RUSH: We're gonna start in summit, New Jersey. Jeff, thanks for waiting. Welcome to the program. Hello, sir.
CALLER: Hey, it's always a pleasure to wait, Rush, mega dittos and let me just correct you on something. You say you have talent on loan from God.
RUSH: I do, yes.
CALLER: In my opinion you are, in fact, a gift from God.
RUSH: Thank you very much. I appreciate that.
CALLER: You're very welcome. I wanted to get to this point. Actually, two points today. One is about that story you were reading about Mitt Romney back in 2005 where he sort of reversed himself and said the Catholic Church or any hospitals and medical facilities could not refuse to provide any kind of contraceptive services due to religious beliefs.
RUSH: Yeah. Now, in being fair here, remember we're talking about the Boston Globe reporting on a Republican governor. It could very well be that he had no choice, that he threatened to veto it, the legislature decided to override or -- it may well be that he didn't really want to do this, had no choice, and they're writing about it as a flip-flop. My only point was that it's uncanny how this is happening and now the news of it is resurfacing here and how close it is.
CALLER: You're correct, and only time will tell whether or not there's more to the story. But my point really is that it shouldn't come as any surprise that these kinds of things will come out about Romney, which I believe is why the Obama administration wants him as a candidate. I think their opposition research, their ability to do this is second to none. They've known this for a long time. In fact, it wouldn't surprise me if they didn't use Romney's people to help craft Obamacare exactly as a sort of prophylactic weapon later on in case he ran.
RUSH: You say that knowing that they used his people. That's your explanation as to why they did it, that they did it purposely so as to denude Romney?
CALLER: There were probably lots of people they could have chosen, but they did have Romneycare in Massachusetts, they had gotten it implemented. It was certainly a logical choice to go to, but I don't think that it escaped them that this was something they would be able to use against Romney should he become the nominee.
RUSH: Yeah, I know, you could be right. Two of Romney's advisers themselves are saying that they went to the White House and advised the White House on aspects of Romneycare. And one of the Romney advisers is saying that Obamacare is Romneycare. So he is gonna have to deal with it regardless, it has happened, could be all a pack of lies, but it's out there, it has happened, he's going to have to deal with it. This story from 2005, "In a shocking turnaround Romney announced yesterday..." this could be a total lie. It could well be that he vetoed it, was overwritten, and they're writing this as though Romney supported it when he didn't. You never know, you're dealing with the media, but the point is it is gonna come up.
CALLER: It certainly is gonna come up and I think that's why they view him as perhaps the most defeatable candidate. Secondly, the other point I wanted to make was, regarding Romney himself as a candidate and the shock, the surprise, the feigned surprise that Rick Santorum has won three states and is now beginning to gain ground in the polls. I think what the conservative base is saying, and has been saying for a very long time, is that we want anybody but Romney, perhaps with the exception of Ron Paul, who I won't discuss right now, but I think the base has been saying, "Anyone but Romney," which is why Herman Cain did well for a while, when he was talking about conservative values. It's why Newt Gingrich tends to surge when he stays on message about conservatism. It's why Michele Bachmann did well for a while when she was staying on message about conservatism. And I think this is a litmus test.
RUSH: All right, let me ask you a question, then.
CALLER: Go ahead.
RUSH: This is not a trick question. I genuinely want your answer.
RUSH: Here you have the Republican establishment. The Republican establishment knows everything you're saying. They know that Romney can't get above 25 or 30%. They've got an answer for that. They say nobody else has, either, in the primaries. But they know that Cain rose -- let's just say they know -- because he's not Romney, and then Newt rose 'cause he's not Romney, Santorum rose 'cause he's not Romney. At what point, when you are the Republican establishment, do you realize that the biggest bloc of voters you have doesn't want, doesn't appear to want the guy you've chosen to anoint? Why do you stick with the guy rather than listen to your voters?
CALLER: Because that is the guy that they want because they will give up the White House, I believe, in an attempt to be able to hold both houses of Congress, you know, gain some ground in the Senate, possibly hold the House of Representatives, and all the inside machinations and maneuverings that they're used to and they're comfortable with will continue to go on forever.
RUSH: I think that's partly true, but I also think that there is another explanation for it in addition to that, and that is that they simply abhor conservatism as the dominant aspect or defining aspect of the party. I think there's a lot of just in-your-face, many characteristics of this. But when you look at it this way, your voters are telling you, "No." And you're saying to the voters, "Screw you, we don't care what you want. This is what you're gonna get." And you have to say how in the world do you ever win anything with that kind of an attitude in your party? Now, some will say, "Rush, you're really a novice. That's the way all political parties have always been. They've all got their grand pooh-bahs and they all look at the voters as a bunch of plebes and they all force what they want." I understand that to a certain extent. But at the end of the day it's also about winning elections, and there's a track record. There's a blueprint about how to do it and they're not following it, not using it. I appreciate the call very much, Jeff.
RUSH: The Los Angeles Times (speaking of the latest Rasmussen polls): "National likeability surveys among independent voters, who are less driven by ideology and more inclined toward someone they'd want as fishing buddy, also favor Santorum, especially in swing states such as Ohio and Missouri." National likability. Now, I mention this because we had the piece from the babe at the Independent Women's Forum who said there's no way Santorum could win independents. "If you think that can happen..." As though we're back to the same old canard: "We can't win without the independents. We gotta go out, we have to get them."
What really bothers me about that is, let's say it's true for a second, and let's say you're a conservative. You're a conservative, and then you as a full-fledged conservative you say, "We can't win without independents." Why be a conservative if you're not gonna approach 'em as a conservative? Right here, ladies and gentlemen, there is a story. The Democrats are doing it again. (I don't know if we've got this in the sound bite roster or not.) Harry Reid said that Republicans want to put arsenic and mercury in the water. Now, I think this is brand-new. Back in the early days of the Bush administration when there were changes made to arsenic content in water, the Democrats started out with:
Bush wants the poison in the water!
Bush is okay with poison!
The Democrats started talking about how Republicans want dirty water and dirty air, and it's been part of their approach for as long as I've been doing the program. "Republicans want dirty water and dirty air!" It's part of the global warming argument that the left makes. They really want people to believe this. Now, my question is: "If you got Harry Reid saying Republicans want to put arsenic and mercury in the water, why don't the independents object to that?" Even our people think these independents are some precious group. "We've gotta be very careful how we go get 'em, Rush. We can't get 'em being conservative. We can't get 'em criticizing Obama. We can't!"
Okay, well, how do we get 'em?
"Well, if we're too critical they're gonna run back to Obama, gonna run back to Democrats! They don't like this confrontation stuff! No, no, no. These independents, they want people to get along."
Fine. So the independents are gonna be running back to people like Harry Reid who says Republicans want to put arsenic and mercury in the water?
"Well, no, Rush, but the independents might believe it."
Oh, give me a break. The independents will believe Republicans want arsenic and mercury in the water but will not believe us when we tell them the truth about Obama's intentions? But my real point here is: You say you're a conservative, and then you say, "But we can't win without independents," and then you abandon your conservatism to go get the independents. It doesn't make sense to me. Why not go after the independents as a conservative? Why not take the time to teach? Why not take the time to instruct? If you believe passionately in conservatism, why do you have to subordinate it? Why do you have to ignore it?
Why do you have to pretend that you're not a conservative in order to win the independents? That's a story we're telling ourselves. That's another one of these lies that we're believing. "Well, the independents think conservatives are extremists." Yeah, and Harry Reid's not an extremist? Harry Reid says, "Republicans want arsenic and mercury in the water," and that's not extremist, but we are. We believe all these criticisms that the left and the media have advanced. We are constantly on defense with this. It is maddening. And you lump all this is what happened with Santorum. I'm not trying to attach too much weight or importance to this, but there is a reason why it happened.
There's a reason why Santorum swept three states. I know some of them are very odd caucus states. Colorado particularly. But still, he won. Romney is now three-out-of-five in the primaries. He has won three, lost five. If you want to say he won Iowa, he's 4-4. But Iowa, they finally gave it to Santorum. So he's 3-5. And there's a reason all of this is happening. If we're gonna continue to put ourselves on defense by believing that the independents are gonna think we're extremists simply because we're conservative, then it's time for the people who think that to stop being conservative. You're not really a conservative if you're gonna acknowledge that you're an extremist.
"No, Mr. Limbaugh, we're not acknowledging that we are extremists. We're acknowledging that they are going to think we are." Well, you're just gonna accept it? Look, I know, folks: Politics isn't my business. It's easy for me to sit here on the radio and say this stuff. I understand that getting votes and getting an audience are two completely different things. I understand that. I understand the defensive nature of the power of the establishment in Washington. I understand all that. What I don't understand is why the constant acquiescence to inferior status, why that seems to be the constant frame of mind. And that from that inferior status or frame of mind, we then -- in order to explain ourselves -- must be defensive. I just know that nobody ever won anything defending it. Plain and simple.
RUSH: Here is Dingy Harry (I wanted you to hear in his own words) talking about Republicans. This is on the Senate floor Monday in Washington.
REID: (whispering) Republicans are insisting, among other things, that we pass an unrelated, ideological piece of legislation that will make our water less safe to drink. This would allow mercury and other carsen'ojens (sic) to be put in our water supply. (dramatic pause) That's pretty stark compromise: We'll give you a payroll tax cut for 160 million Americans if you will let us continue to put things like arsenic and mercury in the water of American people. That's not a very good deal.
RUSH: Right. Yeah. He really wants people to believe that Republicans want to put arsenic and mercury in the water. "We'll give you a payroll tax cut for 160 million Americans if you will let us continue to put things like arsenic and mercury in the water," and we're told, by the way, independents don't like that kind of talk. Independents don't like this kind of confrontation, all these accusations. Independents want compromise, people getting along. Um, have you ever noticed that independents never, ever get worried or upset or angry or bothered by what Democrats say, only Republicans? (sigh) It's just amazing.