RUSH: Robin in Le Mars, Iowa, thank you for calling. I appreciate your waiting. Hello.
CALLER: Oh, no problem. Thank you, sir, for taking my call.
RUSH: You bet.
CALLER: You know, yesterday you were talking about how Romney shouldn't even play into the distractions -- you know, with the taxes and the bad ads and all of that. How he shouldn't go down that road.
RUSH: Uh, wellll, I think I was saying that other people were making that point.
CALLER: Okay. But aren't we...? Well, you also said that we'd love to see him or see the liberals on the defensive.
RUSH: That I did. We want to see them on the defensive, absolutely.
CALLER: Well, why are...? (scoffs) What I'm seeing is that we're making it so much harder than it really is. Why don't we keep it simple? Why play into the game if we know that's what it is, is a game? I mean, it's a distraction game. Obama can't talk about the issues, correct, because he's got a horrible record?
CALLER: So why are we even letting them distract us? Why can't Romney get out there and actually say, "Hey, I got 90 days to prove to this country that I am what this country needs, and I'm not going to talk about something that is totally misguided, half truths. Let's get back to talking about what America needs." Why can't he just...? Or even his surrogates. Why in the world would they bring Romneycare into the game? Why are we --
RUSH: Wait, wait a minute.
RUSH: You're talking about his press spokesman that went out on TV and responded to the "Romney Murdered My Wife" ad by talking about Romneycare; is that what you mean?
CALLER: Exactly. Why in the world would we volunteer that? We don't want to talk about Romneycare in the first place. And when they're talking about murder, we bring up Romneycare? We're making it harder than it is. Keep it simple. "We don't want to talk about this because it's half truths."
RUSH: Well, I asked this question. A lot of people are. In fact, the Washington Examiner asked me. I made some comments about this the other day. There's an actual column by Byron York about this, and my reaction was posted last night. I, like a lot of people, was dumbfounded, because the Romney team accepted the premise. It's not so much you bring Romneycare into it, but here's a guy claiming that you killed his wife and you say, "Yeah, but she might have lived longer if she lived in Massachusetts."
What the hell?
"Why accept the premise?" is my point.
RUSH: And I really think that the problem here is that... It was asked of me by a reporter, "Why did you even go after the spokeswoman?" The reporter said, "Whenever Obama has a person commit a gaffe like a 'Blabbermouth' Schultz or any of his other supporters," like Harry Reid and this mythical, magical friend who claims Romney hasn't paid taxes, "the Democrats rally around whoever says whatever ridiculous thing. They rally around them."
The question I got was: "How come you went ballistic on Andrea Saul?" That's the woman you saw on Fox bring up Romneycare. "How come the Republicans don't form a protective circle around Romney and his people like the Democrats do?" And I said, "There's a very simple reason for this. The Democrats are unified. They're unified with one objective, and that's creaming us. They are solely animated and organized and energized at the prospect of defeating conservatives and Republicans.
"Because if they do that, then everything else they want to do they get to do. That's their sole purpose is beat us. We are their biggest enemy in the world. We're a bigger than enemy than al-Qaeda. We are a bigger enemy to them than any terrorist attack on this country. Because if they finish us off, there's nobody to stop them in anything they do." So I think a lot of people misunderstand. They think that what really animates the Obama campaign is facilitating the purchasing of another car company or coming up with whatever policy.
It's beating us!
Once we're out of the way, there's no stopping them to whatever they want to do. That's not what animates the Republican Party. The Republican Party and the conservative wing of the Republican Party are not unified, because we don't have the same objective. Our objective is to wipe out the liberals! The Republican Party's objective, apparently, isn't. They have a different objective. I don't know what it is. I mean, I know they want to win. But they don't look at the liberals as an enemy to this nation's founding like we do.
The liberals, the Democrats and everybody in Obama's camp looks at us as the biggest threat to their way of life that exists. The Republican Party doesn't see the Democrat Party that way. As such, they're not organized to take the fight to them in that regard. We conservatives are. That's why there is a divide. That's why when a Romney spokesman goofs up, we point it out. Because we conservatives think that we've got a Republican Party that doesn't know what it's doing.
And we've got to steer them down the right road for their own good. The liberals don't have this problem. They have a singular purpose. Now, they are a varied constituency, and they've got constituency groups that all want different things. But that's not what unifies them. The feminists don't like the environmentalists because they share things in common. The reason the environmentalist wackos and feminazis are on the same team is because they both have the same objective.
Get rid of us and there's no stopping what else they want to do.
We don't have that characteristic, that killer instinct. We're missing it. It's the best I can come up with. When you people call here and ask me, like this woman is doing, "Why don't Republicans do X?" I don't know! If I ran them, they would. The only way I can explain it is they don't look at the Democrat Party the same way I do. They don't look at Obama and see the great threat to the country that I do. They see Obama as a political opponent that you get every four years and you try to beat.
And you go out and raise more money and run more clever ads and pick the right vice president. All this minutia, day-to-day political crap isn't going to get this done. That's why I don't care who the vice presidential nominee is. Well, it's not that I don't care who it is, but I'm not caught up in the game of who it's going to be. Byron York asked me... This is an interesting thing. You might find it interesting. He's the guy that did the story. He said, "Do you make it a policy to not know the people you talk about, or do you try to get to know them?"
I said, "No. I don't hang around political people, but that's not by design. I just don't live where they live." What he's asking is, "Is it harder to criticize people you know?" It is. "Is it harder to criticize your friends?" Yeah, it is, which is another reason I don't want to ever live in Washington. I don't want to be corrupted by that very thing that you can't be critical of people who happen to become acquaintances and, in some cases, friends. But that's the big problem, folks, is that we don't have a singular, unified reason for existing on the right.