RUSH: Listen to this. This is Mark Udall who is related somehow to Mo Udall. He’s maybe a son — nephew, niece, adopted brother, whatever — of old congressional hand Mo Udall. He’s from Colorado, a Democrat. This was on MSNBC yesterday afternoon during a discussion about his proposal for Democrats and Republicans to sit together during the State of the Union address. ‘Did this idea,’ he was asked, ‘come to you after Sunday’s horrific shooting?’
UDALL: It did. It just seems like it’s an idea that — whose time has come, and I’m pleased to tell you a number of my colleagues, Democrats and Republicans alike, seem to like the idea and I think you’ll see it happen at the State of the Union. A week from Tuesday, a group of us will do this. I intend to go over to the Republican side where the senators sit and I’ll sit over there at the State of the Union, but I — I think you’re gonna see an upwelling of commitment and support for this idea in both the House and the Senate.
RUSH: Okay. So the Republicans and Democrats, House and Senate, are going to sit together in the House chamber. That’s the plan, that’s the idea. Yesterday afternoon I guess — da-da-da-da-da-da — anchor Thomas Roberts on MSNBC said this…
ROBERTS: When we went from fourth grade to fifth grade, they mixed up our home rooms, and none of us liked it at the time —
ROBERTS: — then we liked each other! In fifth grade, it all seemed to work out.
RUSH: Oh, we did it when we were in school, okay. That’s the level of analysis you get on MSNBC. ‘They made us switch fourth and fifth grade home rooms, put us together. We liked the fifth graders.’ Okay. We go back to MSNBC’s Morning Joe. Kirsten Gillibrand was asked if she liked the idea.
GILLIBRAND: It’s a great idea, and I’m gonna encourage my colleagues to do exactly that. I think to have a vision of our elected body sitting together — not on opposite sides and one side standing up while on the other side sits down — I think it would be a wonderful message and something that the American people would appreciate seeing. I think it’s a great idea.
RUSH: Yeah. What…? (interruption) What’s gonna be right around the corner? Play dates. Well, this is the kind of garbage it leads to. Utter symbolism! ‘We’re going to sit together as a result of the shooting in Arizona.’ Yeah. Well, okay. (chuckles) I just… (interruption) This is really gonna make it… (interruption) There’s Kirsten Gillibrand asked, ‘Senator, she’s a dear friend of yours. Tell us something between you and Gabrielle Giffords that’s happened. Let us know more about her. Obviously she’s an extraordinary woman, a fighter. Tell us so we know more about her beyond the strategic tragedy we’ve witnessed.’
GILLIBRAND: She’s the most nonpartisan person I’ve ever met. She represents a very conservative district, a border district in Arizona. She loves her constituents. She’s someone who always gravitates toward solutions and finding compromise, working with Republicans. She’s the vision of hope for this country right now! She embodies everything that President Obama was trying to say, that we have to be better than we are, that we all have to conduct ourselves better than we do.
RUSH: Why? Obama said none of that mattered. None of that had anything to do with what happened. What I don’t like about this is the assumption that we are no good. The premise that we are no good and everybody says, ‘Yes, that’s true. We really stink, and we have to really work a lot harder to become better people. We are going to have to really work harder to become better than we are.’ Who are they to castigate the rest of us? If they want to categorize themselves as not good enough, fine and dandy. But who are they?
Why do we have to sit around and listen to these people tell us we’re not as good as we can be? What message are we supposed to hear here? What’s the message that we have to hear? That we’re all ready for improvement? The GOP’s supposed to capitulate? That’s how we get along with everybody? Here’s Roger Simon today on MSNBC. Question: ‘How important of a moment has this been for President Obama? Did he lay down a marker that we will all — that this will be one of those points on the timeline that all of us will look back on, or are we overhyping this a little?’
SIMON: I think it was a heartbreakingly beautiful speech and important in that respect, and he did make an important point. Underlying that speech was a statement that we are not worthy as a country right now —
RUSH: Aw, come on!
SIMON: — to solve these problems —
RUSH: Come on, man.
SIMON: — without spinning off into more heightened rhetoric and disagreement and that we have to become better in order to make our country better.
RUSH: Speak for yourself! How dare you people characterize 300 million people upon the actions of one! ‘I think the underlying point in that speech was the statement that we are not worthy as a country right now to solve these problems.’ Okay. Well, then let’s stop solving them. Who the hell…? Did Obama even say that? Did Obama say we are not worthy? Well, wait. He might have when he admonished all of us to make the America that the nine year old hoped existed. Well, maybe he did. Maybe that’s how a liberal would hear that, ‘We’re not worthy,’ but liberals run around thinking that anyway. (sniveling academic impression) ‘We’re all defined by our imperfections, Mr. Limbaugh. You, too! We are well aware of your imperfections, Mr. Limbaugh. We’re all defined by them. That’s how we know who we are, Mr. Limbaugh.’
Well, fine, if you want to go around and govern yourself and define yourself by your imperfections. ‘Underlying that speech was the statement that we are not worthy as a country to solve these problems, without spinning off into more heightened rhetoric and disagreement, and that they don’t have to become better in order to make our country better’? What we have to do to make our country better is defeat Obama in 2012! That’s what we have to do. You know, Mr. Simon, what is this business about ‘conducting ourselves’? What we need to do to save the country is put the brakes on spending. It’s real simple.
RUSH: Mark Udall and Kirsten Gillibrand want us to all sit together in the House chamber during the State of the Union show. Why? To show togetherness, to end partisanship, just like we did in fourth and fifth grade homeroom. Now, what is leading to this? What is leading to this — and there are two answers here — what is leading to this outpouring on the left of affection for us? They wish to embrace, actually sit next to us in the House chamber. Disasters. Disasters are ending partisanship. Well, a logical continuation of that would say what? The Democrats are telling us disasters, one disaster could possibly end partisanship. But what if it doesn’t? What if one disaster is not enough to end partisanship? Maybe we need more disasters. If disasters end partisanship, and the left is so desirous of ending partisanship, is that not a good thing? Have the left not been demanding and striving, screeching, praying — well, they don’t pray — hoping for an end to partisanship? They want bipartisanship. The American people want us to all get along. What is promoting the left here and motivating and moving them in the area of getting along, it has been a disaster, has it not? So why not more disasters? If that’s what it takes to end partisanship, we just follow the left’s logic all the way out to its conclusion, and that’s what we get.
Here’s the real answer. And Snerdley was waving at me, and I was ignoring him ’cause, frankly, he’s interrupted me too much today. He was waving at me when I was talking about this Udall effort to sit together. He said, ‘That’s not what this is,’ he told me during the break. For the first time in years Republicans have a noticeable majority in the House chamber during a State of the Union, and what the Democrats want to do here is dilute it so that during obvious Republican stand up lines it’s not apparent how many Republicans there are, if they’re all sprinkled out among the Democrats. So Snerdley is suggesting that the Republicans not fall for this. Go ahead and you occupy your side of the aisle, let the Democrats occupy theirs, and let’s see how few Democrats there are in there anymore. And I have to say that I agree with that. Good catch, Snerdley. Good catch, right alongside my logical conclusion to go hand in hand. It’s a sad thing. Look at what one disaster they think is perhaps going to cause what bliss.
Schenectady, New York, next up, John, welcome to the EIB Network. Great to have you here, sir. Hello.
CALLER: Thank you. Mega dittos. High praises to you. This has been one of the best weeks in EIB entertainment, I have to tell you.
RUSH: Really? Thank you very much, sir.
CALLER: I’ve been listening for a long time and high praises to you again because, you know, you’re an idea man, Rush, and someone to admire, and I’m very glad that you don’t do what those in the media have been doing lately and using this term which drives me nuts, after listening to some of these clips that you’ve been playing. The term that they use all the time is moving forward, going forward. It really infuriates my wife and I, because it’s like, ‘What does that mean? If I’m not going forward, am I moving backwards?’ These people are horrid in their wordsmithing. You on the other hand, you’re one to admire because you’re an idea person, and these people are just wordsmithing us to death and all these clips that you’ve been playing are making me sick listening, especially with the senator in my own state right here in New York.
RUSH: Which one? There are two.
CALLER: You were playing —
CALLER: I mean it’s anywhere you go, even Fox, and I watch Fox all the time. They talk about moving forward. I mean what the heck does that really mean, Rush?
RUSH: It means getting rid of Republicans.
CALLER: (laughing) Well, they must have anticipated a Republican win because they’ve been doing it for about a year now.
RUSH: Moving forward, getting rid of Republicans, getting rid of conservatives. It’s all part of the same thing. Udall’s idea to split up during the chamber is to disguise how big the Republican victory was and this whole notion that, how about this: We’re not alone. The conventional wisdom phrase, we’re not alone. And we’re not worthy. We can all be better people. Yeah, look, I appreciate your comments, I really do. I love that you have that perception and understanding of what happens on the program here. I routinely avoid conventional wisdom by rote. It’s ingrained in me. Conventional wisdom is just anathema to me. That’s why I always say, if you don’t see it in the New York Times, read the Washington Post. If you don’t see it there, go turn to CBS, NBC, ABC, CNN. If you I miss it there, read the LA Times. If you miss it here, you’ve missed it.