RUSH: Remember yesterday, said I on this program...
RUSH ARCHIVE: I know a lot of you people engage in drinking games on election night. Take a shot, take a slug, take a swig every time a certain word is mentioned. Let me tell you something: Do not play a drinking game today or tonight if you have to take a drink every time the media says, "These primaries are not a referendum on Obama." 'Cause you are going to get smashed and you may die of alcohol poisoning. They may have to run you to the hospital tonight. Do not get into that. Play the drinking game all you want but do not sign up to take a swig, unless you want to kill yourself, every time the media says "not a referendum on Obama."
RUSH: And some people are still drinking today because the media hasn't let up. We have a sample montage, it's a referendum on everything but Obama.
ANDREA MITCHELL: (background noise) ...a referendum on Arlen Specter.
CARL CAMERON: (b-roll) ...a referendum on the 80-year-old Specter.
JONATHAN HOENIG: ...a referendum on government.
MICHAEL SMERCONISH: (background noise) ...a referendum of sorts on organizational politics.
CYNTHIA McFADDEN: ...widely viewed as a referendum on Washington's incumbent.
PAUL BEGALA: ...a referendum on Mitch McConnell.
DYLAN RATIGAN: ...referendum on the status quo.
STUART VARNEY: This is a referendum on debt and spending.
STEVE BROWN: (outdoor noise) ...a referendum on Rand Paul and his views.
GRETCHEN CARLSON: ...a referendum on the national debt.
IAN BREMMER: The referendum is on 17.2% real unemployment.
ANDREA MITCHELL: (background noise) I don't see all of those races as a referendum, at all, on Barack Obama.
RUSH: Well, of course, can't be. Obama was the big winner, don't you see. In truth, Obama was the big loser last night. Look, pro-guns, pro-life, anti-government health care, anti-tax increases, this guy Critz in Pennsylvania-12 did his best to sound like me, the Rush Limbaugh of the Democrat Party. In other words, he lied through his teeth, and he had to do this in a 2-1 Democrat district in order to win. And the Democrats in the media today are clinging to this 2-1 victory as something monumental that turns back all the conventional wisdom that the Republicans were going to sweep to big victory in November. I'm going to issue this challenge again, to all of you at The Politico, all of you in the State-Controlled Media.
If Obama was the big winner last night, or if you want to say that this was not a referendum on Obama, then all Democrats in the House and Senate who are up for reelection should run on Obama's agenda, they should run on Pelosi's agenda, they should run on Harry Reid's agenda. In other words, all of you Democrats, because this is a big victory for Obama last night, all you Democrats running for reelection, go ahead and run on more spending. Go ahead and run on more tax increases. Go ahead and run as an advocate for bigger government. Go ahead and run on the fact that 10% unemployment is something worth celebrating. Go ahead and run on record high foreclosures. Go ahead and run on your support for Porkulus stimulus bills and 20% budget increases. Go ahead. You Democrats up for reelection, you run on attacking Israel, run on your support for amnesty for illegal immigrants. You run on the Obama agenda. You run on the Pelosi agenda. You run on the Harry Reid agenda. You stand side by side with every agenda item you want: tax increases, you want 10% unemployment, you want an ever growing government, you want more bailouts for everybody in the world paid for by us, you want to attack Israel, you have no problem with Iran getting a nuclear weapon. Go ahead and run on it.
Go ahead and run on your support for amnesty. Go ahead and run on the fact that Arizona is troublesome. Go ahead, you Democrats, you run on it, and you people in the media that support the Democrats, go ahead and give them this advice. New York Times editorial board. Come on, ship up. Give them this advice. Obama's the big winner? The Democrat Party is gonna sweep to victory now because of what happened in Pennsylvania-12? Fine, then have them proudly run on this agenda. Have them proudly run on who Barack Obama is. Run on this laser-like focus that you have on job creation. Run on all of the new homes that are not being bought. Loan demand to buy homes has now sunk to a 13-year low. That's the story today. Foreclosures and repossessions of homes are up. Go ahead. You want to run on the Obama agenda? You Democrats and you members of the media go out there in unison and start attacking the people of Arizona. Attack the Arizona law. Stand up for amnesty. Be honest about what you believe in and what you're doing.
If the Obama agenda is it, if it's the big winner last night, then by all means bring Obama in to campaign for you. Bring Obama in to fund-raise for you. Like he did Arlen Specter, like he did Coakley in Massachusetts, like he went in for Creigh Deeds in Virginia. Wherever he's gone, he's 0-for-4, maybe now 0-for-5. All of what I have said is what the Democrat Party stands for. There's a huge disconnect in this country: Liberalism versus Americanism. By the way, did Mr. Obama tell Felipe Calderon to stop drilling for oil in the Gulf of Mexico? Did I miss that? He didn't do that? Interesting. So the Mexicans do not have to stop drilling for oil; we do. Okay, run on that, too, Democrats, run on that, shut down every rig, no more drilling offshore. No more drilling for oil anywhere. Run on it. Bring in Hugo Chavez to speak up for your agenda and your campaign. Bring in Daniel Ortega from Nicaragua. Go ahead and do it. I mean if it's the big winner, if you guys own it, if Pennsylvania-12 says that you have turned it all around, then let's see it.
Let's see the pride, let's see the happiness. How come your president today did not take any questions about last night's results? How come the president of the United States did not herald the results last night as a big victory for him, a great victory for America and a great victory for America's future? Why, in fact, did the president only take two questions, both from foreign press -- well, Univision and a Mexican reporter. Why? The president yesterday went into Ohio, rubbing salt in the wound, 15% unemployment, yet he tells them how great things are, we're on the way back. All right, do that. Ten percent unemployment is the new norm, that's great, you run on it. You see, those of you in the media, you're not fooling anybody. You're not fooling us and you're not fooling the wise and intelligent people of this audience. We know what you're going to say and do before you do it. You have telegraphed your moves. We know who liberals are. We know how liberalism as opposed to Americanism functions. We know how you're gonna report on a specific story. We know what you're gonna ignore.
So you look at Pennsylvania-12 and now you've got a job to do. You've gotta somehow convince everybody that Pennsylvania-12 means that everybody's been wrong about this coming November sweep for the Republicans. Yep, that one election, 2-1 Democrat race, with a Democrat candidate sounding more like me than sometimes I sound like myself every day, pro-gun, pro-life, pro-natural gas, pro-oil drilling in Pennsylvania, pro-nuclear power in Pennsylvania, anti-Obamacare, and this guy wins. My guess is the people in his district knew he was lying through his teeth. Union people know full well this guy doesn't believe what he said. Union people wouldn't have voted for him if he did. That's a 2-1 Democrat district. Critz would not have won if Democrat voters actually believed what he was saying, and if I'm wrong, and if they did believe what he was saying because they want to believe it, then it's really over for the Democrats. So I don't know how you win either way you analyze this. But you keep at it. And as you analyze it, we're going to make sure you eat your words come November.
RUSH: Okay, let's continue this. Let's take a little more detailed look at not just yesterday's election results but some prior election results. In Arkansas, you really had a battle there between a liberal in Blanche Lincoln and a more aggressive liberal in her opponent. There's no conservative running in the primary down there. It was a total media myth. That race is of no consequence for the fall. It doesn't reflect anything except its dire consequences exist to the left and the media before they continue their template or their narrative. The aggressive liberal failed to take out the normal liberal, and now there's going to be a runoff between an aggressive liberal and a usual liberal. Regardless, they're both liberals and you got a disconnect between liberalism and Americanism. Now, the big loser last night was Barack Obama.
Obama backed Specter, and then in last week he couldn't campaign in Pennsylvania because everybody knew Specter would have no chance at all if Obama went in there. This is the dirty little secret, and the people in the media know this. If Obama had gone in there, it would have been, definitely been the end of Specter. It was the end of Specter anyway but Obama would have been a nail in the coffin. Nor could Obama go to Pennsylvania-12. Even in a 2-1 Democrat district, he woulda helped the Republican. There's no way Obama coulda gain in there with the campaign that Critz was running: Pro-life, pro-gun, anti-Obama health care, big for drilling in oil after the oil spill. He hates cap and trade. He wants to drill for oil in Pennsylvania, natural gas and nuclear. You tell me Obama can go in there and endorse that? There is no F-ing way, as Joe Biden would say, and John Kerry (who served in Vietnam).
There was no way Obama could go in there. If Obama went in there, he would have helped the Republican. Obama backed Blanche Lincoln in Arkansas. He is so unpopular in Arkansas, he couldn't even get a free massage at the Clinton Library and Massage Parlor. In fact, he might not even get a massage if he paid somebody at the Clinton Library and Massage Parlor. He couldn't set foot in the state of Arkansas. It would have been the kiss of death for Blanche Lincoln -- and Obama did not go to Kentucky, either, did he? So if Obama and his policies are so popular, even among Democrats, where was Waldo? Where was Obama? You guys at The Politico might want to write all this down so you can better understand what's occurring out there. You might want to write this down, the monologues of this hour, because you have got it so wrong on what happened yesterday that it's troublesome.
Why didn't Pelosi go into PA-12? Why didn't Reid go in there? Where were all the prominent Democrats in Pennsylvania-12? Remember in the polls this race was neck and neck. You know, going into the election last night's vote count, a lot of people thought this was going to be a toss-up. The polls said it was. Why weren't there any prominent Democrats in there helping out this Critz guy? They couldn't, not with the campaign he was running. Here, let... (interruption) Well, they sent Clinton in there, but toward the end of the run, and even the newspapers that remarked on Clinton going in there put it at the tail end of the story. Here, grab audio sound bite number eight. David Gregory of the State-Controlled Media, NBC, on the Today Show today, Matt Lauer: "The only race yesterday where somebody was actually elected and gets a seat, Pennsylvania-12. That's where Mark Critz won. How big a win was that for the Democrat Party? How does the White House feel about that?"
GREGORY: They feel great about it, and -- and legitimately so, because Republicans I've been speaking to for weeks were ready to pounce on that result if the Republican had won. They made the election, in that case, a real referendum on the president and on Democrats in Congress and they lost.
RUSH: A-ha! Murtha's seat was a referendum on Obama. How come Obama's not singing the praises of his big victory? (laughing) Mr. Gregory, again, do you even know what Mark Critz's agenda was, what his campaign agenda was? There's not one elected Democrat in this country who woulda gone in there and endorsed him and his campaign and maintained any kind of credibility whatsoever. Zilch, zero, nada. John Podhoretz, iPod, has a piece in the New York Post today, "US Politics' New Rules -- The key rule in American politics is that there are no rules anymore. Any politician running for re-election, or seeking election as his party's anointed one, who faces any kind of a credible challenger, finds himself in history's crosshairs. Arlen Specter [defeated]. At this writing, it appeared that Blanche Lincoln, the two-term Democratic senator in Arkansas, would be forced into a primary..."
She was. "Meanwhile, Rand Paul, an insurgent Republican in Kentucky's Senate primary, crushed the preferred candidate of GOP regulars with the force of a steamroller. All this followed hard upon the defeat last week in West Virginia's Democratic primary of Alan Mollohan, a long-serving and wealthy congressman. That came a few days after the unprecedented dumping of Utah's three-term US senator, Robert Bennett, at the state's Republican convention. Which came a week after a popular former senator limped into his party's nomination for an open Senate seat with just 40 percent of the vote ... Just before that, David Obey, the immensely powerful Democratic head of the House Appropriations Committee, ended his re-election effort after 41 years in office ... once he saw the writing on the wall. The electoral year that began in January with Republican Scott Brown's staggering victory in the Senate race for Teddy Kennedy's seat in overwhelmingly Democratic Massachusetts is nowhere near done with us yet -- or with them." iPod is right on the money.