Well, the big election in Delaware today is bringing out people on both sides, on the Republican side, on both sides of this. It is most unfortunate what is going on because in my mind, you know, I was telling you about this dinner party I went to on Saturday night where the host threw out the question: "One a scale of one to ten, ten meaning the country's finished, one meaning, hey, we're in fat city, where do you think the country is?" And a prominent person said, "I think we're at an eight." I was telling the story to other people, who asked me, "What did you say?" I said, "Well, a six or seven," but I wanted to focus on a different aspect of this, and that is, how to arrest and how to stop this. My point was that we've never had, never, ever -- I mean we've got the Democrats ready to run off a cliff. We have got liberalism and socialism set up to be destroyed, and the frustrating thing is that half the Republicans in this country don't see it, or they're afraid of it, or they don't want to go there, and that's the thing that bothers me about it. We still have people who want to compromise with these people! We still have people who want to walk across the aisle and be reasonable and get along with them.
We still have people who think that professional Washington politicians are the way to fix this, and clearly it isn't. Some of these people are citing the Buckley Rule. Now, I can honestly say that I know what the Buckley Rule is. I can honestly say I knew William F. Buckley and Buckley was a friend of mine. The Buckley Rule is, ostensibly, that you vote for the most electable conservative option against a Democrat in November. You vote for the Republican, slash, conservative who can win. To me, this requires clairvoyance, as is being currently applied in the Mike Castle-Christine O'Donnell race in Delaware, to use an example. The polling data is that Castle will win big and O'Donnell will lose big. If she gets the Republican nomination today, if she wins the election she'll lose big. The polls say she'll lose by 25 points; that Castle will win by 20 points. But who knows this? The election's a long time off. In a year like this, it seems to me that Americanism versus socialism can make up 25 points. Why the hell not try to? Is what I don't understand. Why not try to make up the 25 points?
Okay, let's just assume that it's correct. Let's assume that Christine O'Donnell is down in the polls, Democrat polls, by the way, by 25 points. Okay, fine. If she's the best option we have to stop what's going on once she gets to Washington, why not try to make up the 25 points? We got socialism, communism, liberalism on the ropes. It's too risky? Let me tell you something. It's worth the risk. We're talking about saving the [blank] damn country. What do you mean, too risky?
This is the problem. The professionals are saying it's too risky. It's patently obvious that there are those who don't see this the way I do; that there are those who don't see this the way you and I do. I mean we can drive around the country, we clearly see things, "This ain't good." Nine and a half, 10% perpetual unemployment, the administration is saying it isn't gonna get any better. We're losing our private property rights. They're coming after everything we have. There's a soft tyranny in the country today. You can't build on your own property. You can't use a certain kind of toilet. You have to use a certain kind of lightbulb, for crying out loud. They're telling us what kind of lightbulbs we have to use. You have to drive a certain kind of car. You can't open a business without permission from the government. We're being told we have to buy health care, a direct violation of the Constitution. The Constitution is being shredded in front of our very eyes. We're being told we have to buy health care or we're gonna get a fine. We have to buy a certain kind of car. We have to buy a certain kind of lightbulb.
Now Michelle Obama is on an anti-salt kick? Come on, give me a break. That doesn't matter a hill of beans with what's really at stake here. I know my problem is I don't make my living in Washington. So I don't understand. I don't understand the ebb and flow of what goes on there. I don't understand that I have to keep my hand in the till no matter who wins. See, I don't understand I have to work with whoever wins if I'm to support myself. I live and work in Washington and if I'm gonna live and work in Washington I have to be able to get along with whoever runs the place and I have to act like I'm in league with whoever runs the place, regardless who is running the place. Well, I'm sorry, if that's what it takes to understand, I never will understand. I don't want to earn my money in Washington. And I want to keep as much of my money from going there in the first place. But more and more of our money is gonna end up going there.
Do you believe we're having a tax cut debate here? This ought not be a debate. With half the Democrats wanting to extend the Bush tax cuts, what in hell's bells are we doing talking about compromising with them on extending them or not extending them to certain groups of people? It's time to talk not only about maintaining these but cutting more taxes. We're losing control of the language. It used to be that responsibility was a keyword in American culture. Today it's been replaced with entitlement. I grew up, you grew up, we were raised, we were taught to be responsible for ourselves. Today, people are taught that life's about benefits. One of the conversations at this dinner party on Saturday night was about the unions and the problems we have with their pensions and the unfunded pensions and the unfunded health care liabilities of public employee unions, state and federal all across the country. I'm listening to the chatter go back and forth on the minutia of policy. I had to shut up at some point for other people to talk, so I raised my hand, permission to speak, "Can I ask a simple question here? How many of you at this table were raised with the idea, or how many of you people at the table grew up believing that wherever you worked, they were going to pay you for the rest of your life after you quit working and they were gonna pay your retirement and they were gonna pay for your villa in the Caribbean and they were gonna pay for your health care benefits? I did not grow up that way."
My point was the fundamental problem is we've got so much of the country thinking that's what being an American is, that you go to work for someplace and you retire after 20 years and from that point out you get 80% of what you were paid or 75% or 90% plus your health care benefits, and people give me static when I point out I have done that for myself? People give me static when I have to go to the hospital and pay for it myself? "That's easy for you to say." Well, I accepted the responsibility for myself. How come I'm the one that's the bad guy when I assume responsibility for myself? I'm not forcing anybody else to pay for whatever I need done at a hospital and I certainly am not relying on anybody for my retirement, I never have been. How come I'm the bad guy? I'm not talking about luck or good fortune. I'm talking about attitude. If you don't have the attitude that you gotta be responsible for yourself, it doesn't matter. At least if you're raised with the attitude that you are responsible for yourself, it might have some impact in the way you motivate yourself to live your life and accomplish things. But if you grow up believing that the system owes you because the system has screwed you even before you were born then guess what? You become a liability for all the rest of us. You are not an asset. You are a sponge. We got a nation full of sponges and a political party, which is creating more of them and paying them and inventing them and inspiring them.
I'm sorry if you get tired of hearing this, I don't like having to turn off lights on my property eight months a year. I don't like being told I have to go out and go and get some curly cue spaghetti lightbulb in 2011. I don't like being told what I can and can't do with my property. If you believe in the Constitution of the United States of America, you have to say that where we are right now on a scale of one to ten with ten being the country being finished we're close to a ten if you believe in the Constitution. We've lost sight about what this republic is supposed to be. You can't open a business without permission from the government? You sit around and decide whether or not to expand your business based on what the government's policies are going to be? And you know that they're not for you. You know that you're the enemy if you're a business owner. If you produce income, if you generate jobs you're an enemy of this state. This is a soft tyranny. Now, people say I have no policy ideas. No policy ideas? How about the Bill of Rights? How about the first Ten Amendments? I'm in the free speech business. I'm very much concerned about this.
Castro, look at this: "Cuba to Cut 500,000 Gov't Workers, Reform Salaries." The shift would mean that one-tenth of Cuba's 5.1 million strong workforce is going to be looking for jobs in the private sector by April 2011. There's just one problem in Cuba. There is no private sector in Cuba. It has been destroyed. There is no private sector in Cuba. They can't even repair the '57 Chevies that you see driving around downtown Havana. There is no private sector, so 500,000 government workers off the workforce, what are they going to do? "Raul Castro has warned for years that the state could no longer afford to subsidize every part of Cuban life." Well, I have a solution. I have a solution that Cuba might want to try based on looking at Obama. What are they faced with here? Five-hundred thousand government workers will be fired; salaries are going to be reformed. Why doesn't Castro just increase spending and raise taxes to save Cuba? It's what we're doing here. We're raising taxes and we are increasing spending to save our country.
Why doesn't Castro do that? If our president has it so damn right, if our president is so smart, if all we gotta do to save our economy and our private sector is to raise taxes and increase spending, then why don't the Cubans do it? Well, the reason is it's all the Cubans have done since their inception, and guess what? They never have amounted to anything economically and now they're really nowhere. And the evidence of where we are headed is all over this world and we got a race here in Delaware where the professional Washingtonians, "Ah, oh, man, if she gets the nomination I don't think she can win." Do you know that Mike Castle voted to investigate George W. Bush for impeachment? Do you know this? Did you know this, Snerdley? You did not know this? Mike Castle, war and peace Republican representative, Delaware at large, voted "yes" on investigating Bush impeachment for lying about Iraq. He did not vote for impeachment. He voted to investigate Bush for lying about Iraq with the possibility Bush might be impeached. He voted for the investigation. Now, this investigation was launched by a bunch of liberal Democrats.
So we have professional Washingtonians now telling us that Mike Castle's the only option we've got. Well, it's time, ladies and gentlemen, for the Limbaugh Rule to supplant and replace the Buckley Rule, because the Buckley Rule requires clairvoyance. The Buckley Rule requires people who can't possibly know the outcome of anything in the middle of September to support or not support somebody based on what they think's going to happen in early November. Christine O'Donnell can't win, she's 25 points down. Can't win? If a constitutional conservative can't win in this climate coming down from 25 points, we need to find that out, find out where we are. Why not go for it? The stakes dictate it, do they not? Here's the Limbaugh Rule: In an election year when voters are fed up with liberalism and socialism, when voters are clearly frightened of where the hell the country is headed, vote for the most conservative Republican in the primary, period.
Back in a second.
RUSH: Here's who introduced this bill in Congress to investigate Bush for lying about Iraq and therefore he should be impeached. "Resolution resolved: President George W. Bush be impeached for high crimes and misdemeanors, the following articles of impeachment to be exhibited in the United States Senate," resolution sponsored by Dennis Kucinich, cosponsored by Keith Ellison, Sheila Jackson Lee, Jim McDermott, Robert Wexler, Lynn Woolsey -- and there's Delaware's Mike Castle, now on the Republican ticket, voting for this! We had the Republican senatorial candidate today in Delaware voting in favor of an investigation to see if Bush lied about Iraq for the purpose of then filing articles of impeachment.
Now, if Mike Castle goes to Washington, DC, as our Senator, he'll be just another liberal but he's going to have an R next to his name. Now, somebody tell me how that helps the country. Somebody tell me how that helps the conservative movement? I can understand the Republican Party being for Castle. I can understand elected Republican officials being for Castle because he's the party-chosen guy, and if you're in the party and you want to be advanced or you want to run for office someday down there, you gotta go looping with the party. But I don't understand people who profess to be conservatives supporting this guy. It's all on the basis of clairvoyance that Christine O'Donnell "can't win" or that she's embarrassing or something.
It's embarrassing to me that we got a guy who voted to investigate Bush for lying about Iraq for the purpose of maybe impeaching him. The bigger risk to me is that RINOs, Republicans-in-Name-Only like Mike Castle, tarnish the conservative brand. They confuse and turn off the electorate who end up thinking, "Well, they're all alike." When people say, "There's no difference in the Republicans and Democrats," if they're talking about Republicans-in-Name-Only and Democrats, they may have a point. So the conservative candidate, the Buckley Rule, a conservative candidate that could win, Castle, gets elected; it just blurs for independents what conservatives are, and independents are running to the Republican Party in droves right now.
Like they never have before. Now, here's the resolution. Again: "Resolved that President George W. Bush be impeached for high crimes and misdemeanors and that the following articles of impeachment be exhibited to the US Senate," and Mike Castle is in there voting for it. Now, in 2008 Christine O'Donnell got 35% of the vote against Bite Me, Joe Bite Me, who was running at the top of the ticket with The Messiah in 2008. Now, McCain, who is (snort) the epitome RINO -- this is model Republican we were told -- got 37% of the vote in Delaware in the 2008 presidential race. Bite Me outspent O'Donnell $4.9 million to $116,000, and they tell us she can't win. Bite Me was an incumbent at the height of his popularity, favorite son, the top of the ticket in a year when the Democrats are winning in a landslide. Why is it so impossible to believe that she would win against a nobody in a midterm election when the Republican Party is going to have a landslide? Who is saying she cannot win?
RUSH: Let me expand a little bit here on the Limbaugh Rule, which needs to take over from the Buckley Rule. You know, some of these people on our side -- who all of a sudden now -- lovingly invoke the Buckley Rule are the same people who told us, "The era of Reagan is over." Well, Bill Buckley and Ronald Reagan were inseparably good friends. Isn't the era of Buckley over? Isn't it amazing how selectively these people call up some of our heroes and use little slivers of what they've said or believed? Buckley ran against a RINO Republican for mayor of New York knowing full well he had no chance of winning. He violated his own rule then! "Buckley says you vote for the Republican most likely to win."
Well, he didn't win when he ran for mayor of New York, and I'm sure that he knew he wasn't gonna win but he did it anyway. So the era of Reagan is over. The very people that tell us -- that now cite my good friend William F. Buckley Jr. Limbaugh Rule: In an election year when voters are fed up with liberalism, in an election year where the future of the country is at stake... Folks, it is not an overstatement to say this administration is destroying this country as it was founded. I don't need to exaggerate it. I'm not exaggerating for effect. I'm not trying to "cause buzz" so that more people will tune in. I'm not trying to "cause buzz" so that our friends in the leftist media will cite it. I'm not trying to tweak the media here.
They are hell-bent on destroying this country as it was founded, and in a year and a half they've gotten pretty much of that done. They have succeeded incredibly in just a year and a half, a little over a year and a half. They've already taken over one-sixth or one-fifth of the US private sector with taking over health care. Automobile companies. Basically essentially running the student loan business and the lending business in toto. They're demanding you have to buy health insurance or you get fined, hiring 16,000 new IRS agents. And Democrats are on the run during all of this. Now it's just come to light... You know, Pelosi said, "Well, people will find out what's in the health care bill when it passes. We gotta pass it so people find out what's in it."
Well, we've been telling you about the new rules on 1099s. As a small business, if you do $600 of business with anybody you gotta file a 1099 with the IRS which means you're going to have to ramp up. The paperwork of filing a 1099... A 1099, I use 'em. I have people contract hire. I contract employees. I pay 'em X for doing a certain amount of work and I pay 'em the gross. They pay their taxes. I have to pay them a 1099 at the end of the year. I report the 1099 to the IRS. They have to pay their own taxes, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah. Well, under the health care rule, if you do $600 of business with anybody over the course of the year, you gotta file a 1099 for every instance above it. Every instance, including if you're a small business that has trucks and you're buying diesel! A 1099 for all the diesel you buy and at all the different stations all across the country wherever your trucks go.
And the Democrats say, "Oh, we didn't know that was in there." There's an effort now to get that taken out. Section 9006 of the health care bill, just a few lines buried in the 2,409-page document: "Mandates beginning in 2012 all companies will have to issue 1099 tax forms not just to contract workers, but to any individual or corporation from which they buy more than $600 in goods or services in a tax year," which is every year. You talk about productivity shutdowns? You know how people try to rearrange and arrange their lives to avoid tax consequences? It's just an absolute mess. Now the Democrats, some of them are saying, "Well, we didn't know this was in there" and want to get it stricken and the administration says, "No way! No way. We're not changing anything. We are on a charted course to destroy this country as founded and we are not going to back off of it one bit."
Well, to me, that's pretty radical. It isn't politics as usual. So the Limbaugh Rule: In an election year, when voters are fed up with liberalism and socialism and when the fate of the country as founded is at stake, you vote for the most conservative Republican in the primary, period. It will be a rare opportunity to move the party and the country to the right." The Limbaugh Rule is do not play defense when your offensive hand is as strong as ours is. I look at what's happening, what we're faced with, and I listen to people debate on the margins, Christine O'Donnell versus Castle. See, the issue to me is not Christine O'Donnell. The issue is Castle. It's very simple. She's not the issue. Castle is.
Guys like Castle will tarnish the Republican brand and the conservative brand just as McCain has done. Lindsey Graham? It's no different than that. In 2008... I'm gonna go through this again. In 2008, Christine O'Donnell got 35% of the vote against Biden. Biden was running at the top of the Democrat ticket as the VP candidate for The Messiah, and the beloved McCain only got 37% of the vote in Delaware. Did Biden have baggage? (snorts) Does Biden have baggage? Does Castle have baggage? Now, the point is McCain only got 37%. Should we not have even contested in Delaware? Maybe we should have ceded Deleware, not even sent McCain there. We shouldn't even have tried to win Delaware.
To my mind, if the polls are right, she's down 25 points if she wins today, 25 points down the general. There's no better year than today than this year to make that up. It's certainly worth fighting for. Biden was an incumbent at the height of his popularity. He was a favorite son at the top of the ticket in a year, 2008, when the Democrats are winning in a landslide. Why is it so impossible to believe that Christine O'Donnell would win against a nobody in a midterm election where the GOP is going to have a landslide? The GOP is going to have a national landslide; who's to say with ontological certitude that she's a destined loser in the midst of a GOP landslide? And who is it that doesn't want to try?
Who is it that doesn't want to seek a conservative victory here given what we are up against? So the line is that Christine O'Donnell has no shot of winning Delaware. Isn't that what they said about Scott Brown in Massachusetts? Martha Coakley was going to clean his clock. I mean Scott Brown had not a prayer. He had no chance. "The Kennedy seat? Come on, Rush, don't kid me." Who were we told we had to support? The Scozzafavas of the world, whatever. We were told we had to support Dede Scozzafava. Who else? Any number of RINO Republicans. They said, "Chris Christie doesn't have a chance, have a prayer in New Jersey. Who you kidding, Rush? Or O'Donnell in Delaware doesn't have a prayer. These are blue states, Rush. Come on. We need to get a Republican that can win there. These things just can't happen. You're going to have to get real, Rush."
What happened to Charlie Crist? Charlie Crist was supposedly a shoe-in in Florida. Everybody said, "Marco Rubio doesn't have a chance, Rush. He's too young, doesn't have a chance." Really? Who's running for the hills and now has to be honest about who he is: A Democrat seeking help from the White House? It's Charlie Crist. And of course Dede Scozzafava, that was New York 23. Remember 1992, ladies and gentlemen, the Year of the Woman. The Democrats... You may be too young to remember the Year of the Woman, but I was there. It was 1992, in Year of the Woman, the Democrats told us the Republican Party was too white and too male. Didn't have any women. That year we had to go out, we had to get women, women, women.
All we were was a party of angry white males. Too many old white guys. Now this year the ruling class is telling us, "No, we need moderates in there. We need people who can win. Even if it is people like Castle, even if we do have to hold our nose, we need somebody who can win! We need somebody willing to walk across the aisle be reasonable, work with the Democrats. They have the power," and now suddenly the fact she's a woman doesn't matter. As I pointed out yesterday, when everybody starts ripping into Christine O'Donnell even on our side, they rip into her as a slut, as a stupid idiot, she filed lawsuits... They don't rip into her on policy. The critics of Mike Castle don't talk about whatever baggage he's got.
When we hear about Mike Castle, we hear about policy, the benefits of a Castle victory. I'm talking about people on our side not even willing to discuss the policy aspects. And then of course Sarah Palin comes in and endorses her. Now we got people saying, "Well, I'm sorry, Christine, but you're no Sarah Palin." People on our side. So I guess I don't understand it. I don't make my money in Washington. My living is not owed to a single entity in Washington. I mean, I don't do business there. I have a radio station, don't misunderstand, but I'm not part of the ruling class culture. My opinions, my profile do not determine how financially well off I am and what my prominence within the social circles in DC are.
(Interruption) I'm not dependent on them? Oh, true, I'm not dependent on them. I'm not dependent on the Washington political class. I'm not. You know, I don't have a magazine or column read by these people who then approve me and anoint me as one of them. I don't have a blog read by these people, so I guess I don't understand it. I'm out of touch from afar. I don't understand how things work in Washington. I don't understand how you really get things done there. All I know is that within two weeks of Obama assuming office he calls a meeting of the Republican leadership and he tells John Boehner, "You don't want to do things the way Limbaugh does. If you can't listen to Limbaugh anymore, it's not how things get done here."
Really? Yet I somehow am an honorary member of the Republican class of 1994 but I don't know what goes on there and I don't know how things work there. I certainly don't derive my living by what goes on in Washington, and I'm not dependent on what happens there. I'm just like you. (chuckles) The further away that city is from my life the more prosperous I am. The more distant things in that city are in relation to how I live, the more prosperous I am. The closer those people get to my life the greater risk I'm in. I'm talking about professionally, prosperity. You know what I'm talking about.
RUSH: Now back to the controversial portion of the program, Charles Krauthammer -- (laughing) -- on the Fox News Channel last night, Special Report. During the panel discussion, the host Bret Baier speaking with Krauthammer, this is about Mike Castle and Christine O'Donnell in Delaware, and here's Krauthammer.
KRAUTHAMMER: The Palin endorsement I think is destructive and capricious. Bill Buckley had a rule that he always supported the most conservative candidate who was electable. Otherwise the vote is simply self-indulgence. It's a big mistake. Mike Castle is a shoe-in. He wins -- they call off the fight in the first round. O'Donnell is very problematic. She probably will lose. We are in a cycle where we have seen that this is not a normal Democratic administration. It's highly ideological. O'Donnell is gonna lose and that could be the difference between Republican and Democratic control and make a difference about the Obama agenda in the future.
RUSH: Now, as you all know, I have profound admiration and respect for Charles Krauthammer. I disagree with him on this 'cause I think he's right, it is highly ideological, and Castle is not that much different from the Obama administration. So Castle giving us a majority is sort of like a wet dream. It doesn't do anything. If he's going to be voting with the other side, if you're going to be voting for cap and trade, what is the point in having that kind of majority? What's the point in having a McCain majority? I said at this now famous dinner party on Saturday night, "Look, if our majority is made up of a bunch of Mike Castles, we don't have a majority. Conservatism doesn't. The Washington ruling class might, but conservatism does not."
So here's the Buckley Rule again. The Buckley Rule, you vote for, support the most conservative candidate who's electable, the most electable conservative option against the Democrat in November. Now, Buckley voted for himself as mayor of New York against a RINO, John Lindsay. Buckley violated his own rule. He also voted for Barry Goldwater. Goldwater had no prayer. If the Buckley Rule would have been applied in 1964, we would have nominated Nelson Rockefeller. Or '76, in fact, Nelson Rockefeller. We would have supported Ford. In fact, Buckley didn't. Buckley supported Reagan in '76, not Ford, and everybody told us that Ford was the only guy that can win, Reagan can't possibly win, but Buckley supported Reagan, they were close friends. So Buckley violated his own rule in '76. He violated his own rule in '64 when supporting Goldwater, which takes us now to you start talking about the Buckley Rule, you need a crystal ball. You need to be clairvoyant. This year it's a complete mystery to most political observers how fast and how deep voter resentment is toward Democrats, Obamacare, and Imam Obama himself.
These professional pollsters are not believing their own polls. It's so bad for the Democrats, so bad for Obama, they're not even believing it. They're holding out hope that their polls are not that accurate. There's going to be such a clean sweep for Republicans. In this climate to say that a conservative cannot win in Delaware who's down by 20, 25 points, in a small state, is it not worth fighting for? We've been through this through the whole program today, and I don't want to be redundant for the entire program, but the Buckley Rule goes back to a point in time where conservatives were a very tiny minority. The Buckley Rule was written and authored at a different point in American history.
The Limbaugh Rule is very simple: In an election year vote for the most conservative Republican in the primary. Not in a "qualified" election year; not in an election where liberalism is on the rocks; not during an election year when Obama is destroying the country. You could throw that in if you want, we could do that. In any election you vote the most conservative Republican, period. What's so complicated about that? If you are a conservative, as some of these people profess to be, what's so hard about supporting one? "Well, it's a conservative who can't win, Rush, gotta support the anti-Democrat that can win." Fine if you've got an anti-Democrat, but Castle's not. Castle's already told Dingy Harry he's gonna support cap and trade. Mike Castle, in my view, ought to be out helping Sharron Angle beat Harry Reid. But that isn't happening because conservatism is not really what's the most important thing to professional Washington. Staying in the clique is, maintaining your qualifications, status in the clique, whatever you think you have to do to do that.
The polls are so bad for the Democrats that all of a sudden now the media is telling us their own polls are not right. Roger Simon, Politico, "People lie to their pollsters." You know it's going to be bad when the pollsters themselves are questioning their own results. "It can't be that bad, no, it can't be that bad for Obama. No, people love Obama. It can't be that bad for the Democrats. People love Democrats. People have to be lying to the pollsters." That's Politico. That's Roger Simon, that's Charlie Cook, all these guys, you know, the bellwethers, the godfathers, the grand pooh-bahs of electoral polling politics. See, these are the days when possibilities for conservatives abound. There is a conservative ascendancy and it's mystifying to us, a little disappointing why people who claim to be conservatives don't want to be part of it, don't want to assist it, don't want to push it, do not want to speed it up.
RUSH: Now, look, I really am uncomfortable doing this, as you know. I've got profound respect. Krauthammer's brain is one of the brains I'd like to have if I didn't have my own. But I just think he's wrong on this whole Castle and Christine O'Donnell situation in Delaware. He said the Palin endorsement is destructive and capricious, that you're not gonna get a Republican majority in the Senate with O'Donnell, but you will get one with Castle, to which I said, "Well, what good is it? What good's a Republican majority made up of a whole bunch of Olympia Snowes and Susan Collinses?" Anyway, November 17th, 2008, Special Report, Brit Hume, Charles Krauthammer, panel discussion said this about Obama.
KRAUTHAMMER: The fact is that we don't know what he thinks deep inside. But it really hardly matters. If you watch him and the way he moves to the center, he moved at almost whiplash speed in a way saying he can succeed without the left.
RUSH: Again, I'm not comfortable doing this. My point is Charles was wrong about Obama. Centrist, can move anywhere he wants without the left, succeed without the left? He is the left! He is the radical left and a lot of our people were taken in by the so-called academic intelligence and resume track record, "He's one of us" faculty lounge kind of guys, smokes cigars and cigarettes and drinks port in the faculty room. Big whoop. So here's Castle, by the way, this is last night, ABC News The Blog Note, senior correspondent Jonathan Karl talking to Castle. "Did you learn a lesson watching Lisa Murkowski go down in Alaska?"
CASTLE: Lisa went down. That was discouraging. I've had a couple of Democratic senators tell me how much respect they had for her. She called me several days after she went down and said, you know, these people are -- will come hard. Just be, you know, very careful.
RUSH: She's talking about the Tea Party. She's talking about us. He's talking about conservative people. So this guy, Castle, Lisa Murkowski calls him up. "They're very discouraged, yeah, I had a couple Democrat senators tell me how much respect they had for her." Well, that's wonderful. Like we really care that Pat Leahy and Harry Reid or whoever it is has a lot of respect for Lisa Murkowski. Is that what gives her legitimacy? Mr. Castle, is that what you need for legitimacy, that some Democrats like you, that Democrats have respect for you? Isn't that the root of our problem, we want to be considered reasonable by the Democrats, we don't want to be thought of as one of these insane fringe right-wingers like Limbaugh or Palin. Oh, no, no, we don't want to be thought of like that. We want to be respected by Joe Biden, Harry Reid, Patrick Leahy, and John Kerry. We want those people saying good things about us. Is that not the root of our problem? And notice, "these people" are gonna come after you pretty hard, these people. That's you, Tea Party. That's the guy that our people are hoping gives us a Republican majority in the Senate, a guy that talks about you as "these people."
RUSH: Listen one more time. Mike Castle talking about Lisa Murkowski last night, ABC. This makes the case.
CASTLE: Lisa went down. That was discouraging. I've had a couple of Democratic senators tell me how much respect they had for her. She called me several days after she went down and said, you know, these people are -- will come hard. Just be, you know, very careful.
RUSH: "These people," you; "these people," Tea Party. Yeah, Democrat senators had a lot of respect for her. Yeah, that's what we need, that's the kind of thing we need to go for, respect from Democrats. That's how we're gonna stop Obama. Yeah.