RUSH: Ladies and gentlemen, get this. A story from Politico, an exclusive in the Politico. "A detailed report commissioned by two major Republican groups," which means somebody, or both, in these two major Republican groups had to leak this to The Politico. Otherwise, how would The Politico know?
"A detailed report commissioned by two major Republican groups -- including one backed by Karl Rove -- paints a dismal picture for Republicans, concluding female voters view the party as 'intolerant,' 'lacking in compassion' and 'stuck in the past.'" What a shock, that you have Republican operatives conducting such a poll, getting such results and then leaking it to The Politico. Why would you leak what is ostensibly horrible, bad news to Politico?
RUSH: Okay. So you might be asking the radio, because that's where I am in your world, might be asking the radio, "Rush, what's the big deal? Okay, so Rove and another Republican group do a survey, and it finds that women hate Republicans. What's the big deal?"
Let me tell you what the big deal. Doesn't that sound like exactly what the Democrats say? And we have been discussing recently, have we not, this whole idea that the Republicans don't seem to be telling anybody what they stand for. They don't seem to be announcing any kind of an agenda. They don't seek any effort to contrast themselves with the Democrats.
Even Snerdley just said to me, "You know what, this immigration business, don't shut down the government. This is a perfect example that they should do what you were talking about yesterday. Don't say a word. Let Obama do it. Let Obama do it, and it's gonna just destroy the Democrats. It's gonna cause a firestorm across the country, and the Democrats are gonna get skunked in the election in November. Don't say anything."
And, see, I understand the strategy, because that's oriented toward the objective is they're winning an election in November. But in the meantime, what happens? At least five million people get legalized and won't be deported, and, bammo, the process begins, while we brilliantly position ourselves to maybe win an election in November. And then what are we gonna do? "Well, well, we'll be in power."
"Yeah? Well, what are we gonna do?" 'Cause Obama's still gonna be out there ignoring the executive actions, then the other five million, six million, do that. Then do the climate change thing. We've won the election, but how's that gonna stop Obama?
"Well, well, well, we'll have the committee chairmanships, and we'll be able to fund-raise off that. We'll be in charge of the money, and the Chamber of Commerce will be happy, and we'll be in power."
"Yeah, but how's that gonna change anything?"
"Well, well, we'll be able to stop Obama that way."
"How? The whole strategy has been based on not stopping Obama so you can win an election."
"Yeah, that's right. And when we win the election, we'll be in power. And we'll show them."
"Show 'em what?"
"Well, that we can win an election. Screw them."
"Yeah, and then, okay, we'll use the lame duck session, and we'll defund 'em. We'll take their money away from 'em."
Right. And that'll shut down the government, and Democrats will win in 2016, is what the Republicans will say.
RUSH: Okay, so I got an e-mail and I read it during the break. It said, "This sounds like you are dismissive of winning the midterm elections in 2014." No. I'm not. But, folks, I'll try to explain this to you and then I'll go back to explain this Politico story on the Rove, Republican, and women poll. And then I've got a sound bite you have to hear, 'cause it's... (snorts)
Anyway, the Democrats... I'll set it up. Everywhere I go -- and I don't go out that much anymore. You know, I don't go to that many places anymore. But when I go places, like I was in Connecticut back in July for an annual golf tournament, member-guest golf tournament at the well-known Country Club of Fairfield which is very, very near the home of the AIG executive where protesters stormed his gates and blah, blah.
It's just uncanny, and it's not just there. Everywhere when I go, people ask me about the Republicans' chances of winning the next election, and then they ask me, "Who do you think the nominee's gonna be in 2016? Who do you like?" I don't want you to misunderstand me here, because I don't think any of that is unimportant. I don't want anybody to think that.
But I think that focus on winning the midterms in 2014 and who the nominee is gonna be in 2016 is way shortsighted. I have said previously, last week the most recent time, that we can't turn this around in one election or even two. See, I don't think we're even on the same field the Democrats are on, folks. The Democrats are trying to win the game. The prize is the Constitution, and whoever wins gets to do with it whatever they want.
In the Democrats' case, they get to disregard it. They get to pretend it's not there -- or worse, throw it out. The Republicans are trying to get a first down. The Democrats are trying to win the game, and the Republicans are so far down that just getting a first down is the equivalent of winning the game. Winning an election is the equivalent of getting a first down.
But we're nowhere near midfield after we do it, and we're nowhere near touchdown territory. And it manifests itself this way. Okay, suppose we win the 2014 election, however it happens. If we win because Obama does amnesty, and it so angers the American people that they just vote every Democrat out of office and it puts us in? Well, on the face of it, yeah, that's excellent.
But what do we end up with? We still end up with however many millions of illegals now legalized. There's a story out today that one-third of the population of Mexico, if they could, would move here. Well, if we grant blanket amnesty for the 11 million that are here, and leave the border in the current shape it's in, what are we doing? We're sending a signal to come on up!
After we win the election, are the Republicans going to have a magic overnight change of attitude? Are they all of a sudden gonna think that they can start disagreeing with Obama? Are they all of a sudden gonna start thinking that the people don't hate them anymore and that they don't think that they're racists, and they don't think they're conducting a War on Women? Are they gonna think that they're not bigots and that they're not homophobes?
Is that what the voters are gonna think after the 2014 midterms if they throw the Democrats out? If the 2014 midterms happen because Obama does anything, or just because of what Obama has done, and the result is, "Republicans win because the Democrats get thrown out," what does that mean for the Republicans? They haven't articulated an agenda. They have just been the recipients of the anti-status quo vote.
But what's the anti-status quo vote mean?
Is it a license to do the exact opposite of what Obama's been doing?
Is it a license to start shrinking government and cutting taxes?
Is it a license to reduce spending?
Or will the Republicans step in it all over again if they start to implement some kind of an agenda like that without setting it up? Now, I'm torn on this. I know the strategy works both ways. The strategy is shutting up, not saying a word. The old theory is: "When your opponent is committing suicide, stand aside, get out of the way, let it happen." We're talking about here in a political sense.
I mean, that old saw even works here on talk radio. If you have a really Looney Toon, wacko caller who is entertaining despite himself or herself, just get out of the way. Just shut up and let 'em go. The same thing. But there's another side to that. When you shut up and let the other side commit suicide, it really isn't suicide 'cause the Democrats are still gonna be there after the election.
But at the same time you've not given anybody reason to vote for you. I see it both ways. I understand it both ways. I just think we're beyond looking at this in the traditional sense of Republican versus Democrat, black versus white, good guy versus bad guy, Spy vs. Spy. Every four years we have an election, and if we win, "Oh, goody," and if they lose, "Oh, goody," and if they win, "We gotta go back to the drawing board."
I think we are hip deep in the transformation of this country. Obamacare, all of this threatening talk about executive actions here and there, the shape of the border, the economy, the job situation. It's not something that one election is going to fix, nor is it something that one election will signal that the American people support the opposite view from Obama. They can throw the Democrats out and still like Obama.
They can throw the Democrats out but still not think or like Mitch McConnell or John Boehner. Do you think...? Let me ask you this. Let's say that what we think is gonna happen is gonna happen. Obama's gonna do amnesty sometime before election. The Republicans don't say a word. They're not gonna get goaded into a government shutdown. They're just gonna silence it up and let Obama do what he does.
And in 2014, it's a wave election. Democrats lose everything. It's even worse than what anybody is projecting now. The day after the election, does that mean the country loves John Boehner and respects him anew? Does it mean that Mitch McConnell's the hero now? Does any of that change even if we win the election? And what's the media gonna do? (interruption) No, no. I'm not trying to paint a picture of gloom.
I'm trying to say there's a much larger thing going on.
They're trying to win the game. We're trying to get a first down. We're defining victory in a whole different way than they are. Their victory is converting this country into pure, undisguised, unmistakable socialism with an expansive, growing government, with attack after attack after attack on achievers, on prosperity, on capitalism, on successful people. The effective elimination of the Constitution.
That's their objective.
What is our objective?
Win an election.
Where is our agenda, our objective? Where can any voter go and find out where that is? Where can any really big time political junky who immerses him or herself in all this go? What can they tell you about what the Republicans want? Now, let's go back to this Rove poll, for example. We've got this Politico poll here. "Exclusive! GOP Poll Women: Party Stuck in Past." So you have two Republican groups that conducted a poll, and what have they done?
They have basically confirmed what the Democrats say about the Republican Party. Isn't that interesting? And then when these results come out... If I did a poll, and the results were that the women of the United States, particularly single women, hate the Republican Party, I wouldn't want anybody to see it. I sure as hell wouldn't call The Politico and say, "Here! Looky here! Run this!" But that's what's happened.
So the Politico has a story today that is based on a poll by two Republican groups that essentially agrees with what Democrats are saying, that women hate Republicans and they're justified in hating Republicans because the Republicans hate them and Republicans are conducting a war on them. But wait! But wait! That's not even the half of it. I always thought that it was single women that the Republican Party had problems with, but married women were different story.
I've seen a lot of polling data that says that's the case. This one doesn't say that. This story, this Politico story makes it look like the GOP is screwed with all women. And if you read deeper, you find out why all women disapprove of and don't like the Republican Party. Do you know why? Tea Party social conservatism. Tea Party social conservatism is killing the Republican Party with women.
The Politico can run this story because a couple of Republicans did a poll and got these results and told The Politico about it. Social conservatives are stuck in the past, and the only way the GOP can "reach out" to women is to walk away from social conservatism, according to this poll. Of course the only way the GOP can "reach out" to Hispanics is to do away with the rule of law. That's not in the poll, but we have border security, trying to stand up for immigration law, blah, blah.
"That's what intimidates and angers Hispanics!"
Oh, really? The rule of law? Us, abiding by our own law intimidates 'em, and so we should ignore our own rule of law? By the way, the immigration system isn't "broken." The way it is being implemented and managed is what's broken. The immigration system is fine. The immigration laws we have are fine. The problem is they're being ignored on purpose. So, "The only way now to get Hispanics..."
This is what Republicans are saying now, keep in mind.
"The only way to get Hispanic vote is to forget the border and forget the law. You just gotta grant amnesty. We've gotta do it! We're never gonna get the Hispanic votes. And the only way to get the women vote back is to get rid of this social stuff. Get rid of social issues. Get rid of the Tea Party! That stuff is killing the Republican Party." That's why I say, we're just trying to get a first down. We're not even on the same playing field the Democrats are on.
RUSH: You want, not evidence, but an observation to illustrate what I mean by the Democrats are playing the long game. Do you remember all those hippies and yippees, the counterculture of the sixties, the marchers, Students for Democratic Society, blew up buildings, protested Vietnam War, what'd they do? They all have kids, and they raised every damn one of them to be marching little liberal robots. And those people have now had kids, so the grandchildren of the sixties counterculture is now raising the second, third generation of good little liberals because they are thinking generations ahead, not to the next election.
They're thinking of ways they can raise kids, and the moment some kid in an Ivy League family is born, his admission to Harvard or Yale is already guaranteed, thought of, where he's gonna end up working, what kind of job. It doesn't always work out, but, I mean, these activists are activists, and they're playing the long game. Just like the Soviets did. The Soviets, they didn't do anything in four-year election cycles like we do.