RUSH: All right now, look, folks, I understand your frustration. I understand totally your anger. What I don't understand is why anybody is surprised by this. I warned you people about this. I think it was the week before last, yeah, when I described for you the conversation I had with the ranking Republican. Well, now it's official. The elites in the GOP want to compromise with the Democrats, and they think that's what you want. It's all over the news today, and there's a bunch of lessons here. Here's how to blow the greatest election opportunity you've ever had since 1894, here's how to blow it two weeks out, and at the same time here is how you form a third party, how you create the circumstances a third party would form.
This is the problem. The elites inside Washington, I don't care what party, Republican, Democrat, cocktail, doesn't matter what party, it's the elites, we need to break the back of the elites out there. They have nothing to do with this grassroots movement that's the Tea Party, nothing whatsoever. They have nothing to do with any victories in this election. This is going to be very key. All of these big time wins that are on tap two weeks from today, the elites will have had nothing to do with it. The elites have, in fact, stood in the way. The elites have decried and pummeled all of the Tea Party people and the candidates that have arisen from this effervescent grassroots movement. It's the elites in both parties who paved the way for Obama. It's the elites in both parties who gave us Senator McCain. The elites in both parties spent like liberals; they paved the way for McCain, they paved the way for Pelosi, for Harry Reid, and Obama. And now they're sitting in Washington hoping to benefit from the results of an election that is in part in response to their malfeasance. So they're sitting there -- (interruption) what do you mean, Snerdley, people don't know what I'm talking about? You don't think they know what I'm talking about? Well, I'll get to it in just a second.
Here's the headline from Politico: "Poll Finds DC Elites Tepid to Tea Party." That's one headline. There is another story here about how the Republican House leaders seek to avoid the mistakes of 1994, claiming that people are going to have to realize that Republicans may have to compromise with Democrats in tackling broader problems. So these are two stories that are out there today, the top of my stack. "Poll Finds DC Elites Tepid to Tea Party," yet they're going to sit there and try to benefit from the victories the Tea Party is gonna produce. And here is Wall Street Journal: "GOP House Leaders Seek to Avoid Past Mistakes" of 1994. Don't want to shut down the government; don't want to have the same thing happen that happened in 1995 with the budget battle and Bill Clinton and so forth.
This is how third parties are born. These morons have no clue how short their lease on life is, these elites, they really don't. They have no clue how short their lease on political life is. They seem to think that the Tea Party is gonna end on November 2nd. They think the Tea Party's over, and once the election has taken place, then the elites, the Republican Party as well, are gonna now take over and start to manage the victories that have been secured by virtue of the Tea Party. What will happen is the Specters and the Charlie Crists and so forth will go ahead and will officially become Democrats, the worthwhile Republicans will go to the Tea Party, and the remaining of these insider people, the David Frum, the David Brooks, the inside-the-Beltway, so-called conservative intelligentsia, the "let's make a deal" types who believe that crossing the aisle and compromise and moderates, that's what the American people want, and they think that's what this election will say. They're going to be all that remains of the Republicans. They'll go to the Hamptons or wherever, but they're going to be all that remains of the Republicans. The Republicans could end up being a 10% party if they're not careful here. They could end up being the third party, and they could be the 10%.
Now, let's say these in order. Andy Barr at Politico: "Washington elites have little faith that Tea Party candidates will be able to bring change and say grassroots conservatives have been the most negative in spreading their message, according to a new Politico poll released Tuesday. Washingtonians --" inside-the-Beltway types, the elites, the ruling class, whatever you wish to call 'em "-- involved in the political or policy process believe overwhelmingly that Tea Party candidates will not 'be able to bring change to Washington.' Only 11 percent of DC insiders polled said they thought the Tea Party could bring change, compared with 77 percent who did not."
Now, how many of these same "elites" -- and I put the word here in quotes because by elite I don't mean better than anybody. They think they are. They think they're smarter. By elites -- people who have self-appointed themselves to positions of uniqueness and specialness and "unattainableness" to anybody else, they're not the best and brightest except in their minds. How many of these same elites thought Obama would bring change to Washington or that Nancy Pelosi would drain the swamp? How many of these people bought Obama and are responsible in part because they bought into Obama for where we are now?
Back to the Politico story: "Additionally, 33 percent of Washington elites believe Tea Party candidates have been the most negative during the 2010 campaign; 30 percent said Democrats have been the most negative, while 26 percent pointed to Republicans." So 33% of Washington elites -- this includes Democrats as well, now, it's not just Republican elites -- believe that Tea Party candidates have been the most negative. Well, that's outrageous. It's foolish. The most negative? Don't they understand that what propels the country class and the Tea Party are love, optimism, future of the country can be saved, it can be secured? What's being construed as negative is a simple factual recitation of this administration's policies and where they've taken the country. You cannot sound anything but negative when talking about and analyzing what Obama's done. You can't sound anything but negative and angry when describing what needs to change. But what is propelling the change is not negative. It's optimistic. It's uplifting. And it is rooted, as I like to say, in love: love of country, love of fellow man, love of community, all of these things. You won't find this kind of love on the left. You find contempt and disdain for the entire country, not just the people who live in it.
So folks, I'm telling you, this is a godsend in one way. I don't know what it was that propelled The Politico people to start taking this poll. Maybe they're trying to depress Tea Party people and ramp down the turnout, who knows. It's going to do just the opposite. It is going to increase the turnout. I saw Rove on TV this morning, got a formula out there that 70% of the seats in play will be won by Republicans. So he was going from various analyst to analyst, Charlie Cook and some of the other inside-the-Beltway types, anywhere from 99 to a hundred to 93 seats in play. Rove's theory is that 68 of them, 65 of them will go Republican. He thinks it's going to be a little bit less than that. What needs to happen is for it to be more than that. There aren't any moderates voting in this election. There aren't any elites voting on the Republican side in this election. The people voting are the people who make the country work. The people voting are the country class and the greatest statement that could be made is if 100 seats go Republican and then let these elites try to tell us that that means compromise with the Democrats. That's the second story we'll get to here in just a second.
Even though 33% of Washington elites believe Tea Party candidates have been the most negative, even though it is obviously not true, as I say, you could make the case that it should be. Which party has the most to be negative about? The ruling elite in both parties like things pretty much the way they are, because they're in power. And they'll have momentary trades of power, elite Democrat X and his buddies that run the show for four years, elite Republican X or Y will run the show for the next four. They'll go back and forth and they'll deal with the same lobbyists and the same special interests, and they will continue to spread the wealth among each other. These ruling elites are only going to get the message if it's a tsunami. A hurricane is not gonna cut it on Election Day. So I know you're angry about it. I'm seeing my e-mail. I know you're frustrated. But you shouldn't be surprised. I have described for you conversations I have had with ranking elites and who think and hope that what you will realize is they really won't have that much power, that they will not control the government, that your expectations of rolling back the Obama agenda are a little bit too high.
They're not ready to roll up their sleeves and work. A lot of you are thinking these Republicans have, you know, 30-day plan, 60-day plan, 90-day plan what they're going to do, every day they muscle it up. No. It really, beyond the Pledge there is no day-to-day plan of action. It's almost a wait-and-see. You go back and you look at Pelosi and the Democrats who are running throughout 2005 for the 2006 midterm elections, I want to ask you, did at any point you hear anybody on the Democrat side of things suggest, "You know, we're gonna need to compromise. We're going to have a Republican in the White House for two more years, George W. Bush, and to get what we want we're going to have to compromise with the Republicans." Did you hear Pelosi or Hoyer or Chris Van Hollen or any Democrat talk about compromising with Bush or compromising with the Republicans when they took over? No. You didn't. All that was on their mind was wiping Republicans out, Bush included. Why in the world are our inside-the-Beltway ruling elites all of a sudden now obsessed with the notion that we must compromise? And then they have the gall to say that that's what you really want. You really want compromise on the big things to get things done.
That would be the worst thing. Gridlock is an option here that's good, but compromise with these people? On what basis? For what reason? Within the realm of sanity, where is there room for any compromise with Marxism or socialism or liberalism, where is the compromise with evil? In the context of right and wrong, how do you compromise with wrong? And it's wrong. It's been proven wrong worldwide. It's been proven wrong in just over a year and a half in this country. Why do you want to compromise with it? Because you want to hold onto your ruling status, and, if you're a ruling-class Republican, I guess what you know is that ruling-class Democrats had the clique. They run the show and your acceptance and admittance and participation in the inside-the-Beltway ruling class is dependent on them liking you. That requires you to go ahead and be subservient to them, if you're a ruling-class Republican. If you're a ruling-class Republican and you want to be accepted in the big DC clique, you have to accept the premise that you are forever going to be a member of the minority. So that's where we are -- tsunami -- two weeks from today, no compromise. Compromise with what is destroying the country will only slow the destruction. What needs to happen is it needs to be stopped, and then in time turned around and reversed.
RUSH: It's a Politico poll that we are discussing, the elites and their attitudes about the Tea Party and the upcoming election. And here's a little takeaway, a cutout from this poll: "The general public seems less worried that divided government would grind Washington to a halt." Now, that is news to these people. "The general public," not the ruling class, not the DC elites, "also seems less worried that divided government would grind Washington to a halt." The general public would, in fact, welcome that! We're not talking government shutdown. Who in the world is? Who's out there talking about government shutdown? Gridlock is not the same as government shutdown. But I'll tell you, we're getting to the point here where the less government does, the better off we are. Do we not have enough laws? Do we not have enough legislation?
Where is it written that a party's success is defined by the legislation it conceives and passes? Why is that considered energetic? The general public would, in fact, welcome the change. It's better than being ground up by the government. Now, voter turnout, ladies and gentlemen, as you well know, is being driven by the realization that our presence and voices at town hall meetings and rallies are not seen as signs of "robust, healthy political discourse." Let's be honest. Even Republicans on the elite side look at these town halls, and while they welcome all the attention, they're secretly saying, "Oh, my God, a bunch of kooks is showing up here!" These rallies and town halls and all the things that happen in Washington, these giant turnouts of 500,000 people, those are not seen as positives.
Those are not seen as signs of robust and healthy political discourse. The people that show up at these town halls and these rallies, instead, are seen as misunderstanding the role of Washington and how the country operates. And so we have to be humored. They have to treat us as though, "Yeah, we hear you, and we understand you." The message of Obama, Pelosi, Dingy Harry has been, "Shut up and sit down! We know what's best for you frightened, fuzzy thinking rubes," and many in the Republican Party look at us and have the same message. And we've gotten the message. So on November 2nd it will be our term to deliver a message. The message is, "You're fired. You failed, you greedy authoritarian elitist snobs. You got us in this mess."
We have a leftist ruling class presiding over a center-right country, and the results of their rulings have been utter disasters. Politically, culturally, financially, it's a disaster. We are witnessing it. We're living it. It is being forced on us. There's an unhealthy friction here (you can't deny that it exists in 2010) between the ruling class and the country class. Compromise is not the solution here. Either they end up on our page or we find people who do end up on our page because at the end of the day there are more of us than there are of them, and more and more of us are becoming fully engaged in the process of putting public servants in their place. We've been pummeled and we have been beaten up by liberalism for far too long. It's time to strike back, and the first blow will be delivered on November 2nd. We only get this chance once every two years. This is an opportunity that cannot and will not be wasted.
Compromise? No. That's not how this gets fixed.
RUSH: Okay, you don't trust The Politico story because they're a bunch of libs, the story about how the inside-the-Beltway Republican elites don't really like the Tea Party. You think it may be a setup. Okay. Well, there's a second story. Wall Street Journal, Naftali Bendavid is the author. Wall Street Journal: "GOP House Leaders Seek to Avoid Mistakes of 1994 -- Republicans on the campaign trail are bashing the president and his agenda and some are vowing to shut down Washington if they don't get their way. Behind the scenes, key party members are talking a different game." I don't know anybody who is talking about shutting down the government. In fact, if there's any story to be suspicious of, it's this Journal story.
The whole story assumes the premise that the worst thing for the country is the federal government gets shut down again. That's the premise of this: "Oh, no, no, no! The Tea Party, all these radicals, they might come in and they might redo the shutdown of 1995! Oh, and that's when Clinton cleaned Newt's clock." I don't hear anybody talking about shutting down the government. In fact, that's not what most people thought then, and it's not what they think now. There are a lot worse things than shutting down the government. You know what one thing is? One thing worse than shutting down the government is the government continuing on like it is now. This just can't be sustained. This is what the people who live and breathe and work every day in this country understand -- and, by the way, can I make another observation?
Isn't essentially the government shut down now? The Democrats did not pass a budget. We do not have a budget. The fiscal year began October 1st. There's no budget. They didn't want to debate a budget because they didn't want the details of their thinking to further negatively affect the election. So the government is essentially shut down now. How in the world are we functioning? By all rights, we shouldn't be. We don't have any spending authorizations. But yet the government goes on. Why, my friends, how can this be? I'll tell you who's not thinking clearly. You know these people inside the Beltway, the ruling class, they think we aren't thinking clearly. We don't have the sophistication to think clearly.
It's the politicians who aren't thinking clearly. Abraham Lincoln: "A house divided against itself cannot stand. I believe this government cannot endure permanently half slave and half free." Well, draw the analogies to today. (interruption) What, Snerdley, what are you freaking out about? Oh, he's talking to a caller. If you don't calm down in there, I'm going to have to suspend you because it's becoming a distraction. It's not worth it. All right. It's not worth it. It's not worth getting all worked up over there. You know in five seconds whether they've got it or not. You're getting frustrated that they are not understanding what I'm saying? Don't. That happens to a lot of people, but they eventually catch up 'cause this is just plain old common sense. So here. Here's more of the story. Remember, now, the Wall Street Journal article's premise is that the worst thing could happen is the government be shut down.
And again, I don't know anybody who's suggesting it be shut down. To repeat: Isn't it essentially shut down now? We don't have a budget and it's still operating. "A number of House Republicans, including some who are likely to be in the leadership, are pushing a post-election strategy aimed at securing concrete legislation, with the goal of showing they can translate general principles into specific action. Among the ideas is to bring a series of bills to the floor, as often as once a week, designed to cut spending in some way. Longer term, GOP leaders say they recognize they may have to compromise with Democrats in tackling broader problems. If they recapture the House, Republicans say they are wary of following the example of the class of 1994, which shut down the government in a standoff with President Bill Clinton.
"Top Republicans contend that passing legislation, or at least making a good faith effort to do so, will earn them more credibility with voters than refusing to waver from purist principles." Do you believe this? This is what it says. I'm simply reading to you what the article says. It is mind-boggling. "Top Republicans contend that passing legislation, or at least making a good faith effort to do so, will earn them more credibility with voters ..." Who is it that's leading the revolt against all of this now? Isn't is these precious independents and moderates that everybody claims so desperately to want every election cycle? Again, I tell you, folks: This is how third parties are born. This is how the Republican Party is going to make of itself a neutrino third party if it isn't careful. Now, let's look at this analogy of 2010 to 1994.
In 1994, Americans were not out of work. Their government wasn't bankrupt. The health care system was not being dismantled. Oh, it was being tried. Clinton was trying to dismantle it, but nobody was in favor of it. Americans were not flooding town hall meetings. In fact, in 1994 there were just a couple of people who predicted the election outcome. Most prominent among them was Robert Novak. But there weren't very many similarities to 1994 and 2010, and there aren't any. There was no Tea Party movement back then. There weren't a whole lot of political protest rallies numbering in the millions. They had not produced an organic grassroots movement like the Tea Party that could, if double-crossed, create a conservative political party that would bring an abrupt end to the GOP. That was not possible in 1994. The lessons of 1994 may not be the lessons of today.
In 2010, today, the Tea Party's goal is to convince politicians to represent the people of the country and not the ruling class. If that results in conservatives dominating the Republican Party and representing the people they serve, then the Republican Party will stay intact. Which has long been the expressed objective here, for conservatism and conservatives to simply wrest back control of the Republican Party from the moderates, the country club, blue-blooders, the (sigh) ruling-class elites in our party. The mistake of 2010 would be Republicans winning a majority in the House and Senate and then compromising. When do the Democrats ever talk of compromise? If the American people want compromise, where the hell is it taking place?
The Democrats never talk of compromise.
"Compromise" and "bipartisanship" are code words for abandoning your fiscal and social values, and that's why Republicans lost in 2006 and 2008, because they were seen to have lost their social and fiscal values. Most of the voters in 1994, while they were informed, they were not nearly as informed in 1994 as they are today. The technology simply wasn't as widespread and advanced as it is today. For the most part the Internet, eh, it existed, but not in its current form. Fox News had not started 'til 1996. Basically in 1994 it was this program, and there were a smattering of other conservative radio talk shows kicking up. In 1988, when this program started, this was it. In 1988 -- and I know that sounds like Jurassic Park to some of you. That was 22, 23 years ago and in1988 there was only one cable news channel, CNN, and it ruled the roost on cable.
You had ABC, NBC, CBS. They dominated. CNN was an upstart. People watched it during breaking news emergencies. As far as anything conservative in national media, it was this show. That was it, nationally. By 1994, there had been some new startups in the so-called New Media, but the blogs weren't there yet. All these "websites" weren't there yet. Dead tree magazines still ruled the roost. There were some budding young conservative radio talk shows, but nothing like exists today; 1988 gave birth to a transition the historians down the line will correctly and properly recognize as a tsunami. So these comparisons, these elite Republicans, what is this? Comparing 2010 to 1994 and fearing a government shutdown? There's another thing: There is not a Newt Gingrich in the mix right now, and there's not a Tom DeLay in the mix.
Nothing against them, but they're not in the mix here. You got an entirely different group of people. You had the American Spectator and you had the National Review. That was in 1994. Drudge Report was there but it was an email-delivered thing. It was not a website. The Drudge Report came in form of an e-mail. In fact, you know the Drudge Report knew that I was going to decide to quit my television show before I did. I mean, I knew in my mind I was not gonna renew for a whole bunch of reasons, and I had mentioned it to a couple of people and I got an e-mail from the Drudge Report, and it was there, and I didn't even know who the Drudge Report was. Now, there's nobody to demonize, not one single person to demonize in 2010 as there was in 1994.
That person was Gingrich. Evidence of this is that they've been trying to demonize all kinds of people: Me, Boehner, Eric Cantor, you name it. The mistake of 2010 would be Republicans winning a majority after this uprising from the Tea Party, from the grassroots, and suggesting that what's indicated is compromise with the Democrats! Any Republican who puts "working with Democrats" ahead of "working for the American people" is gonna suffer the same fate as today's Blue Dog Democrats: Become an instinct species. I mean if the Democrats are so interested in compromise, how come they're letting their Blue Dogs go over the cliff and die in a political sense? Where are the Democrats compromising with anybody anyway?
Haven't we been this route? Haven't we been down the McCain route? The ruling class gave us what we have now! Both parties, ruling-class elites gave us the Colin Powells -- the models of decorum, the very essence of what a Republican should be. You want to know how to screw up the 2010 elections? This! Stories like this. Throw cold water on the enthusiasm of voters who have spent the past two years putting their faith in non-Democrats. Voter turnout for Republicans is at record levels because there is a hope that Republican politicians received the Tea Party message: Demand that government spending be slashed, across-the-board tax cuts, Obamacare repealed, the private sector unleashed, federalism restored, the borders restored, Washington defanged and defunded. That's the agenda. That is what's given rise to this grassroots movement called the Tea Party, which is not a "party;" it's a force. So now two weeks out we get two stories, one in The Politico and one in the Wall Street Journal, and both of them had as their (I think) express intention exactly that: To throw cold water on all of you, to suppress your turnout. Do not fall for this. Let it work the other way. Let it backfire. Let this result in 100 Democrats losing their jobs.
RUSH: A lot of people, I read their e-mails: "Rush, Rush, you have to wonder if these compromise stories are plants in the liberal media." The Journal is, of course, on the news pages pretty leftward, changing a bit under Murdoch, but not the editorial page yet. And the Fox story is the Wall Street Journal reprinted. They don't say that. So there's only two stories out. But the Fox News, slash, Wall Street Journal piece says Republican House leaders are pushing compromise. Now, I'm looking for quote marks here, and I don't see any.
Darrell Issa is quoted: "It's pretty clear the American people expect us to use the existing gridlock to create compromise and advance their agenda. They want us to come together [with the administration] after we agree to disagree." Now, it's interesting. Here is Issa, everybody's looking to him to lead the investigations into the Obama regime. Everybody's looking to him as the point man for throwing these subpoenas out, and it's Issa here talking about compromise. "It's pretty clear the American people expect us to use the existing gridlock to create compromise and advance their agenda." How does that work? How does compromising with the Democrats advance our agenda? That's what he means with their agenda, not the Democrats, he means the American people. He said the American people want us to come together with the administration after we agree to disagree. How do you do that? What does this even mean, come together with the administration after we agree to disagree? It's typical inside-the-Beltway elitist double-talk. This is not at all what people expect the result to be of this massive turnout and overwhelming electoral victory. No compromise with Obama. It's simply stop him. Nothing more complicated than that. But I warned you the week before last, I talked to a number of ranking Republicans, and they said, "Rush, you gotta tell 'em, we're not going to have that much control. We're not going to have that kinda power."