RUSH: There are several teachable moments about Obama's budget, about tax increases on the so-called rich, and it's an opportunity for that. It's just an opportunity to arm you with more information to get the truth of what is happening right before our very eyes. I don't want to use the word "dictator" here, but do you realize that there is no traditional debate going on with any of this legislation? There probably will be with the budget that he submitted, but there's no debate, there are no hearings, the Republicans are not being included. They're just ramming this stuff through from top down, White House through Reid and Pelosi, and it's just happening. It just gets worse every day the amount of expansion of government. I don't know to categorize this as spending resonates with people anymore. I just don't.
There's some conflicting polling news out there. For example, I've got this from Rasmussen: "In early October, as the meltdown of the financial industry gained momentum following the collapse of Lehman Brothers, a Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey found that 59% of US voters agreed with Ronald Reagan that 'government is not the solution to our problem; government is the problem.' Since then, the stock market has fallen roughly 3,000 points, millions of jobs have been lost, nearly a trillion dollars has been spent so far to bail out the financial industry, an additional $787-billion government stimulus package has been approved, and a new president has taken office who has proposed spending billions and billions more. Despite all that, a new Rasmussen Reports telephone survey shows that the basic views of the American people have not change: 59% of voters still agree with Reagan's inaugural address statement. Only 28% disagree, and 14% are not sure." Okay, so there's that.
Let me ask you people, based on what you're seeing, and based on what you're seeing reported in the Drive-By Media, do you believe that? If 59% of the people in October opposed Big Government, then how the hell did the election end up the way it ended up? Well, now, wait. Don't jump too quick on that. Now, there is an answer to that, there is a huge answer to that, and we have our, once again, conservative intelligentsia to thank for this. There wasn't a choice last November between smaller government and Big Government. The choice we had was two versions of Big Government. We had two versions of the same thing. "We gotta target Hispanics," Republicans and Democrats say, "We gotta target minorities. We gotta target the Walmarts." All of the people in our midst, the smartest people in the room, said, "You can't win elections anymore with stale conservatism. We gotta be more like them. We gotta recognize people want Big Government. We have to recognize there is a role and people are demanding it, and if we say that we don't believe in this we're going to forever lose."
So, we gave them our version of Big Government, with the candidacy of McCain and our brilliant cadre of intelligentsia, the conservative media, some of whom now are writing columns warning us of the mistakes -- of what we must do to fix all this -- when they themselves were largely responsible for promoting our nominee and our candidate and our message. David Broder today, writing in the Washington Post, it's kind of funny. He says, well, we didn't know we were getting such a gambler when we elected Barack Obama. Who is "we," Mr. Broder? I am stunned at all of the people -- it's not a whole lot of people right now, but it's a number that's growing. The people who now say, "I didn't think this is what this is all about, all this spending, all these tax increases." How in the world could you have not? Do people not understand who liberals are and what they do? Do people not have the ability to go look at Obama's voting record? Did people check their intellects at the door during the whole campaign, and they saw something other than Obama?
Now they're starting to get a little dose of it, "Whoa, wait a second, I'm not sure this is what I had in mind," blah, blah, blah, blah, blah. Too late now. Now they all want to come to the table. We tried to warn everybody and it just fell on deaf ears. Okay, so 59% still believe government's the problem. I can see where it might be true even in October because there wasn't a candidate on the ballot that believed in government is the problem and we need to make it smaller and less intrusive and all that, yada yada yada. Okay, but the number hasn't changed. The Rasmussen number hasn't changed. In October to today, same percentage, 59% still believe government's the problem. Yet I saw a survey today on some CBS blog page, and they did a scientific survive, it's not the CBS/New York Times poll, but they did a scientific survey of 500-some-odd people. Eighty percent loved the Obama speech. Eighty percent loved it. Now, let's be honest. There was some stuff in that speech that did sound, in terms of social and cultural aspects, sounded Reaganesque. There certainly was nothing in it Reaganesque about taxes or spending or any of that. But then we have to keep in mind that people don't hear what Obama says, they see him say it, and they see him say he wants to fix America, and say, "Whoa, okay, that's cool."
So we find ourselves here in the midst of a very frustrating point in our lives. People who normally have high IQs or reasonably high IQs had IQbotomies. They found a way to remove their IQ from their brain and put it aside and proceed solely and purely on the basis of emotion. Those of us who proceed solely and entirely on the basis of facts, philosophy, theory, evidence, we are considered old-fashioned, "Come on, you know, that's old stuff, that doesn't matter to anybody anymore." Fifty-nine percent still believe government's the problem. Rasmussen's got a great poll record, got a great track record. Let's say that it's true. Snerdley doesn't believe it's accurate, but let's just say for the sake of discussion, let's say that it is. We have conservative, slash, Republicans, oftentimes two different entities, attempting here to figure out how to react to all of this, how to slow it down, 'cause we know we can't stop it. See, that's the hard, cold reality. None of this can be stopped, but we can slow it down. But it's gonna take a strategery, and it's going to take onions, metal onions, steel onions. It's gonna take, once you start it, you can't back off of it.
It's gonna take a strategic program to take on Obama and Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi and to suggest -- like the Democrats always did during Clinton -- this is not what the American people want. The Drive-Bys will do counterpolls, the Drive-Bys will show that this poll is wrong and so forth, but, believe me, there is a base, a sizable base of opposition to all this going on out there, and it's larger than anybody knows because the Drive-Bys, when they do report on it, they make fun of it. On the Today Show today they tried to once again to skewer Rick Santelli. Matt Lauer tried to skewer Santelli and even insulted his wife. We have the audio sound bites. The drumbeat against me as someone who wants Obama to fail personally has been ratcheted up again. I will deal with this again today because it's fun, and it's crucial. And besides, ladies and gentlemen, I like being right. I'm not intimidated by being right when people criticize me for it and I don't care what any establishment thinks of what I say. I love saying it when I know that it's right. So I don't even have to defend it. I'm just going to repeat it again.
I hope, especially with what we've seen now, I hope he fails in implementing all this. Let me ask you a question. Two years ago, do you think people would have hoped Bernie Madoff would have succeeded? Two years ago, if they knew what he was doing, do you think they would want him to succeed at what he was doing? Well, hell's bells, no way, they would want Madoff to fail, and they would want Madoff shut down and they'd want him to get caught, right? To me this is a no-brainer, and some of these people who are saying, "You can't say that," are then saying it themselves without using the word. I am told that South Carolina Governor Mark Sanford called me an idiot, not by name, but he said, "Anybody who wants Obama to fail is an idiot." Well, I don't know anybody else who said it. I've met him a bunch of times, he's been very nice, gone out of his way to come up and say hello. But, see, politicians have different audiences than I do and they've gotta say things in different ways, so after he said, "Anybody who wants Obama to fail is an idiot," then went on in his own way to say, "Gosh, I hope this doesn't work." But he just had to say, "We don't want the president to fail." Hell, we don't. We want something to blow up here, politically, we want something not to go right.
This is not just mortgaging the future. This is a full-fledged attack on capitalism. This is a reordering and a transformation of the basic free market structure of this country. We are talking about individual liberty here. We're talking about freedom that is under assault. Nobody's got the guts to put it that way; nobody's got the guts to talk about it in that way. Everybody wants to talk about it within the confines of policy as though these are just normal proposals and we've got our normal objections and we'll find a way to beat this. This is not normal policy, what's being proposed here. This is not FDR. This is not LBJ. This is those two guys on steroids. The objective is even different. The objective is total, 100% personal control and power, not just about setting the Democrat Party up forever. This is about setting up Obama as the most powerful person ever in this country, and there are, I am convinced, several reasons that have happened in Obama's life that make this quest his own. It's exactly what is happening here. The Democrats on Capitol Hill look at this as a great opportunity to get in their old pet projects, the things they've wanted to do to create as much dependency, expand the government, and there aren't the votes anywhere to stop it. Hard, cold reality. All that can be done is to slow it down.
But this fear, and it's a genuine fear that exists in the Republican Party today, even as we speak, there is a genuine, palpable fear of tying any of this to Obama. There's no fear trying to tie it to Reid, no fear trying to tie it to Pelosi. But we don't have anybody with the onions; there is nobody with the guts to tie this to Obama. They are afraid, they see the approval numbers of 60, 70%, whatever they are, they say universal adoration and love, there's nothing to be gained by being seen in opposition to Obama, but it's okay to be seen in opposition to those two weirdos, Reid and Pelosi. Well, this is Obamas agenda, folks, this is Obama's deal. You cannot, simply cannot credibly oppose this without tying him to it. Besides, it's the truth, it's a fact, it's Obama's agenda, especially now with the release of the budget, the stimulus plan and so forth.
RUSH: I'm just telling you that this budget is an assault on freedom, and that's how this budget needs to be viewed. It's a mistake to look at this within the confines of everyday Washington policy and to take it apart and look at it in the sense of policy. I had so many conversations with Republicans who love to get into the policy minutia, the process of all this. And I get so damn frustrated. I say, "What happened to your philosophy here? Do you realize when you get into these policy and process debates with these people, you are letting them set the agenda, and all you're doing is reacting to it?" We gotta stop reacting to their agenda and have one of our own, fearlessly. What does anybody got to lose? We can't stop anything.
What does anybody have to lose standing up for a United States of America as we have traditionally known our country? What in the world is there to lose from standing up when you're right? What's there to lose? (doing sniveling politician voice) "But, Rush! But, Rush! I may be criticized and I have to get reelected." I understand that, but I guarantee you, you got a better chance of getting reelected as a person of principle. You know, it's getting to the point we're going to put politics aside. This is not even about politics anymore, folks. This is really not even about politics. I'm going to have to come up with a way of explaining that so you understand what I mean. This is not about politics. It's a political coup, maybe, if you want to look at it that way.
RUSH: James Carville and the Democrat Party cannot forget me. They can't leave me alone. They don't want to. They think that I am the focal point; I'm the focus point of opposition. I am the one that the Democrats have to launch on because I, in their minds, am the intellectual and policy leader. So Carville was on The Situation Room on CNN last night, and the host, Wolf Blitzer, said, "We should know, James, sooner rather than later if all this money being spent will work or not work, 'cause the folks' bottom lines and their pocketbooks are going to be directly affected." That's exactly right. There will be less money in the folks' pocketbooks. Here's what Carville said.
CARVILLE: It's gonna take a while for it to work. And -- and -- as I point out, the most influential Republican in the United States today, Mr. Rush Limbaugh, said that he did not want, uhhh, President Obama to succeed. So at the very top echelon of the Republican Party, he's not being wished well here. He lends 'em a hand and they slap his hand, I think he'll continue to do that. But right now, as long as they're taking their orders from Rush Limbaugh, it don't seem like there's going to be a lot of cooperation.
RUSH: There's not going to be cooperation here, James. Why do I want this to work? Why do I want an attack on capitalism to succeed? Why should any of us want that? Why should anybody want a fundamental restructuring of the United States of America to succeed? What is so hard to understand about this? Let's say that you're a fan of the Pittsburgh Steelers. They've just come back and scored the touchdown that puts them up four points with 15 seconds to go, and Kurt Warner of the Arizona Cardinals drops back. You damn well better believe I wanted Warner to fail. I wanted Warner to screw it up. I wanted him to fumble. I wanted him to get tackled on his backside. The last thing I wanted was Warner to succeed in beating the Steelers. Now, what is so unusual about this?
When was the last time we ever heard the Democrats say, "Gosh, I hope Bush succeeds"? Do you realize what a straw dog this is? And here come a bunch of cowardly Republicans who know exactly what I said and know exactly what I mean, but because of the historical nature and the aura and the power of The One, "Oh, no, we can't... We can't... We gotta hope he succeeds." Do you realize what a hypocrite it makes all of you on our side, when you say you "hope he succeeds" means? Do you realize how your own voters hear that? What does both of my succeeding mean? Somebody tell me. Some of you on our side, I want to hear from you on the phones. If you can't find it within yourself that you hope he fails. Because, you see, Obama failing is a victory for the America I've always known, the America I grew up in.
Obama failing to socialize this country is success for the country. It's a victory for the country. Obama failing to confiscate the wealth of the achievers and the producers in this country, that's success. That's victory for America. Now, as I have said, I don't know Obama personally, and I'm sure he's a nice guy to have a beer with or what have you. Like Clinton was going out to chase women, have a beer, go to a ball game. None of that matters to me. Yeah, he's my president. But the "historical nature" of this, I got over that back in the fall. This is about really serious stuff. This is not about the simple little game of Democrats win, Republicans lose. This is about America winning or losing, and we know this. Here, Daniel Henninger in the Wall Street Journal today, "A Radical Presidency."
Let me just read you the last paragraph. "Unless the [Republican Party] can discover a radical message of its own to distinguish it from the president's, [Republican Party] should prepare to live under Mr. Obama's radicalism for at least a generation." That's 25 years. I mean, if you're gonna come up with a radical agenda and a radical message to oppose a radical presidency, how can you say you hope he succeeds? You're going to go out there, you're going to craft a radical agenda to oppose this, and at the same time say, "We want the president to succeed." Nonsense! So I'm happy to say this. I don't understand what's so difficult to say about it, in every walk of life.
You know, I'll guarantee you the people at Apple hope that people up at Microsoft screw it up. They hope Microsoft fails with its iPhone imitation or its iPod imitation, whatever it was. The Zune? They hoped it failed, and they probably worked hard to make it fail with advertising. What is so difficult about this? "But, Rush! But Rush! The first black president. He's the president of the United States!" Yeah, he is the most radical, leftist, agitating, community organizing president we've ever had, too -- and, by the way, I am offended when this man equates himself with Abraham Lincoln. Abraham Lincoln properly receives and received the respect and the high honors because Abraham Lincoln walked all over this country making speech after speech after speech, debate, debate, debate, explained.
There was nobody who did not know what Abraham Lincoln was all about. Abraham Lincoln did not run around and say things like, "There will be no earmarks in my budget," when there are 9,000 earmarks in the budget. These endless comparisons to great presidents of the past, this is an ego trip, folks. It's dangerous to me. It's an ego trip and it's a power trip. So you have a combination. Now throw Reagan in the loop. We got a Reaganesque guy on Tuesday night. We got Lincoln every day. We got FDR now and then. Give me a break. It's time to stop being cowed by all this. "But, Rush! But, Rush! The people! The people are enamored."
Yeah. Well, have you ever heard of information education? There are ways to do this. How did the American people get to where they are? Think they arrived there on their own, at least the majority that voted for Obama. Did they just happen to evolve into dependency on government, into liberals and vote that way? Did that just evolve, or were they persuaded, cajoled, intimidated, or what have you, along the way to get them to where they are now? We all know it's the latter. Because fear is a paralysis. Being afraid, particularly when you're right, and then being afraid of having to defend yourself when you're right. Don't defend. Go on offense! Do you realize how easy it would be for me to say, "Yeah, you know what? I did misspeak. I didn't want to apologize. I really don't want the president to fail.
"I didn't mean it to sound so caustic." I couldn't do it. I couldn't live with myself after the program in which I would have said that, 'cause I don't mean it. But can you imagine how many people might have loved me? Can you imagine how many people might have, "You know, Rush, that was a very mature thing you did." The answer is, I wouldn't have changed one person's mind about me, because the opinions that are held of me -- and Republicans need to learn this. The Republicans, the negative opinions held of me have nothing to do with what I say, have nothing to do with where I live, have nothing to do with what I drive, have nothing to do with anything other than I oppose 'em. And anybody who opposes them has gotta be stopped. So a lot of people are afraid to stand up in opposition.
Now, I'll admit, quarrying and holding an audience in the media is different than getting votes in an election and getting reelected. For example, I could not get elected to anything, even if I wanted to run. First commercial: "The man who invented the word 'feminazi.'" I mean, I never had those "perspirations." So I've never had to live a life of paying attention every day to what might happen to me 30 years down the road in terms of public approval or any of that. So I know they live in a different world, and they don't have to go about and approach things in a different way, but my gosh! You can't get more serious than the country, the way it was founded, what it means, why it succeeded, why it's great: individual liberty and a steadfast moral code born of a devout religious belief among the founders.
That's what gave us the United States of America. John Adams even said it, paraphrasing: "We wrote a Constitution for moral and religious people. We do not have a mechanism in this document to deal with people who are not religious or moral." We're finding that out. We see it right in front of us as the left tries to rewrite via their judges the Constitution itself, and they know it doesn't apply. They know it's restrictive. They know it's restrictive on immorality. But it's a common moral code at the founding, a common set of moral beliefs and it's the essence and the testament in the documents to the source of our essence, our yearning to be free. We're all created, with inalienable rights from our Creator: life, liberty, pursuit of happiness.
All three are under assault by the left. Do you realize that if you are having problems in poverty, Planned Parenthoods will open their doors to you? That's how easily they stuck you in. Once Planned Parenthood gets you in there they show you all kinds of things on having abortions -- and then life, liberty? Not with this administration. You want to tell me that there's liberty when a bank, which didn't need bailout money, was forced to take it? It does its second year sponsorship of a golf tournament in Los Angeles, servicing existing clients, thanking them for being good customers, trying to get new customers, and has legislation proposed against them being able to ever do this again by people like Barney Frank and John Kerry?
You want to say liberty is not under assault? Pursuit of happiness. Who's happy? Does Obama make you happy? So Obama inspires. When you listen to Obama, do you end up thinking that he wants you to be happy? In fact, if you're happy, don't people dislike you and resent you. "What are you happy about?" The Democrat Party today, the American left from Obama and everybody on down; life, liberty, pursuit of happiness and the Declaration of Independence are not for them. The Constitution doesn't fit, and we're in the midst now of them realizing a dream that they've had for decades, totally turning America upside down. Do I want that to succeed? Nope. I want it to fail.
RUSH: From CNN, The Situation Room, Wolf Blitzer. Democrat strategerist James Carville and Republican strategerist Tucker Eskew had this exchange.
ESKEW: Republicans care deeply about their country. Republicans want us to succeed. He's trying some things that have been proven as failures in the past. We hope he does a better job, but the history of this kind of liberal expansionism is not too promising.
CARVILLE: But Tucker, Rush Limbaugh, the most influential Republican in the country did say that he did not want this president to succeed. I could tell you right now, when it comes to fiscal responsibility, we don't really need any help from Mr. Limbaugh or -- or the previous administration.
RUSH: Whoa, what about bipartisanship? Then what's the big deal, James, if I say I hope he fails, why do you care? See, they need a demon, folks, they need a demon, the left needs a demon. I am happy to serve myself, offer myself in that role to the current crop.