RUSH: There's an AP story here today. This rules change that everybody thinks got solved yesterday. Let me briefly, as I understand this, tell you what's going on. There was an attempt, by the rules committee yesterday, to change the rules of the convention in determining who the delegates to the convention are from the various states and to strip away all of the BS. The purpose of the rules change, which was orchestrated by Ben Ginsberg -- he's working for Romney, but it's the establishment GOP. The express purpose is to eliminate any influence of Tea Party activists or grassroots people or conservatives, essentially, from having any power at future conventions.
It would allow the presidential nominee to determine who the delegates to the convention are in future conventions. That was the purpose of the rules change. And, as of last night, it was supposedly beaten back. Now, there is talk of an end run at two o'clock this afternoon. Byron York has a piece at the Washington Examiner: "Despite reports of a compromise, there is still substantial unhappiness among many delegates to the Republican convention over a package of party rules changes proposed by the Romney campaign. The fight ... could break into the open today, as delegates debate various proposals to resolve the conflict.
"The short version of the story is that the changes would give the party’s presidential nominee more control over how individual states choose their delegates to the national convention. In this cycle, there have been bitter fights in some states as supporters of Ron Paul, who did not win any primaries or caucuses, tried to exploit the rules at local, district, and state-level conventions to win delegates," and thus try to influence things that happened.
"If the proposed new rules, introduced by Romney campaign lawyer Ben Ginsberg, had been in effect this year, Mitt Romney, as the presumptive nominee, would have had significant control over that delegation-selection process." And the latest is that, while it was apparently beat back yesterday, they're trying again in an end run that's not ostensibly the same rules change that was being attempted yesterday. The details here are not really important. The thing that we all need to know is why this is going on and what the express purpose is. Why does the establishment want control of the delegates. And, folks, it's very simple.
The establishment Republicans want to kick the conservatives out of the party. They don't want the conservatives having any say-so in the party whatsoever. And I'll give you one example why. It's an AP story. The Republican establishment, read this AP story. Rather than get mad at the AP, rather than get fighting mad at the impugning of members of the Republican Party, rather than get mad at that, they cower in fear and say, "How can we make the AP stop writing this stuff?" And they conclude that the only way to pull that off is to get rid of any conservative influence at all. And one way you can do that is keep 'em out of the convention and keep 'em out of the platform fights.
So here's the AP story: "The Republican Party that's showing its face to America this week is a restless institution that relies heavily on the uncompromising passions of Tea Partyers, anti-immigration activists and social conservatives." In other words, let me translate this for you. The Republican Party that's showing its face to America this week is a restless bunch of white racists who hate Latinos, hate women, don't want any abortions, don't want any amnesty, don't want any immigration reform, and want old folks to die.
Now, the Republican establishment will read this story, and rather than get livid at it, they'll say, "We gotta get rid of these conservatives. They're killing us." It's what they say. That's why the effort to change the rules. The next paragraph of the AP story: "These forces propelled the GOP to big wins in 2010, and they might help Mitt Romney win the White House this fall. But they operate largely beyond his control, sometimes igniting brush fires and pulling his campaign off message. More troubling for the Republican Party in future elections is that these fiery conservatives seem to be turning off many Hispanic voters, the fastest-growing segment of the American electorate.
"The challenge facing GOP leaders as they hold their nominating convention and look to the future: trying to win elections and push their agenda through Congress by harnessing the energy of these conservatives without letting that energy turn on them -- and without letting it put the party badly out of step with a nation that's rapidly becoming less white."
And so you see, according to the AP, when you boil it all down, the biggest problem with the Republican Party is its "whiteness." They are racist, anti-women, anti-Hispanic -- and, damn it, they're the reason Republicans win. So we gotta get rid of 'em. The AP wants us gone. The Democrat Party wants us gone. And the Republican establishment doesn't want the hassle of dealing with this. "In Romney, the convention-goers in Tampa are nominating a former corporate executive who fits somewhat uneasily in the party's decades-long rightward shift, which manifests itself most clearly in Congress."
Republican "lawmakers' adamant opposition to tax hikes, even on the wealthiest families," writes the AP, "puts them at odds with most Americans." You see, most Americans want to raise taxes on themselves and on their grandparents and on everybody else, including the rich. But these white conservatives want the government to have less money and be smaller and don't want any Democrats around. And so these white conservatives are the problem. And so they gotta go. They've just gotta go.
This isn't about Ron Paul, which as the media would like you to think it is. It's not about Ron Paul; it's not about his delegates. It's about the establishment finally being at its wits' end on this War on Women. Rather than try to rebuke it, they want to try to stop it. One thing I learned -- and people ask me all the time: "How do you put up with all the criticism and all the lies that people tell about you?" Well, it was tough at first because I thought I could stop it. And somehow (I don't know how), I learned I can't stop it.
So it has to be beaten back and defeated, but you can't stop it. The Republican establishment better figure out that they can't stop this stuff. Even if you were able to cleanse the party of all these white conservatives, do you think the AP is gonna start writing love stories about you? Do you think the AP is all of a sudden gonna love you? The only way that's gonna happen is if you become perpetual minority losers, and then they'll love you like crazy.
As long as you accept your role in the minority as constant losers, we'll give you a couple pieces of legislation here and there. The days of Bob Michel in the House when the Republicans had 135 members? You get back to that and we'll love you again. (That's really what this is about.) "Much more problematic is the Republican Party's strained relationship with minorities, especially a fast-growing Hispanic population alarmed by the sometimes sharp tone of conservatives on illegal immigrants. The party may need to address that problem before long to avoid falling behind Democrats in key states."
We're winning everything, though. See, that's the problem. The 2010 elections, the midterms, were a landslide loss for the Democrats and the left -- and this election could be (and should be) a landslide loss for the Democrats. But with stories like this, attempted rules changes such as those yesterday, and Chris Matthews going nuts, you can see what's happening here. The full arsenal of the left, including the media, is doing everything it can to intimidate everybody at this convention into shutting up.
About the Democrat Party.
About its policies.
About the things that it has done that are ruining the country.
Otherwise, you're gonna pay a price like you haven't seen. We're gonna make this country hate every one of you. You may win, but we're gonna make everybody hate you and think you are the most despicable enemy this country has ever had. And when the party's not made up of a lot of fighters... How many times have I told you this story? It was the early nineties, in the Hamptons. I'm at a dinner party of mostly establishment Republicans. Major figures (you'd know the names), big donors, fundraisers would come up to me, and point their finger in my chest. They'd actually jab my chest.
"What are you gonna do about the Christians?"
"What do you mean, what am I gonna do about the Christians?"
"This abortion! It's killing us! We're never gonna win a damn thing. They listen to you. You gotta get them to shut up about this."
I said, "They're only 24 million votes. You can't win anything without 'em."
"We don't want 'em! It's not good. It's embarrassing."
Well, that's 1992, '93. We're now at 2012. It's 20 years. That's how long it's been building. That is something that existed then, existed during the eighties with Reagan. There was embarrassment over Reagan.
RUSH: Texarkana, Texas. Alan, you are up first. It's great to have you with us today. Hello.
CALLER: Thank you. Hey, Rush, God bless you, sir.
RUSH: Thank you, sir.
CALLER: I'm really angry about this RNC effort to freeze out conservatives from having influence as delegates. I'm a registered Republican for 22 years, active with the Tea Party for over three years. Personally I preferred Cain or Santorum or Bachmann, but I'm voting for Romney. I really love Paul Ryan to save the Constitution, and despite the fact that the RNC froze out Texas and most conservatives from the process of picking the nominee to get their establishment candidate, the RNC got their pound of flesh, they got Romney, so they need to piss off and stop trying to freeze us out because without us there is no Republican majority, ever. We made the House majority, not the RNC, and they better step off if they know what's good for 'em or the Green Party is gonna be their closest parity competitor in future elections.
RUSH: You sound wired up out there.
RUSH: I can see it. I can hear it. Well, I have to take a break. I wish I had a chance to respond now. I will react to your call. You're expressing the sentiments of many, and when people, as they learn what this rules change is and why it's taking place, there is an appropriately accompanying wave of anger that is developing over this. I have to take the break, though. Thanks for the call very much, Alan.