RUSH: We’ll go to Kenosha, Wisconsin</a>. Hello, Bill, nice to have you with us.
CALLER: Hi, Rush, welcome back.
RUSH: Thank you.
CALLER: And thanks for going over there. It reminds me of The Deer Hunter, for Pete’s sake.
RUSH: (Laughter.) I appreciate that. Thank you.
CALLER: There’s a lot of us that would like to get over there. I’m a Special Ops guy myself, and we’ve spoken before. I think, getting back from and bin Swimmin’ and bin Sharpton to bin Laden. It’s actually a good thing that we see this going on with Zarqawi, because, you know, bin Laden is not operating openly anymore, but Zarqawi is. So he’s got a network of people trying to get into the country, and what bin Laden is trying to do, if it’s legitimate, and it may not be, we have to consider that possibility. He’s trying to get Zarqawi to commit people that are heading into Iraq to going somewhere else and doing something else.
RUSH: But do you interpret this as a sign of weakness or strength?
CALLER: I interpret it as a weakness on the part of bin Laden, and I don’t believe Zarqawi has the assets to do it. I mean, we’re way into this thing now. We’ve got a lot more situational awareness than before. We know Zarqawi’s pipelines. We know they’re coming in from Italy and other places. We even know that there are European Muslims that are making their way to Iraq. But, I mean, we at least have a death penalty for these people although we don’t have for people under 18 in our own country anymore. So we can get rid of them when we need to.
RUSH: Well, does this worry you?
CALLER: No, not at all. In fact, they’re coming to play the away game we want them to play. Now, when they go out and try to get to the United States we’ve got new capabilities here, too, as do our friends go in other countries who are watching these people. And as trends begin to develop, and that’s what we have to watch is trends. We’ll interrupt these latest things, too. But, you know, no one is going to comment on it officially. I know Cressey, you know, he’s doing what he’s doing, and it’s not bad information but it’s a possibility. He may not —
RUSH: Tell me — he’s talking about Peter Cressey, the former Clinton terrorism — but why is Cressey saying what he’s saying? See, because maybe I’m wrong, but it seems to me that Cressey was suggesting in those bites with Matt Lauer that we are responsible for creating an even more powerful terror network that now can reach out and hit us in the United States, and I just don’t see it.
CALLER: You’ve been all over it before saying that the only things that are good for the Democrats are things that are bad for the country. I mean, nobody saw the Russians falling. Nobody realized what elections would do in Iraq. I mean he’s trying to get in front of something that may happen. If it doesn’t happen, everyone will forget what he said, but something happens, he can claim that he was the guy that was prescient. He’s also trying to get a certain amount of power. He wants to come back in when he gets a chance. I mean, he’s gambling, and people like to gamble.
RUSH: Well, there’s no question that that’s the case. I’m just — it’s still — if you’re right that he’s part of this Democrat cabal that’s basically enthused by what’s potentially bad news for America, I still continue to be puzzled by why they want to hold fast to that position.
CALLER: They’re sitting around thinking they’re still in charge, as you’ve said many times. I mean, it’s like when Iraq had the vote all of a sudden all these people looked around and realized that over 50% of the folks came out to vote and they were no longer afraid. These guys in the Democrat Party still think they lost because they didn’t have their message right or something, and so they’re hoping for the day, and they’re strategically moving towards 2008, and of course 2006 when they intend to see the balance shift a bit.
RUSH: Yeah. Well, we’ll see about that. If they don’t start giving people reasons to vote for them, and if they don’t start… Somebody asked me over in Afghanistan. We didn’t have very much downtime, but we had some, and I remember it was in the discussion with Mary Matalin, and she was telling me that there is a theory that has sprung up in certain Democratic Party circles — and I’m not going to tell you who the author of the theory is because it doesn’t matter — but the theory is, and it’s just a possibility, and some people are predicting it; some people are just warning about it, but it is basically this. That the Democratic Party as we know it today will cease to exist soon and will be replaced by the following coalition: The anti-war leftist kooks that comprise much of the Democrat mainstream now, with the protectionist, close-the-border, build-a-wall, don’t-let-anybody-in-this-country, basically protectionist Republicans or conservatives. Now, it’s not my theory, but this party, this new coalition would represent about 30% of the voting public. I heard this and I said, “Well, it’s awfully interesting. I just don’t see the Democratic Party going away. There’s always going to be a Democrat Party.” She said, “Yeah, the Democratic Party, but it’s going to be comprised of different people. You’re going to have…”
This was all based on a discussion of immigration, that there’s so much passion about this, that most people, if they don’t hear what they want, could be siphoned off by a very eloquent speaker to go join — ? la Perot, similar to mine, except I don’t see them joining the anti-war left. Then the question came, “All right, what would you do if you ran the Democrats?” I said, “I know exactly what I’d do. These people are going to have to start being honest with everybody.” What do you mean? “They’re going to have to tell everybody what they’re for, and then they’re going to have to fight for that in the arena of ideas. It’s what we conservatives have been doing for the last 40 years and that’s why we’re running rings around them now. The Democrats are in a position where they can’t possibly admit what they’re for because they know they will lose, but they’re going to have to at some point be honest about who they are. You cannot build a long-lasting movement that inspires and motivates people when you’re trying to fool them every day and misrepresent yourself as to who you are. So they’ve got to come out and say they believe in big government and give the reasons. They’ve got to come out and say they believe in high taxes and give the reasons. They’ve got to come out and say they don’t believe we ought to be policing world or we ought to be engaged in all these military excursions around the world, because, A, B, C and D,” and the reaction I got was, “Well, they can’t do that!”
I said, “They’ll lose off the bat doing this, but they’ve got a far better chance if they start competing in the arena of ideas being honest about what they really want, than sitting around doing all these mind games and word games and trying to fool people. They know that their ideas are not popular now. They know their ideas have no chance of winning now, which is why they’re doing what they’re doing, and in the process of doing what they’re doing 
they’re only spiraling down even further. They are corkscrewing themselves into the cork, and pretty soon the corkscrew is going to disappear. That’s what’s happening to them. Until they get honest about who they are and what they really believe and start competing on that basis. They used to do this. They used to tell you they’re for high taxes. They used to tell you they were for big government. That’s how they got known that way. Now they know it’s very unpopular and so forth, so they’re afraid to do it, but this is why it gives me confidence about them remaining as irrelevant and inconsequential as they are. In this new era of a broad-based, wide alternative media which has resulted in a more informed, educated, and sophisticated political and news audience in this country, you can’t get away with lying to people. You can’t get away with obfuscation. You cannot build a movement based on this.
They’re not going to take my advice, don’t worry about it. Some of them do. I mean, some of them are very honest what they believe in, and I know they sound like incredible wackos and idiots when they do, but, you know, there are ways that they could do this and soften the impact of how it sounds. They could go back and cite what they think are big government programs that helped society, helped the country, and say that’s what they want to do again, and they should also be honest that. “Yeah, we’re doing this because we don’t like President Bush.” Just be honest about it. You’d be surprised how far honesty carries you. But this business of trying to be somebody you’re not and trying to portray yourself as somebody you’re not. They’re just forever dooming themselves. In fact, let’s go back to audio sound bite #1, Robert Novak yesterday. This is on CNN’s Inside Politics with Judy Woodruff. And, you know, Dean over the weekend, he was at Cornell University, and he was talking about how Republicans are “evil” and Republicans are this or that, but he also said something about Social Security, which is totally at variance, and this was the great fear that a lot of Democrats had. Dean’s not supposed to be out there articulating policy, as candidates do. He’s primarily a fund-raiser in this but he can’t shut up about policy. Here’s what Novak quoted him as saying.
NOVAK: They’ve got to really get Howard under control. He spoke at Cornell University last week, and the only paper that covered this was the Cornell student paper, and he said, “Yes, Social Security is a big problem. Over the years it’s going to lose about 80% of the benefits.” That, Judy, is not the Democratic line. The Democratic line is: “There is no problem.”
RUSH: Hey, hello? I mean, so he’s out there saying things totally opposite what the rest of his party is saying, from Nancy Pelosi to Dingy Harry to Ted Kennedy to whoever: “Social Security is not a crisis. There’s no problem. We don’t have to touch it. We don’t have to do anything,” and here’s Howard Dean up there admitting to students at Cornell it’s a big problem. Now, I’m just telling you they’re not going to go anywhere doing this, and I don’t think Dean has the weight and the “gravitas,” if you will, to pull the rest of the party with him on this. The exact opposite is going to happen. Dean starts doing this at bigger places than Cornell, with larger media audiences than just a student newspaper and he’s going to be smothered by the people because he’s going to be undermining their tack in Washington on these policy things. So it’s going to be fun to watch here, folks. But there’s no question — and, by the way, the author of this theory about the disintegration of the Democratic Party as we know it and this new coalition of right-wing protectionists and anti-immigrationists with the left-wing anti-war crowd, the author is a prominent Democrat. They’re feeling it. Make no mistake about it.
END TRANSCRIPT
