Dittos, 

ADVERTISEMENT
ADVERTISEMENT
Back Home Button
The Rush Limbaugh Show
Excellence in Broadcasting
RSS Icon
ADVERTISEMENT

EIB WEB PAGE DISGRONIFIER

Why Shouldn't You Be Angry?

BEGIN TRANSCRIPT

RUSH: Be proud. Be honored. Be happy. Go ahead: Be cocky, if you wish. No matter how this election turns out (we have a pretty good idea how it is gonna turn out) the power of this conservative ascendancy, the power of effectively the silent majority -- we were finally giving a voice, hearing a voice from the silent majority, the Tea Party. No matter how the elections turn out, the power of the Tea Party movement mind-set has already been proved in a hundred ways. Look at every race. Everyone in this race is trying to look like a Tea Party conservative. In West Virginia, the government, Joe Manchin, is trying to sound like Ronald Reagan. Remember he voted for cap and trade. This is a guy who supported Obama's health care unless he saw what was in it and decided he wanted to run for Senator. Now he's saying he doesn't like it.

With the rare exception of states like California -- even Massachusetts, New York, some places -- there are some Democrats running as conservatives because they know. They saw the writing on the wall and now they need to see the writing at the ballot box which they will. Joe Manchin, the Democrat governor of West Virginia seeking the Senate seat held by Robert "Sheets" Byrd. Joe Manchin said over the weekend that he is a friend of Sarah Palin. He is a friend of Sarah Palin! He knows what he has to do to try to get elected in West Virginia. He knows her from their work together as part of the National Governors Association. Washington, AP: "American Incomes Post Largest Drop in 14 Months." How's that recovery, hope and change working out for you? Keep in mind, too, that when the Bush tax cuts expire even more will be taken out of your already small paychecks.

You want that more? Vote Democrat.

BREAK TRANSCRIPT

RUSH: A quick e-mail. "Dear Rush: You think that piece in Newsweek correctly and almost alone in the major media saying that you are essentially the reason for the impending GOP victories is intended as a distraction? You think it's intended as a distraction?" Well, it's just tweaking the media into suggesting that they were trying to get me to talk about me rather than the issues and the candidates in other races. The governor's race in Connecticut, all of a sudden, is neck and neck. Let's go to the audio sound bites as we start to illustrate some of the panic and some of the effort to dispirit you, to impugn you, to mischaracterize you. Here is a media montage from yesterday and last night of the usual suspects. I'm not even gonna bother giving you the names of these people. It won't matter because they are as interchangeable as cookie cutters.

HALPERIN: Anger and fear are dominant now and that's propelling what's going to happen Tuesday.

KURTZ: The rise of the tea party! The anger!

O'DONNELL: ...that anxiety and frustration and anger.

NORRIS: They're angry. They're not just angry at Barack Obama, though. They're angry at everybody in Washington.

PAGE: ...a campaign full of anger.

PELLEY: There is so much anger in the land.

RUSH: And why shouldn't there be? Somebody tell me why we should remain docile over the assault on the United States Constitution? Why should we remain docile and civil and polite, just because these people say we should, over the assault on job creation in this country? What in the world is wrong with being angry about this? There's a great post dealing with this, Moe Lane at Red State.com. This was over the weekend. "'Grim Democrats await huge House losses.' ... These people are on the verge of watching a large percentage of their client list -- and in many cases, friends and members of their social circle..." Remember, I've always told you that part of the seductive lure of Washington is not just to be included politically but socially as well, and now the Democrats "are on the verge of watching a large percentage of their client list," these campaign consultants, advisors and so forth, "friends and members of their social circle -- be thrown out of work right in the middle of one of the most toxic employment environments in recent history.

"And they've been fighting it for a year and nothing worked," and now they are afraid, the people responsible for this, some of them being in the unemployment line. Now, Mr. Lane says, a lot of people might have a desire to not kick these Democrats when they're down. To have a little empathy, to realize that we've been there, too -- and they did kick us when we were down but we should be better people. We should not kick them. We should not be mean. We should use our empathy because it happened to us in 2006, 2008. And as nice people (which we all are), it's an instinct to back off, to not kick somebody when they're down. Laudable impulses to be sure. But as Mr. Lane reminds us: ""But before you act on those impulses with regard to these professional Democrats," to not kick them when they're down...

Your desire to be nice and civil and don't forget your desire to show Howard Kurtz and Mark Halperin and Michele Norris and Clarence Page, all the other people in that montage that you're not angry. Don't go on defense. Don't accept their premise, or if you do, ask what's wrong with the premise, as I just did? What's wrong with being mad? You ought to be fit to be tied. "[R]emember this," These people losing the election tomorrow told their clients, the Democrats, to say that you hate African-Americans. The people losing tomorrow said that you hate Latinos. The people losing tomorrow said that you hate gay people. The people losing tomorrow said that you hate women. The people losing tomorrow said that you hate Jews. The people losing tomorrow say that you hate Muslims.

The people who are losing tomorrow accused you of hating the poor. The people who are losing tomorrow accuse you of hating America. Why shouldn't you be mad? Your character impugned daily in the media, and nobody comes to your defense. In fact, in your own party the elitists sort of give faint agreement, talking about how you're "A little kooky, unsophisticated rubes. You know, from the margins of the political business. You don't really know what you're doing. You're good people but you just don't really get it. You're racists, you're sexists, you're bigots." Remember the people losing tomorrow, in an effort to win, called you racists. They said you hate blacks. They said you hate Latinos. When all you're doing is standing up for the law, when all you're doing is defending the Constitution.

They say you hate African-Americans, they say you hate Latinos, they say you hate gays. The people losing tomorrow have called you fascists. The people losing tomorrow have called you stupid, uneducated, unsophisticated. They have called you hatemongers. They have said you were insane. In some cases they have sent union thugs to beat you up at campaign rallies. Why shouldn't you be mad? They have said that you are violent extremists. When the Times Square bomber was caught these people suspected that it was you who planted the bomb because you were upset at Obama's health care plan. Why shouldn't you be mad?

Why shouldn't you be angry in defense of the honor and traditions that have made this country great as they are under assault by a political party and machine who do not subscribe to their greatness, who do believe they have a role in America any further? The people who are calling you violent extremists are the ones engaging in violence. The ones who call you hatemongers are the people who engage in hate of you. The ones accusing you of being insane, themselves don't have elevators that go all the way to the top or are an order of fries short of a Happy Meal. And they run many blogs. And as Mr. Lane points out: You could keep this going for as long as you cared to. You have been called unpatriotic! The people losing tomorrow have called you cowards, cowards on race, cowards on any number of subjects.

You have been mocked at every opportunity. You have been accused of shouting the N-word at members of Congress on the day of the health care vote when it did not happen. Why shouldn't people be angry? But besides all of that, the root of the anger is the all-out assault on the decency and greatness and morality of this country and its people. As Shelby Steele pointed out so brilliantly last week: "When you assume the position of presiding over a fallen America, by definition you cannot preside over a great America. You have to preside over a people and nation in decline.

For all of you in the media who think it's so reprehensible for people to be angry, if people aren't mad today, what the hell would it take to get them mad? Have you thought about that? The real special interests in this election are the media, the unions, and the takers, not the producers and not the makers. The consumers, not the producers. The producers are not the problem. The media is trying to get you to show mercy. The media is trying to get you to feel less confident about what's going to happen tomorrow. They're trying to keep you from running up the score, so to speak. They don't want what happens tomorrow to be seen as a mandate.

Sadly, even Scott Rasmussen's getting in on this a little bit from his website: "Voters don't want to be governed from the left, the right, or the center. They want Washington to recognize that Americans want to govern themselves." Sounds good. Mr. Rasmussen continues: "In this environment, it would be wise for all Republicans to remember that their team didn't win, the other team lost," meaning the Democrats. Now, this is as far as it goes is correct. This is not a big Republican victory. This is a conservative ascendancy. This is not a we-want-Washington-to-change victory. Mr. Rasmussen says, "Heading into 2012 voters will remain ready to vote against the party in power unless you're given a reason not to do so."

Now, this is an attempt to shape events. Voters do want a conservative government. Listen to them when they speak at town halls. Listen to voters when they tell you what they're upset about and what they hope to change; they want a conservative government, which is a smaller government, less government. They want less intrusion, limited taxes, they want the border secure, they want a strong military. They don't want to be bothered and harassed whenever they start a business or make an addition to their home. Far too many people are unwilling to say that this is a conservative ascendancy. Too many people are unwilling to say it. Maybe they're not schooled enough in conservatism to understand what's going on.

But the effort to redefine us will continue. It happens today. It happened last week. It's been going on for as long as I live, and it will happen tomorrow, the effort to redefine what happens today or tomorrow and this week at the ballot box. This redefining of what is occurring, it is a conservative ascendance. It cannot be said it's simply an anti-Washington or anti-incumbent mood. There is a conservative ascendancy, and when you see Joe Manchin, the Democrat governor of West Virginia, and the way he campaigns for his Senate seat and many of other Democrats, when you hear them parroting Ronald Reagan, you hear them parroting conservatism. Now, this is a very simple thing to understand. It's obvious to most of us, but Republicans and the right are not the same thing.

Republicans and conservatism are not universally, always the same thing. A lot of these pollsters, Doug Schoen is one. He's coming up in an audio sound bite. They like to say Americans "want the parties to work together," that they want a centrist government. That's an attempt to deemphasize conservatism. The American people want gridlock the next two years. They want the regime stopped. They don't want to work with Obama. They don't want compromise with the Democrats. They don't want to institute fair and open debate with Democrats in the House of Representatives. It's not about that. It's about arresting the bloated growing of government, stopping it dead in its tracks. It is about being governed from the right.

BREAK TRANSCRIPT

RUSH: So we're angry, and this is somehow puzzling, somehow unbecoming? The people who are now in power were willing to lose two wars: One in Iraq, one in Afghanistan. The people who are in power now are willing to drive our economy into the toilet and have done so. The people in power now have caused 17% of the people of this country to not have jobs and they're responsible for half those people never wanting to work again. The people in power in this country want to extend unemployment benefits in perpetuity for the purpose of making these people serfs and thereby robbing them of their human dignity. The American people and their dignity are at stake by virtue of the people in power now, and we're not supposed to be mad?

The people who are now in power are willing to destroy the economy, your savings, just to win their elections in 2006 and 2008, and they wonder why we're angry? And it is very true: The Republicans aren't going to win tomorrow. That is exactly the point. What's being voted for tomorrow is not more collegiality. Bipartisanship is not being voted for. It is not on the ballot. The desire to accommodate is not on the ballot unless the people who have taken this country in the wrong direction finally admit it and join us in fixing it. That's the only compromise there will be. Stopping what is going on in Washington is absolutely necessary. You can call it gridlock, whatever you want, but it should (and hopefully will be) just a beginning, part of turning things back, going in the opposite direction. Audio sound bites. Doug Schoen, CSPAN2 last night. He's on with Amity Shlaes to talk about his book Mad as Hell, and Amity Shlaes says to Doug Schoen, "Could you repeat what happened with Michael Steele and Mr. Rush Limbaugh?"

SCHOEN: Steele criticized Limbaugh, Limbaugh pushed back, and Steele sued for peace -- and, in a certain way, when that happened, I said, "Boy, that's the power of Rush Limbaugh." In actual fact, while he is undeniably potent and powerful and influential, it was ultimately an expression of Tea Party power reflecting itself in that dispute.

SHLAES: Maybe it's a force in history that much antedates the Tea Party, such as the repeal of the Fairness Doctrine, that radio doctrine that made very strongly opinionated shows such as Rush Limbaugh's possible.

RUSH: Now, the point here that Doug Schoen is making is that that the people reacting and agreeing with me in the dispute over Michael Steele were the Tea Party people. That's true, can't be denied. Doug Brinkley, Sunday morning, Fox News Channel's "Happening Now," the co-host Jenna Lee was talking to Doug Brinkley. He's Rice University history prof and author. She said, "What's the one piece of advice you would give any leader elected this time around regardless of their party?"

BRINKLEY: They should not shut down the government like happened with Newt Gingrich. I would, uh, trying to find a candidate if you're the Republicans that's palatable to the Rush Limbaugh-Tea Party right but also can attract some people in the center.

RUSH: There you have it. Find somebody "palatable" to me, Doug Brinkley. Now, that's another thing. You are going to continually hear that the objective is to shut down the government. It is not. That's not Newt Gingrich redux going on here. Gridlock is not shutting down the government. Nobody in the Tea Party, nobody anywhere is talking about shutting down the government, as happened in 1995. They're trying to mischaracterize and impugn people again and frighten voters into thinking that's what you're all about. You know it isn't, we know it isn't, and they know it isn't.

BREAK TRANSCRIPT

RUSH: Here is Nina Totenberg Sunday morning Inside Washington, television in Washington.

TOTENBERG: I'm already afraid, very afraid. I mean, it's not like the governance has been going great. Uh, I -- I -- I don't know whether I should be afraid, but there will be gridlock.

RUSH: She's talking about the election result. She's scared to death of the reaction results. She's afraid of them, because the great unwashed are gonna prevail. Evan Thomas from Newsweek, question: "Evan, Paul Krugman says future historians are probably look back at the 2010 election as a catastrophe. You, Evan, are an historian. Do you agree with that?"

THOMAS: Nnnno, but they may like as kind of a joke. There's kind of a circus aspect to it, people... Ehhh, it's become comic in a kind of a dark way. I -- y-you know, Krugman is a professional doomsayer, so you have to take that with rain of salt (sic). But obviously the political system is a mess.

RUSH: Yeah, "the political system is a mess," it's all because the Tea Party is gonna win. It's a mess. Why is it a mess? They told us that Barack Obama was The Messiah to fix all of this. I thought NPR people weren't supposed to offer their opinions anyway. There's Nina Totenberg doing it there on Inside Washington. But, yeah, notice? You people, you're all responsible for the mess that's politics today. "Eh, the election is a circus. Nobody could take it seriously. Nobody, nobody. It's a mess." Obama was going to be fix it.

END TRANSCRIPT

ADVERTISEMENT

Rush 24/7 Audio/Video

Listen to the Latest Show Watch the Latest Show

original

Facebook

ADVERTISEMENT

Most Popular

EIB Features

ADVERTISEMENT: