RUSH: I want to address something for what must be the umpteenth gazillionth time. No matter where I go, no matter when I open an e-mail, no matter who I'm talking to, I can be guaranteed of being asked, "What should the Republicans do?" or, "Why don't the Republicans do X? Why are the Republicans doing Y? What do you think they ought to do?" For 25 years I have been the recipient of this question. And of course the answer changes based on the specifics of the moment.
Now, one of the things that is being discussed is what does Obama's victory mean? To what do you chalk it up? And there are many who say that Obama's election was a mandate to continue spending, more stimulus, raise taxes. Other people say, "But, no, no, he didn't campaign on any of that. If Obama had campaigned on $1.6 trillion in new taxes, he wouldn't have won, Rush. He didn't campaign on that stuff." That's all true. However, the people on the side of Obama having a mandate to do all this say, "But you guys ran against it, and you lost." Romney ran against tax increases. Romney ran against all of this spending. Romney ran against all of this wasteful expansion of the debt.
Romney ran on creating jobs. Romney ran on reinvigorating the private sector, and he lost. And so the pro Obamaites are saying, Obama might not have campaigned for big tax increases, but Romney campaigned against 'em, and so they're claiming this mandate for Obama. And many people are running around assuming that that mandate exists, and a lot of people believe that the people who voted in this country -- and, by the way, you know, a couple hundred million people did not vote for Obama. The 2008 to 2012 turnout was down. Romney and McCain, basically the same number of votes. Obama's vote totals were down, but it was where Obama got his vote out that secured the election victory, and it was with these demographic groups in large part, turnout-wise.
You look at Ohio. Obama got over a hundred thousand additional black votes over 2008 in 2012. So he increased the black turnout and nobody thought that was gonna happen. Not nobody, but the conventional wisdom on our side was that Obama was not gonna be able to replicate his 2008 turnout. Totally he didn't, but demographic group by demographic group in certain states he did. He beat his turnout, and to the wizards of smart who analyzed this stuff it was the electoral difference. But I think you could intellectually say, honestly and correctly say that Obama did not win this election based on massive tax increases, even more massive spending increases. He didn't run on that. And had he, he would have lost.
The left can never run on their real record, and they can never run on what their really promises are, what their real intentions are. They would lose hands down. So in that sense we haven't lost the country. In that sense we haven't hit this tipping point. On the other hand, don't forget that the pro-Obama mandate crowd say, "Well, you guys ran against it and you didn't win. You guys talked about it. Maybe Obama didn't, but you guys did and you couldn't persuade people to join you in cutting taxes, in cutting spending, in reducing the size of government and creating new jobs. You couldn't convince enough people to vote for your guy." So they're running around claiming a mandate on that basis.
What did Obama really win this election on? In one part he won this election based on free contraceptives. That's his mandate, if he's got one. Contrary to what the pro-Obama forces want to believe, this was not a grand philosophical election. It was not an election based on Obama's record. And I know what some of you are saying, "Rush, it was, it was because everybody knew what his record was and it shouldn't have been this close." Some people are saying the fact that it was this close means that there are enough people that want the government to be Santa Claus. It just represents aspects of the ongoing battle that we face.
RUSH: Did he campaign on $1.6 trillion in tax increases? Nope. Did he campaign on substituting socialism for capitalism? We're back now to this gray area. Of course he didn't. In an affirmative sense, Obama never once said that he wants to replace capitalism with socialism. Have you seen the latest Gallup poll asking people how they identify? Fifty-five percent of people say that they are comfortable being called socialists. So I would say the next time you want to call a liberal Democrat a socialist, go right ahead, they're proud of it. But he didn't campaign on that. But you could say that Romney did campaign on saving capitalism, and he lost. Even though you'd have to get into, "Well, is that why he lost or did he lose for other reasons?"
My only point is that Obama doesn't have a mandate to wipe out capitalism. He does not have a mandate for redistribution, but I don't think it matters to Obama. He doesn't care. And this is why I went through this long, drawn-out analysis yesterday. The Republicans are walking away from these fiscal cliff talks because Obama's really running around now in a dictatorial fashion. He has an air about him, attitude, and he's gonna claim whatever mandate he wants, and make no mistake about the fact that he is going and is in the process of and has been for four years, transforming this country from capitalism to socialism. About that, there is no doubt. You can argue whether he's got a mandate to do it or not. You can argue about whether or not the country actually voted for him 'cause he's Santa Claus.
You know, the proof that they're not comfortable with that is out there each and every day. When you accuse him of it, the Democrats go batty. When you accuse them of winning this election on Santa Claus, they go nuts. So they don't yet want to be thought of that way, not en masse, even though they're happy for their voters to look at them that way. Okay, so what do Republicans do? Well, I think the Republicans ought to just shut up and stop playing the game that Obama and the Democrats are playing with all of this fiscal cliff talk. It's the same old, same old. It's the same format, same formula, for as long as I've been doing this show and longer.
The Democrats create a fiscal crisis, they take us to the brink, and then it's all blamed on the Republicans, and then the pressure to stop it is placed on the Republicans, and every two years the Republicans play ball with this. Every two years they accept their assigned role in this little play. And I think it's time that they stop talking like bureaucrats and robots, stop using the typical Washington government-speak and just come out and boldly, bluntly say, "We're not gonna support Obama bankrupting the country." Now, the Republicans in Washington, DC, though, are among those who think -- not all of them, but some of them -- are among those who think that Obama does have a mandate. They do.
You look at what they think they've gotta do to win elections. They've gotta relax on immigration. They gotta relax on abortion. They gotta relax on all other social issues. The Republicans in Washington are making it clear, they think Obama did win on the Santa Claus stuff. They think Obama did win as a big liberal, legalizing illegal immigrants and amnesty and all that sort of stuff. You listen to 'em, I mean that's what they're talking about, and their consultants, "Yeah, the Republicans have to really change." I still think there's so much to be gained by continuing to draw the contrast. Just go out there and say, "Look, we're not playing the game anymore. We're not playing ball like this. Look, Obama, you don't have the votes here. You don't have the votes in the Senate for $1.6 trillion in new taxes. You don't have the votes in the House. You don't have the votes for this."
Okay, so you lose an election. Stop running around with your tail between your legs. Stop acting all defeatist and down in the dumps. Stand up for what you believe. I know it's easy to say from behind a microphone. I do. But it shouldn't be very hard to say that you're just not gonna stand idly by and support Obama bankrupting the country. You're not gonna stand idly by and watch him nationalize businesses through the back door. You're not gonna stand idly by and watch him replace our capitalist system with socialism.
Say this. There's a big market for this. Now they're gonna nationalize our 401(k)s and IRAs. What the hell is with that? Stand up and say you're not gonna let that happen. Obama doesn't have the votes to make that happen, folks. Now, sometimes the votes don't matter to Obama. He'll just sign his name to an executive order. And now they're talking about eliminating the mortgage interest deduction, wiping out private charities by eliminating deductions to churches and homeless shelters. He promised he was gonna do that, by the way, back in the first year of the first term. He promised that. He wants government being the sole provider for all of these places. He doesn't want charitable donations from individuals.
If he gets everything he wants, he destroys our future. How hard is it to stand up and say we're not going to participate in the destruction of our future? The electorate did elect a Republican House, and the Senate stayed mostly the same. So you Democrats, you can have this wishful thinking all you want about your mandate out there, the way you want to concoct it, but it really doesn't exist. There's no great landslide here.
RUSH: Dan in Houston. We start with you. Thank you for waiting. Great to have you up first on Open Line Friday. Hi.
CALLER: Thank you, Rush. I have a quick comment on yesterday's show, and then I have a question for you.
CALLER: Yesterday, and again today, you mentioned Republicans should basically walk out of negotiations, and you were exactly correct. I'm a negotiator for a software company in Houston, and a key principle of negotiations is, "He who cares the least, wins."
RUSH: Yeah, and that's so hard to pull off, isn't it? When you really want something, when you really care about it, acting like you don't is a really hard thing to do.
CALLER: You have to have a backbone.
RUSH: Well, you do. You have to be willing to walk away from it.
CALLER: That's correct.
RUSH: Because that's the ultimate display of not caring.
CALLER: That's correct. Anyway, moving on to my question. I have this question I've been wondering about. Do you think that the smart liberals, though that may be the perfect oxymoron, who should know better, really believe in socialism and redistribution, or do you think they're just practical enough to abandon what they know is right in order to be able to be the engineer in front of the socialism, liberal train?
RUSH: No. I think that the vast majority of the Democrat Party today has gone over the cliff, so to speak. I think they believe it. You could go back some years, and you could find what I would call an adult Democrat who would look at what's happened to the party now and would say, "Even though they mighta won this election, we are horribly set up fat future, and we are harming this country." It would be a guy like Bob Strauss, but even then, people would argue with me about that. He's a big LBJ guy, and LBJ would probably be happy as hell with what's happening now.
I don't think there are any smart or adult Democrats. I think they've all drank the Kool-Aid, and I think they're all full-fledged progressives now, socialists, whatever term they want. But your question is are some of them just adopting this because it wins elections and keeps them on good terms with Obama and so forth? I don't think so. I mean, there may be some, but I've been looking for 'em for a long time, thinking that they would pop up. There have been plenty times where people that want to save the Democrat Party pop up, but it hasn't happened. In fact, just the opposite. They seem to be loving everything that's happening with the Democrat Party now and where it's headed. That's the way it is.
RUSH: Linda in Edgewater, Florida. Hi. Great to have you here.
CALLER: Hey, mega dittos, Rush. I love you.
RUSH: Thank you.
CALLER: Well, I hope our elected officials listen to your show. They might learn something.
CALLER: Anyway, I don't understand why the Republicans just don't take the middle class off the table. They can cut the middle class taxes by, say, seven or 10%, keep the tax rates the same for the wealthier 2%, and submit the debt reduction bill and get rid of a lot of those bogus government funded programs. The Democrats can't use the middle class against them. Instead of Boehner crying, he can grow a pair and tell the media that we lowered taxes on the middle class by say 10%.
RUSH: Well, look, I'm not trying to defend these guys but I don't know what, if anything, the Republicans have proposed because it's all being done in private. It's all being done in secret. Boehner and Obama are talking in private, and we only know what's being discussed by virtue of what either of them says. As far as the news is concerned, Boehner hasn't proposed anything. It's Obama doing the proposing, and us doing the, "Sorry, that doesn't fly." I would assume Boehner's making some proposal. He's insisting that there must be spending cuts, but the specifics that you detail, I have no clue whether he's proposing anything like that or not.
CALLER: Well, the Republicans need to realize that 49% of the people voted Republican and they pay attention to what's going on in government. Most of the team who voted for Obama did so for one or two specific reasons. They wanted free stuff or because he's a black man they wanted to keep him in. They don't pay attention to the politics.
RUSH: Yeah, I know you say that, but the problem is the low-information voters happen to be determining the outcome. Now, your proposal sounds good. Say Boehner goes out and proposes that. What you have to understand is that Obama can and would veto any middle-class tax cut that the Republicans tried to do, he's reserving that for himself. So what you want is for the Republicans to at least propose it so that it's out there and people understand they want that, right?
CALLER: Yeah. Why not? I mean, they can take that off the table for the Democrats.
RUSH: No. No, no. You gotta hear me. Obama will veto it because he's reserving the middle-class tax cut for himself next year.
CALLER: But then that's what the Republicans can come out and tell the people, say, "Hey, he vetoed it. We wanted to lower your taxes by 10%. Look, he says he's for the middle class. It's a lie."
RUSH: Yeah. Yeah. I hear you. I hear you. The problem is that nobody hears it when the Republicans say it, or, if they hear it, they don't believe it because it's gonna end up being demagogued and who knows whatever else. There's a vicious cycle on this. I'm not arguing with you that the Republicans shouldn't do it, shouldn't stand for this, shouldn't stand for things. I think the opportunity to contrast ourselves continues to be awesome. We just do it.
Look, I've been saying this 25 years. I can get in real trouble here. I asked earlier, could somebody name for me some charismatic, brilliant, clever, tough conservative? It all comes down to we got plenty of people that can articulate it. Do they really believe it? I think in the Republican Party there's still a large segment that wants no part of conservatism. That hasn't changed. I'm not trying to be the spoilsport here. I wish I saw more evidence that there were people who believe this like you and I believe it, amongst our elected types. We know some too. Ted Cruz is the latest. Marco Rubio. We have plenty who do. But they're not doing the negotiation. Senate's not involved in all this.