Ladies and gentlemen, there's a great, great piece, James Taranto at Best of the Web today, Wall Street Journal, some excellent quotes from history. We're always told that the smartest people in the world are in Washington, the smartest people in the world in Washington are liberal Democrats, the pundits there, they're the best and the brightest. And they're always wrong. Here are three examples of what I'm talking about, perfect examples of how leftist political pundits should never be trusted. James Carville wrote a book, Forty More Years, How the Democrats Will Rule the Next Generation. It was published in May of 2009. James Carville wrote, among other things, "Republicans have no hope of making serious inroads into Democratic advantages in 2010, or likely in 2012 and 2014 and so on. It's time to call TOD on the GOP." TOD stands for time of death. In May of 2009 James Carville, How the Democrats Will Rule the Next Generation. This book was about how the Democrats will be in power for 40 years and how the Republicans have no hope in 2010, 2012, 2014, and beyond.
In April of 2009 political analyst Stuart Rothenberg, another anointed one, another of the ruling class, smartest guy in the world, best at what he does, "noted that a trio of Republicans 'have raised the possibility of the GOP winning back the House of Representatives in 2010.'" About that idea, Stuart Rothenberg wrote: "That idea is lunacy and ought to be put to rest immediately. None of the three actually predicted that Republicans would gain the 40 seats that they need for a majority, but all three held out hope that that's possible. It isn't. ... there are no signs of a dramatic rebound for the party, and the chance of Republicans winning control of either chamber in the 2010 midterm elections is zero. Not 'close to zero.' Not 'slight' or 'small.' Zero.
"Big changes in the House require a political wave. You can cherry-pick your way to a five- or eight-seat gain, but to win dozens of seats, a party needs a wave. Recruiting better candidates and running better campaigns won't produce anything like what took place in 1980, 1994, 2006 and 2008, when waves resulted in huge gains for one party. The current political environment actually minimizes the chance of a near-term wave developing. The problem for Republicans is that they aren't yet in the position -- and won't be in one by November of next year -- to run on a pure message of change, or on pent-up demand for change. Waves are built on dissatisfaction and frustration, and there is little in national survey data that suggest most voters are upset with President Barack Obama's performance or the performance of his party." That was written in April of 2009.
Now, these men, Rothenberg, Carville, they are highly respected. They are sought after. They are esteemed elites. They are paid lots of money to write this stuff. They are paid lots of money to speak this stuff. They appear with lectures. They make speeches. They write books. They grant interviews. They command large sums of money to predict the political landscape. They are hired by business interests to tell them what the future political landscape will be so that business interests can make appropriate investments and decisions on what government policy will be and how it will affect their business. They're paid a lot of money and they don't know what they're talking about. And you know why they don't know what they're talking about? Because they're first and foremost liberals, and they allow their liberalism and their ideology and their partisanship and their bias to affect their analysis of things.
So they're liberal Democrats, they're looking at Obama and they see a messiah and they see Grant Park on election night and they see, "My God, this has never happened, why, we've never seen this before. We have a clean, articulate black guy, gonna lower the seas, the Republicans don't have a prayer." Because they were unable to see one flaw in Obama. They were unable to see that people would eventually rebel against Obama policy, but I wasn't. I was totally able to see it. Not only was I able to see it, I feared it. I was afraid it would happen. That's why I said, "I hope he fails." I was trying to warn everybody of the doom and gloom that we were headed for. I was trying to warn everybody of the destruction represented by Obama policy and Democrat Party policy. I'm not treated as the smartest guy in the room. I'm not thought of as a highly paid, respected opinion elite leader. No, no, no. I'm a flame throwing bomb maker. I'm a troublemaker in these people's parlance. I'm not talking about the way you look to me.
People who are wrong always categorize me as not knowing what I'm talking about. And all we gotta do is go back and look at what they wrote and what they said. Here's another one. Former Enron advisor Paul Krugman and noted New York Times propagandist. "Lots of buzz about the possibility that 2010 will be another 1994, with the triumphant conservative majority sweeping back into its rightful place of power. And of course, anything is possible.
But the signs really don't point to that. ... Here in my home state, it's looking increasingly likely that Corzine will beat Christie after all. And while some of that reflects Christie's various personal issues, plus Corzine's willingness to bring out the brass knuckles -- as we say in New Jersey, you got a problem with that? -- it also, I think, reflects the fact that Christie can't explain what he would do differently. These days, the Republicans are the party of no ideas -- and it shows.
This is Paul Krugman, a highly paid Nobel prize winner, New York Times columnist. The year after Barack Obama was elected president, Sam Tanenhaus, editor of the New York Times book review, came out with a book of his own. It was called The Death of Conservatism. These are perfect examples of how noted elite political pundits put their ideology into their reasoning and therefore become unable to see reality. They're unable to see what they don't want to see. What they don't want to see they then proclaim to be impossible to occur. I'll bet we could find many, many more who were just as adamant that what happened on Tuesday had no chance of happening a year ago, a year and a half ago. And yet they remain highly thought of. They remain respected. Their opinions are eagerly waited for. People had their tongues dragging the floor, waiting for the next utterance of James Carville. What will Stu Rothenberg say tomorrow about 2012? They rely on the fact that nobody's gonna go back and recall what they said. They rely on the fact that nobody's gonna go back and look at what they said and remind anybody of just how off-base they were. And it all is rooted in the bias and arrogance, conceit of liberalism.
RUSH: You know, maybe, ladies and gentlemen, there is an alternative explanation. Maybe we just aren't smart enough to understand the intricacies of thought put forth by Messrs. Carville, Krugman, and Rothenberg. Maybe we just too stupid to understand what these brilliant liberal minds are really saying with their nuanced predictions that the Republicans have no chance whatsoever of winning in 2010. But I doubt it. The point is they're wrong. Liberalism is a lie.