RUSH: Now, this screening business -- (interruption) yeah, Snerdley, I'm gonna get to Dancing with the Stars. I'm not gonna lead with it, but we're gonna get to it. Thursday we got a call asking if we'd like to chat with Bristol Palin and Mark Ballas on the program today about their finals tonight on Dancing with the Stars and I passed on the opportunity. We don't really do interviews and have guests on the program, but Dancing with the Stars did call and offer them as guests on the program. So we'll get to that 'cause the country's in a tizzy over this. The left's in a tizzy. The left's in a tizzy about a lot of stuff, ladies and gentlemen.
In the Politico: "How Liberalism Self-Destructed," by Joel Kotkin analyzing what happened to liberalism and where it went wrong. This guy's point is liberalism used to provide an upwardly mobile path for the downtrodden, and now it keeps the downtrodden downtrodden. I don't think it's ever provided an upwardly mobile path. I think that's the big myth about liberalism. (interruption) What, Snerdley? You want to talk about Dancing with the Stars before the NFL? I don't know. I know my quarterback got clocked. The guy who clocked him got thrown out of the game, Richard Seymour. It was a great NFL Sunday, no question about that.
The New York Times has a piece today, appeared recently, Kate Zernike on the Pilgrims were actually socialists. Yep. Pilgrims were socialists, and she quotes me teaching the opposite in my book, and says that a lot of people, okay, half right about this, but they're going off the beaten path. The socialism was not a bad thing back then, except when it didn't work, but that's not why they gave it up, not because it was a bad thing. The left, they're circling the wagons out there.
Try this. According to the Washington Post the political divide is deepening. If you've seen this map, this is incredible. Democrats own the big cities on the left and right coasts, and Republicans own everything else. The Democrats own Seattle, San Francisco, Los Angeles, just a tinge of San Diego, Boston, New York, Philadelphia, and Miami. Everything else is red. Now, this is where this gets funny and interesting. Republicans scored big gains "from districts that were older, less diverse and less educated than the nation as a whole," this according to the Washington Post. Democrats did well with minorities and higher educated whites but they lost the working class white voter, which according to the Washington Post, is not educated. The working class white voter is less educated than the nation as a whole, is older and less diverse, i.e., racist and bigoted than the nation as a whole. Stupid. Basically Republican voters are stupid. The Democrat voters are put-upon victims, minorities and the super smart, white guys.
So, again, to translate: Republicans did well among dumb old white people. Democrats have elitist liberal whites. They own minorities, in a manner of speaking. Their problem is that middle class whites are fleeing the party. Middle class, stupid whites, according to the Washington Post, are fleeing the party. But let's look at the divide another way. Middle America feeds the world. Middle America makes this country work. Flyover country, however you wish to characterize it, makes this country work. Middle America exemplifies the can-do attitude that saved the world from tyranny. It was middle-class America climbing the ropes at Pointe du Hoc and winning the Battle of the Bulge and flying the airplanes at Nagasaki. It wasn't the Harvard faculty. It wasn't the Yale volleyball team. Their values made America the envy of people and nations the world over. The large coastal cities, on the other hand, are broke. Large coastal states are broke. They have bloated governments. They have immense welfare and union obligations, and they are bankrupting their economies.
So this divide lamented by the Washington Post is much more than political. It's cultural and it's values oriented. On the one side are those who believe in a hard work ethic -- we've been talking about this, the merit based portion of our society, paying their own way. On the other side are those who embrace a welfare ethic. They believe that government should distribute everything, from health care to three meals a day and a snack for kids, whether they're in school or not. Put another way, the divide is between those who insist on bankrupting the country for their utopian social dreams and those of us who demand they pay for it. They demand that we pay for it. So everywhere you look today, even this Dancing with the Stars, is about the division in the country, the media, the Drive-Bys, and the election, Dancing with the Stars, all of this news with the scanners, the airport security, how liberalism self-destructed, everybody's now writing about the great divide.
Now, contrast this with two years ago when what was supposed to happen after the election was massive unity. Obama has come to divide. The political divide is not about geography, though, when you get right down to brass tacks. It's about those who want a utopia and the people that they are demanding pay for it. The divide is between those who pay taxes and those who don't. The people that work are sick of funding the existence of those who don't work. And they are sick of funding bloated state governments and unions that don't accomplish anything. I mean even with a map that shows 90% of the country is Republican red, the Democrats are still talking about how brilliant they are. Do you realize 90% of the country, according to the Washington Post, is stupid. And that's why Bristol Palin might win Dancing with the Stars. And that's why the Republicans won Congress. I tried to print this. It blew up my mail program. I had to force quit my program, but I'll find it. The DC Examiner, some Harvard or Yale, some Ivy League professor or political scientist explaining the election results says it's because voters are stupid. So this is the divide. This is the way it's shaping up. The Democrats and the left, this is how they explain, and they're illustrating and making it clear that which I have always said. They hold you in contempt.
I got a note here from Zev Chafets, the author of Rush Limbaugh: An Army of One. It was University of Wisconsin political scientist Charles Franklin who said that the American voter is pretty damn stupid. This is a Byron York story: "Political reporters often rely on University of Wisconsin political scientist Charles Franklin for expertise. In just the past few months, his insights have appeared in articles in the New York Times, Washington Post, USA Today, Associated Press, Politico, Boston Globe, Christian Science Monitor, and many other publications. He's also a co-founder of the influential website Pollster.com, as well as co-director of the Big Ten Battleground Poll.
So Franklin answered with considerable authority when he was asked, at a recent forum on the November 2 election results, why Republicans emerged victorious in so many races." Remember, Charles Franklin, this is a go-to poli-sci guy: "I'm not endorsing the American voter. They're pretty damn stupid."
Everywhere you look, the Washington Post, Politico -- well, Politico says liberals are maybe taking themselves down the wrong path, but the divide in the country is now well established, although we were supposed to be unified, the divide is well established, they say it's geographic, but it's not. It is cultural. Regardless, they are saying we're divided, we're hopelessly divided. Obama was supposed to unify us just two years ago and we're divided because the American people are stupid. This is, frankly, not new. The Democrats routinely chalk up their losses to stupid or uninformed or ill-informed voters. It's never their issues. It's always if they make any mistakes it's packaging, marketing, messaging. It's never their issues, when it always is their issues. Yesterday afternoon on Fox News Channel, The Rise, Fall, and Future of Conservatism, the author Steven Hayward said this about former president Ronald Reagan, known affectionately here as Ronaldus Magnus.
HAYWARD: After he was governor, a lot of his political circle thought he should head some new national organization. Some people thought he ought to try become ambassador to England or secretary of commerce or even president of the US Chamber of Commerce. The most interesting offer was CBS News asked him, "Would you like to do a four or five-minute commentary once a week on the Walter Cronkite broadcast?" And instead Reagan said, "No, I don't want to do TV. I think people will get tired of me. I want to go back to radio." That was his original career back in the thirties.
REAGAN: Mankind has survived all manner of evil diseases and plagues, but can it survive communism? How much is it worth to not have World War Three? An unborn child's property rights are protected by law. His right to life is not. I'll be right back.
RUSH: Ronald Reagan radio commentaries. Next up on this show, Fox News reporting the Rise, Fall, and Future of Conservatism, a portion of the program featuring former senior policy advisor to the '76 Reagan presidential campaign Martin Anderson talking about former President Reagan and me.
ANDERSON: He was the Rush Limbaugh of the 1970s.
RUSH ARCHIVE: I remember my first radio station I worked at in my hometown of Cape Girardeau, Missouri. Those commentaries were not airing there, but I saw them. They came in on record. And I listened to a couple of them now and then.
REAGAN: The one question I've heard all over this land in these past many months is, "What can we do about welfare?"
RUSH ARCHIVE: And I was just struck by how persuasive, forceful but unthreatening Reagan was.
REAGAN: Before we do more of what we're doing, why don't we find out if what we're doing is part of the problem. This is Ronald Reagan. Thanks for listening.
RUSH: Those radio commentaries, my station didn't play them but we got them, and they were pressed on vinyl. They came in on 33, you know, albums. As I say, our station didn't air them. I don't remember why. Too busy playing rotten moldy oldies or something, but regardless I did get the albums out and listen to 'em now and then, and exactly what I said here, he was persuasive and forceful but unthreatening, unlike me, who it was said to be very threatening, not to you, but to our critics and to our enemies. But that was Martin Anderson saying that Ronaldus Magnus was the Rush Limbaugh of 1970s, and true to form, just as they wanted to get Reagan out of office and off the air they're trying to get me off the air all these 23 years. Sergeant Schultz at MSNBC has made it his singular purpose -- (laughing) They just can't get over Driving Miss Nancy. They're still talking about it, they can't get over that, and my wonderfully creative -- remember, every bit of comedy is comedy because it has an element of truth to it -- my wonderfully illustrative: the Obama administration is graffiti on the walls of American history. They just can't get over those two things.
RUSH: Yep. You can. There's no rule against it. You can tackle somebody by the hair. You can do it. Yeah, it came up last year, some guy got tackled by the hair and everybody wanted horse collar penalty and it was not called because you can tackle by the ponytail. No question about it.
You know, ladies and gentlemen, look at all that the Obama regime has wrought, compared to what it was supposed to be, the way we were told, the packaging of this man and this campaign. Now we get stories from across the pond, he's no big deal in the world, he's not even anything special to people around the world now. But we have Obama to thank for enriching our political vocabulary with wonderfully clever phrases: "Keep your hands off my junk, grope and change, and gate rape." Yeah, these are terms being associated and I need to point something out here. It's not happening in very many places. Compared to the number of people going through these scanners or the checkpoints, it's not happening very much. But when it does happen, it's huge, and it's getting media coverage like I have never seen before.
Remember, nothing in the media is an accident, and nothing is a coincidence. It's being made to look like it is nationwide and that every American is being subjected to this, when the number of people actually being mistreated this way is very small. Now, according to an October report in The Atlantic (which is a magazine for those of you who don't know), the pat-downs are designed to be so intrusive to steer people into scanners. I knew it. I knew that's what this is all about, and that's why all the over the top media coverage. There's no accident here, and there's no coincidence. And the fact that these pat-downs are occurring the way they are with pictures, people are getting pictures, it's not an accident. They are trying to force you into the scanners. That's what this is about.