going to retain the Senate.
Instead, we got walloped.
And he said the big mistake that the Democrats made was running away from President Obama.
He said that simply played into the Republican strategy of portraying Obama as a failure.
And the party failed to turn out young voters.
Hillary Rodden.
No, we weren't making anything up.
Obama is a failure.
Now, see, you even have to qualify that.
In his own mind, he's not a – in terms of what Obama really wants to do, he's not a failure at all, folks.
Obama is in the midst of overwhelming success.
In terms of what he wants to do, what his agenda has always been.
He's in the midst of overwhelming success.
He's out there saying he didn't sell it well enough.
Oh, that's another.
Let me find this.
I think I put it on the bottom of the stack thinking I wasn't going to get to it and mention it, but now you've reminded me.
I've got to mention this.
He says he didn't sell it well.
This is all smoke and mirrors.
The bottom line is, don't forget the quote that we had from Jonathan Gruber, who admitted they had to lie to the American people about Obamacare in order for it to pass.
And because the American people are too stupid to understand what's good for them.
So Obama, when he says he's got to do a better job of selling, no, that's just smoke and mirrors.
He's saying what he thinks other Democrats in the media want him to say.
He doesn't have to sell it.
Obama's not in sales.
Do you think authoritarian figures wait for public approval to do what they want to do?
Obama doesn't, he's not worried about making a sale on anything here.
That's so crucial to understand.
He's not a salesman.
He's a better pitch or more believable pitch or whatever.
But he said that, let's see, oh, he confirmed, by the way, this is major to me.
He confirmed the Limbaugh theorem.
He literally confirmed it.
This is from the Washington Free Beacon.
After six years of endless campaigning and fundraising, President Obama admitted to Bob Schieffer on Flay the Nation that campaigning and governance are two different things.
He said, here's one thing that I will say, is that campaigning and governance are two different things.
I've ran two successful campaigns, and anybody who's seen me on the campaign trail can tell how much I love just being with the American people and hearing what they care about, how passionate I am about trying to help them.
That's exactly what the Limbaugh theorem is, the constant campaign and the appearance of not governing in the sense of not being responsible for anything.
The Limbaugh theorem as the explanation for how Obama gets away with this.
He's governing against the will of the people.
How did he get away with it for so long?
Because they relied on the stupidity of the American people, in their own words.
Obama figured that if he was outside Washington constantly appearing at events that looked like campaign events, And if at those events, he was always presenting his agenda as something everybody was trying to stop in Washington, that he wasn't part of Washington.
He wasn't even, I mean, he was elected, but it didn't matter.
He was still on the campaign trail and still trying to deal with these powerful forces that were arrayed against him rather than appear to be governing and wielding the power that he did and has.
So he's admitted it here to Bob Schieffer.
Schieffer just didn't, he didn't pick it up.
And Bill Clinton is the one who popularizes it.
Clinton popularized the permanent campaign.
In the permanent campaign, you can always be at war.
If you're in a permanent campaign, you can constantly be waging war against your enemies.
But that doesn't look cool if you're waging war against your enemies when you're in the most powerful office in the world.
It just wouldn't look right.
So Obama did not ever want to convey the appearance of governing so as to avoid any accountability for what was happening.
He would go out and campaign against the very things he was implementing.
And he just, he admits it.
He admitted it on Slay the Nation yesterday.
Yep, there's a big difference in campaign and governing.
And, you know, I've kind of figured out the campaign part.
That's all I do.
And I've got to get better at governing.
And that's a signal to look out for these past two years, or the next two.
Keep a sharp eye.
Now, ladies and gentlemen, for those of you too young to have remembered, or to those of you who weren't paying attention back in the 1980s, let me give you a little history lesson.
During the 1980s, the al-Qaeda of the day was the Soviet Union, and to a lesser extent, the Chikons.
But the Soviet Union was the enemy of the United States, acknowledged enemy of the United States.
Soviet communism was expanding.
Every Soviet leader, Gorbachev, Brezhnev, Yuri Andropov, were doing their best to expand communist beachheads all over the world, Nicaragua, Cuba, you name it.
They were literally trying to expand everywhere.
The Democrat Party did not see the Soviet Union as much of an enemy.
They didn't see the Soviet Union as much of a threat.
They saw the Soviet Union as a great attempt, actually, at equality and fairness in governing a society.
Ronald Reagan got elected in 1980 on three premises.
The first of which was rebuilding the U.S. military that had become dilapidated under Jimmy Carter.
The second was revitalizing a U.S. economy, which had become moribund under Jimmy Carter and the Democrats.
And the third leg of the Reagan stool was defeating Soviet communism and taking them seriously.
He was elected in two landslide elections to do it.
And he made no bones about it.
And any effort by the Soviets to expand in Nicaragua, or didn't matter how big or how small, Reagan opposed it at every turn.
This angered the Democrat Party to no end, and the Democrat Party and the media were running around constantly portraying Ronald Reagan as the greatest danger to world peace.
Not Mikhail Gorbachev or not Brezhnev.
For the first five years of the Reagan administration, he refused to meet with the Soviet leader.
To the media, the Democrat Party, that was dangerous.
You got to meet with them.
You got to have dialogue.
You got to talk.
Nuclear weapons, nuclear warheads all over the place, and nuclear arms races.
Nukes are going over.
You won't talk.
And Reagan said, they keep dying on me.
They're not staying in office long enough to have a meeting.
That made them mad.
That made the Democrats and the media mad.
Reagan believed the Soviet Union would implode because of its own immorality.
He believed that communism would ultimately implode on itself, but that didn't mean he didn't want to urge it along and help that along.
But if you weren't around to remember, it was really acrimonious.
The media and the Democrat Party hated Ronald Reagan.
They despised Reagan because he was an unabashed conservative.
They despised Reagan because he believed in smaller government.
All of the precepts of conservatism.
He personified them.
He epitomized them.
And he was better than anybody at explaining them and selling them.
He was better than anybody at creating positive, uplifting attitudes, courageous, inspiring attitudes in millions and millions of people.
The Democrat Party had nobody that could do this.
And Reagan thus was a constant, presented as a constant threat.
Reagan was characterized as deranged, asleep half the time, fingered dangerously poised on the nuclear trigger, and he would wipe out the world in a moment's notice.
It was dangerous.
It was horrible.
And all of this anti-Soviet talk was unnecessary.
It was provocative.
It was destabilizing.
All it was going to do was make the Soviets mad.
The Democrat Party and the media thought it was impossible to defeat the Soviet Union.
They were too big.
They were too powerful.
And they didn't want the Soviet Union defeated.
They thought that we should peacefully coexist and have an interchange and inter exchange of ideas and that there could be cultural exchanges and we had a lot to learn from them.
They could learn something from us, but the Soviet Union was established.
It was there.
It was legitimate and it had no business being talked about the way Reagan talked about it.
And then all of these old Soviet leaders began to die off, and they got a new one.
And he was younger than any Soviet leader had ever been.
His name was Mikhail Segevich Gorbachev.
The American media and the Democrat Party immediately fell in love with Mikhail Gorbachev.
And it was hoped and thought that Mikhail Gorbachev was actually going to save the world from Ronald Reagan.
Reagan was a dangerous cowboy.
Reagan was undisciplined.
Reagan was uneducated.
He was a dunce.
Tip O'Neill called him an amiable dunce, but he was still a dunce, but Gorbachev.
Now, Gorbachev, there was a man in whom we could place our total trust.
And then Gorbachev came along and proposed a couple of things called perestroika and glasnost.
And in the interests of saving time, what those things were were simple attempts by Gorbachev to institute a little bit of freedom amongst the Soviet people while maintaining an iron fist grouping on them and communism.
What had happened was American culture began to infiltrate the Iron Curtain.
Something as simple as reruns of the Dallas TV series put the lie to what the Soviet leadership told their population about America.
And then Levi's genes and so much of pop culture began to undermine the Soviet leadership, they began to lose control of their population.
So they tried to institute glasnost little openness at perestroika, which was designed actually to fool the American media into thinking that the Soviet Union was engaging in reform, and that made Gorbachev all the more popular.
Gorbachev became even more loved.
He was instituting necessary reforms.
He's not going to give up communism.
Communism was not a bad thing.
Still isn't to these people.
Communism is a great thing.
It just hasn't had enough money yet.
It hasn't had the right people tried.
Eminently fair.
Everybody's equal.
Everybody's the same.
And the rich have everything taken away from them.
It's imminently fair.
And Gorbachev finally came along and made it look like he was going to be the guy that could finally sit down, have a meeting with the United States, and convince Reagan not to blow up the world.
And a meeting was scheduled in Washington, D.C. Gorbachev was to come to the United States and actually have a meeting with Reagan.
At which time, Gorbachev would tell Reagan how it was going to be.
At which time, Mikhail Gorbachev would save the world from Ronald Reagan.
And how that panned out when we get back.
Ronald Reagan referred to the Soviet Union as the evil empire.
That angered the American media and the Democrat Party like you can't believe.
Reagan went into the radio studio one day to record a Saturday morning presidential address and before recording joked the bombing starts in five minutes.
That was leaked out and the press and the Democrat Party went bonkers thinking Reagan was on the verge of losing and was literally going to bomb this.
You didn't joke about the Soviet Union.
You didn't joke about nuclear weapons.
It was horrible.
And so when Gorbachev and the birthmark, which grew as the Soviet Union expanded, you could see that birthmark.
You see Maine, you see the East Coast, see Florida.
As the Soviets' expansion and infiltration of U.S. culture grew, so did the Gorbachev birthmark.
And then finally, ladies and gentlemen, the trip to Washington was announced.
Mikhail Segevich Gorbachev, the lovely and gracious wife, Raisa, would come and, by the way, show Nancy Reagan a thing or two about China.
I'm talking about plates, dinner service China.
Nancy Reagan had nothing on Reza Gorbachev.
And so finally, it's at Andrews Air Force Base.
And there is a gathered throng awaiting the arrival of Mikhail Segevich Gorbachev.
State Department luminaries, administration figures, media, and members of the public who could get in were all waiting as the leader of the evil empire arrived on American soil to save the world from the evil finger of Ronald Reagan.
And then they saw it.
The Aleutian 62 jetliner on final approach at Andrews Air Force Base.
The technology to build that plane, by the way, stolen from Boeing.
It landed.
The Aleutian 62 jetliner carrying Mikhail Segeevich Gorbachev and the communist leadership began to taxi near where the throngs were gathered to hail the arrival of the savior of the planet Earth.
Mikhail Segeevich Gorbachev.
And I'm not exaggerating this.
This is exactly how it was portrayed in the American media.
The plane kept taxiing and got closer and closer.
And as it got closer and closer, the anticipation in the crowd began to build.
And in places visible to the naked eye, you could see that building and building anticipation becoming harder and harder to contain.
The level of excitement and the hope for the savior of the world was now only yards away.
Finally, the Yelushin 62 Soviet jetliner, technology stolen from Boeing, pulled to a stop in front of the gathered throng.
For the longest time, the door did not open.
This led to further anticipation on the part of the crowd, all of which, all of whom, were deeply invested in saving the planet from the United States of America.
Even Laura Dern was there, fresh from an appearance on Phil Donahue's show, in which she broke down in tears, claiming people didn't know what it was like to grow up with the threat of nuclear weapons.
She forgot that her parents and grandparents had served in World War II and a number of other things.
But never mind.
The door finally opened and the stairs were rolled up.
And still, no sign of Gorbachev, just a bunch of underlings, flight attendants, support staff gathering at the top of the stairs and walking down.
It was noted that Reagan was not there.
And then, all at once, there he was.
Mikhail Segeevich Gorbachev had arrived, standing atop the stairs, just outside the front door of the Ilyushin 62 Soviet jetliner, technology to build it stolen from Boeing.
He waved, and the crowd could barely contain itself.
Screams of delight, shouts of sheer and pure joy emanated from the hundreds and hundreds gathered to witness the arrival of the man who was going to save the world from Ronaldos Magnus.
And then he took off the hat, and there it was, the birthmark.
And instantly, the crowd went nuts and began screaming, squealing with delight and uncontrolled passion, sheer joy, the likes of which had not been experienced outside a Soviet jetliner ever.
Shouts from the crowd could be heard.
Oh my God!
Oh my God!
He's here!
He has come!
Oh my God, we're saved!
Gorbachev is here!
And the first public gorbasm ever to happen on record was witnessed.
Gorbachev then walked down the stairs, got in the Soviet Zill limousine four miles to the gallon, just a piece of junk car, and drove off to the Soviet embassy to keep spying on the American people.
Got some sleep, then had the meeting, and Reagan had his way with him.
By the way, the reason Gorbachev's back in the news today is because Gorbachev is accusing America of giving in to triumphalism after the collapse of the Soviet Union and the dissolution of the communist bloc.
And he says that we're on the brink of a brand new Cold War, and that would be horrible.
In fact, Gorbachev says we're not even on the brink.
Some are even saying the new Cold War has already begun.
This was at an event marking the 25th anniversary of the fall of the Berlin Wall, and which, by the way, is being understandably completely mischaracterized by the American media.
There are stories today that the Berlin Wall came down not because of any pressure by the United States or Reagan, but rather because of idiotic bureaucratic decisions in East Germany.
I kid you not.
And the reason for this is, and don't doubt me, folks, communism cannot be seen to have failed.
It cannot be seen to have been weak.
Communism was given up by Gorbachev.
You must understand the Cold War, the first Cold War ended because Gorbachev ended it.
Gorbachev was the visionary.
Gorbachev was the savior.
That never changed.
Gorbachev has been accusing the U.S. of triumphalism every time the Republicans win an election.
You could go back every time, if it's the presidency, if it's a midterm election like that, whenever the Republicans win an election, Mikhail Gorbachev, who is no different than your modern-day Obama Democrat today, runs around and starts wringing his hands to talking about triumphalism, meaning it's not nice to gloat when you win.
And this notion of triumphalism, meaning like your big deal when you win, that's not good for the world.
That leads to destabilization.
That leads to the idea there's only one superpower and that's not good.
That destabilizes the world.
Because in Gorbachev's world, there were no good guys except him and the KGB.
The United States was not the good guys.
And it's true even to this day.
We're on the brink of a new Cold War.
Why?
Well, because Obama just lost.
The Republicans just won, and that leads to triumphalism.
Yes, it's so predictable.
Everybody, I don't care who they are on the left, if it's former communist leaders, if it's Democrats in this country.
When the Republicans win, it is always the end of the world.
And such is the case today.
Here's Patty in Palmyra, Pennsylvania.
As we head back to the phones, great to have you, Patty.
I'm glad you waited.
Hello.
Oh, Rush, thank you so much for taking my call.
You bet.
It's an honor to speak with you.
Thank you.
The reason I'm calling is I received a letter today from my insurance company for my health care.
And starting January of 2015, my premium will be going up $511.02 quarterly.
$2,000 a year.
Yes.
And I'm going to go ahead and do that.
President Obama said your premium is going to go down $2,500.
Do you remember that?
Yes, I remember that, but I didn't believe anything Obama said, Rush.
Rush, I just hope and pray that the Republicans understand that this election is truly about them stopping this madness.
This is insanity, what's happening to America.
Let me just tell you that there are a lot of pressures being applied to the Republicans by, well, some in conservative media, some conservative think tanks, some Republican think, but it's not just about that.
I mean, that's hard to deny, and so it's hard to deny.
So what's happening is that other things are being included.
So they will begrudgingly agree that the election was about stopping Obama, but it also means they want us to work together.
It also means they want Washington to work.
It also means they want a spirit of cooperation.
No, no, literally.
It also means XYZ, whatever.
And they do this.
They attach these mythical meanings as a justification for whatever they intend to do in the future.
So we're just going to have to wait and see.
You know, I don't want to negatively characterize anything until it's time.
Right, right, right.
And Rush, we need another president, Ronald Reagan.
Well, yeah, but that's going to be hard.
I know, I know, but every time I hear him say, Gorbachev, tear down this wall, I still to this day get goosebumps.
And Gorbachev tore it down.
Yes, he did.
That's the bottom line.
He tore it down.
We confronted him.
We tore it down.
The Democrats couldn't have been more wrong about it.
I remember I was when I lived in Sacramento, Jean Kirkpatrick, who was a Reaganite, she was the one that coined the phrase the San Francisco Democrats after their 1984 convention in San Francisco.
She came to give a lecture at the University of California Davis, which was just down the road from Sacramento.
And I had some friends at UC Davis, some professors.
So as a powerful, influential member of the local media, I was invited.
And I went down there, and she came.
Jean Kirkpatrick came and she was a typical Reaganite.
She was confrontational in a humorous way with this collection of students.
She knew these were UC Davis students.
That meant they were radical leftist students.
And they believed the United States was the focus of evil in the world.
They believed the United States was the problem.
They believed, I mean, they literally believed that Gorbachev was the answer.
I cannot emphasize that enough for those of you that were not old enough then or were not paying attention.
Gorbachev genuinely was thought to be savior every time he and Reagan got to get Reykjavik in Iceland, didn't matter when.
I mean, it was, they literally were Gorbasins.
That's why I invented the term.
It's what they were having.
And she came in and one the first, in the first five minutes of her lecture, she just laid it out for me.
She said, I want you students, and I see students, I want you, ladies and gentlemen, I want you to understand one thing.
The only difference between Mikhail Gorbachev and previous Soviet leaders is that he is alive.
And the place erupted with booze and cat calls and hollers and hisses as these young UC Davis students heard the last thing they wanted to hear.
They wanted Gorbachev portrayed as angelic and brilliant because Gorbachev was going to end the nuclear threat.
And they were literally scared to death that Reagan was going to set the world on fire just to beat the Soviet Union.
And they were made to believe that by other Democrats and the media and their professors.
Also at UC Davis, there was a debate that I likewise was invited to attend.
William F. Buckley and Thomas Sowell were debating a couple of leftist professors, UC Davis.
And Buckley and Sowell just skunked these people.
And the student body was just deflating in front of my eyes as I watched this.
It was the greatest, greatest thing.
One UC Davis, one of the leftists stood up, started talking about Thomas Jefferson out of the blue.
And Buckley interrupted him.
I didn't ask you about Thomas Jefferson.
You don't know what you're talking about, Thomas Jefferson.
The nature of my question was, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah.
And the guy started again fumbling around and answering some other question, and Buckley just refused to allow it, made him stay on point.
And the students thought Buckley was being rude and impolite.
It was just great.
It was fabulous.
Those were great days because back then there was no fear of the Democrats.
There was no fear of the media.
Well, there was, but not from the top.
You know, Reagan just laughed at them and frustrated the heck out of them.
He had the confidence of having won two landslides.
That's why I say earlier that confidence is so crucial to attitude.
I mean, there's nothing better.
There is nothing.
And I don't care what endeavor you are engaged in.
If you can somehow manage to go about it confidently, changes everything.
And back then, our side had that confidence because it came from on high.
And it was, it's always is going to be one of the most frustrating things to me is that after those eight years, it didn't take long.
The American people thought it was safe to go back and vote for Democrats.
Now, there was a little bit more involved than just that.
I mean, there was the four years after Reagan, which, you know, read my lips, no new taxes, and still got new taxes.
And so there was a lot of fruit.
And then Clinton and Gore came along to talk about the worst economy in the last 50 years as the effort to revise the unbridled greatness of the 80s was in full swing.
I mean, they were every day of every waking hour doing their best to tell people that the economy of the 80s was fraudulent and phony.
It didn't really happen.
And it was a lesson in how you can make people think that what they lived through didn't happen.
And we still face that prospect.
Now, here we've won this big election.
You won one in 2010.
And already, already, Hillary Clinton's anointed as the next president.
Have you noticed already in the media?
Well, yeah, we won big rush, but you wait.
2016 presidential turnout, we don't have a prayer.
The Democrats and demographics and the youth vote and the minority vote that show up in a presidential year that don't show up in a midterm, it's amazing that the defeatism that some people just glom onto already have us losing 2016 because Hillary can't be beat and because Democrats don't lose in presidential races.
After this, that's how intense the Democrats and the media wage the battle to dispirit you even in the moment of triumph.
And by the way, triumphalism, as Gorbachev described, triumphalism is simply when it becomes clear that the United States is a superpower and is the lone superpower.
That's when Gorbachev starts piping up about triumphalism because he hates it.
I mean, he's the guy that presided over the dissolution and the breakup.
He was the guy in power when the Soviet Union was defeated.
And instead, what the media does is try to cast Gorbachev was the visionary and knew that the Soviet Union, as it existed at the time, couldn't survive.
And he's the one that brought freedom and peace to the world.
And he did it in the nick of time, right before Reagan hit that red button to launch the nukes.
I'll be back.
Here is Travis in Lexington, Tennessee.
Great to have you.
Hi.
Hi, Rush.
Thanks for taking my call.
You bet, sir.
Hey, I moved down here to Tennessee back in the 1990s.
And when I moved down here, Tennessee was a solid Democrat state to be counted on in every election.
But I've seen a great transformation over the years as people realize that they really are conservative and not just Democrat.
And so we're seeing that transition take place here.
And I hope the Republicans realize that they now have two branches in Washington and that they really differentiate themselves and they're not just the right leg of the same body politic.
They have a real opportunity because, you know, the Democrats and the liberals, the socialists, they're fighting a hundred-year war for our country, our hearts, and our minds.
The Republicans need to take some solid steps.
They need to have a strategy to win, and that strategy is our Constitution.
And they need to follow those principles, reestablish those principles in our government so they can ensure that our country will be around for another 200 years.
I can't disagree with that.
Well, I appreciate you taking my call and listening to you every day.
And, you know, you give us inspiration out here in the Harvard.
Thank you very much.
I appreciate that.
I'm a little confused.
It said that you wanted to talk about health care and how I had just.
Yeah, well, you know, I don't have time now.
I'm sorry how to.
Carville, you know, when I wish I don't have time.
And I want to know what he was talking about.
You know, I notice here we are.
We're basically five days out from a massive election victory.
And how many calls did we have today from people who are really, really worried that the Republicans are going to blow it?
And I think that is telling, and at the same time, it's interesting to me.
And I think it illustrates that there's still quite a lack of confidence out there, even in light of this victory.