RUSH: We’re gonna start in Indianapolis. Mike, I’m glad you waited. Great to have you on the EIB Network. Hello.
CALLER: Mega Hoosier entrepreneurial dittos, Rush.
RUSH: Thank you very much, sir. Appreciate that.
CALLER: Hey, I just wanted to comment. Just from someone here in Indiana listening to the election, waiting to vote, Lugar ran his primary election like he was a Democrat. There are radio ads against Lugar bringing up his vote for like, for example, in the old gas tax. He was gonna up it by a dollar, and the anti-gun vote. Lugar’s response to that was to complain against outside money coming in against his ads. The worst thing I’ve ever seen from a Republican was when I got an ad, a flier to my house that Lugar sent me that said, “Mourdock would get rid of the Department of Education.” This is in the Republican primary. I thought it was some kind of a dirty trick ad from Mourdock. Lugar sent it to my own house, against Mourdock. I couldn’t believe it.
RUSH: Exactly. Exactly. That’s what he became. John Sullivan, the former editor of the National Review, once came up with something that, he might call it Sullivan’s Law. I call it Sullivan’s Law. It’s a profundity. It’s very simple. Here’s what Sullivan says. Any person or organization that is not actively conservative will become liberal. And that is dead on. It’s accurate. It’s inarguable. Conservatism is an intellectual application. It is a pursuit. Even though it is the way most people live their lives, conservatism itself as natural as anything can be ’cause it’s rooted in liberty, is still something that has to be actively affirmed by its practitioners. If they don’t, they will become liberal. Same thing with organizations. Any organization, any think tank, any body of people that is not demonstrably actively conservative will become liberal.
It’s what happened to Lugar. Lugar, I don’t know how conservative he ever really was, but it doesn’t matter. To whatever extent he was conservative, he isn’t any longer. He became a moderate and then for the most part a Beltway establishment politician. The saddest people in Washington today over Lugar’s defeat are Democrats and members of the media. What does that tell you? So here’s Dick Lugar, imagine this. Dick Lugar sending out fliers attempting to get people to vote for him, telling people that his opponent’s gonna shut down the Department of Education, what does he not get? That’s exactly what Indiana conservatives want! Ronald Reagan wanted to shut down the Department of Education.
So here’s Lugar thinking that he’s sending out a flier that is effective in its criticism of his opponent, and he doesn’t realize that he has just given everybody that received that flier a reason to vote for his opponent. “Oh, this Mourdock guy wants to shut down a bureaucracy? Hell, he’s my guy.” Lugar has descended into one who believes that government is the center of the world, center of the universe, everything revolves around it. He’s issued a statement. I guess I should do this after the break at the bottom of the hour. He’s issued the statement, and it’s completely illustrative of what happened to Dick Lugar and what will happen and has happened to every Republican who refuses to stand up for conservatism. They become moderates, then liberals to one degree or another. They end up essentially being on the other team. That’s what happens, and that’s where Lugar was.
RUSH: Let’s go to the audio sound bites. This is funny. We put together a montage. We do this every time there’s an election and the media is shocked, stunned, and in disbelief. We have a montage here from yesterday and last night of bunch of different media types. Whenever a conservative wins (such as Mourdock) or a conservative issue wins, the language used to describe it is violent.
It’s always the result of anger, an insurgency, temper tantrums on the part of the voters.
Here’s the montage…
JOHN KING: Eighty-year-old Senator Richard Lugar facing a Tea Party and conservative revolt.
BROOKE BALDWIN: … Tea Party firebrand Richard Mourdock!
DANA BASH: … Tea Party insurgents.
CORNELL BELCHER: The Tea Party [has] really begun to take over the Republican Party.
BOB BECKEL: … pushed around the Tea Party.
STEPHEN DINAN: The Tea Party now has a couple of different places to shoot their anger.
ERIN BURNETT: Pretty tragic: Working together is a negative thing.
JOHN AVLON: “Reach across the aisle” is a hanging offense in the Republican Party. We have a problem, America.
RUSH: Right. So it’s “pretty tragic.” Lugar losing in a landslide means “working together is a negative thing.” And then “‘Reach[ing] across the aisle’ is a hanging offense in the Republican Party. We have a problem, America.” To the media compromise, reaching across the aisle, working together is a negative thing. The American people no longer buy into what the media definitions of those terms are.
Let me remind you of this, all you people who want “working together” and “compromise.” See if you remember this. On the day of the final 2008 presidential debate, Dick Lugar gave a speech at the National Defense University praising Obama’s foreign policy. He praised his policy, praised his approach. Dick Lugar gave a speech in support of Obama! A Republican senator was running for president, McCain.
Supposedly a good friend of Lugar’s.
Lugar is at National Defense University praising Obama’s policy, praising his approach, and warning against the isolationist, reactive policies espoused by McCain. On the day of the last presidential debate, Lugar is out ripping McCain and praising Obama! At the same debate, Obama listed Lugar as among the individuals, quote, “who have shaped my ideas and who will be surrounding me in the White House,” unquote.
There’s no mystery why Dick Lugar lost yesterday. The American people don’t want any more of Barack Obama’s domestic or foreign policy, and they don’t want any Republicans whose first objective is to “reach across the aisle” and make it easier for Obama to continue on the current path that we are on. Lugar, therefore, was to the left of McCain in the 2008 presidential campaign.
Mark Halperin of TIME Magazine, I should tell you, is saying Obama is gonna endorse gay marriage. Politico: “Obama expected to speak about his views on gay marriage in an interview Wednesday afternoon.” This is what Ed Henry was talking about. Robin Roberts of Good Morning America. But he’s not changing his mind. He told gay groups back in 1996 he was for gay marriage. We looked it up. In 1996! It’s a long time ago, I know, but, he told gay groups back then he was for it.
Dick Lugar, back to him, admitted that he didn’t vote the way his constituents wanted him to vote. This is the statement that he’s issued… Here’s how Politico describes it: “Lugar Unloads on Unrelenting Partisanship.” “I would like to comment on the Senate race just concluded,” begins Lugar, “and the direction of American politics and the Republican Party. I would reiterate from my earlier statement that I have no regrets about choosing to run for office.
“My health is excellent, I believe that I have been a very effective senator for Hoosiers and for the country, and I know that the next six years would have been a time of great achievement. Further, I believed that vital national priorities, including job creation, deficit reduction, energy security, agriculture reform,” blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, “would benefit from my continued service as a senator. These goals were worth the risk of an electoral defeat and the costs of a hard campaign.
“Analysts will speculate about whether our campaign strategies were wise. Much of this will be based on conjecture by pundits who donÂ’t fully appreciate the choices we had to make based on resource limits, polling data, and other factors.” In other words, he didn’t have any money. Ha! “They also will speculate whether we were guilty of overconfidence.
“The truth is that the headwinds in this race were abundantly apparent long before Richard Mourdock announced his candidacy,” and he goes on to rip the whole notion of partisanship. I mean would you read this… It’s long. I’m not gonna read the whole thing to you.
But I’ll just tell you, if people in Indiana knew all of this about Lugar, then there’s no reason why he lost in a landslide. There’s no reason why they threw him out of office. And if there’s any doubt left in Indiana, when you read this statement, should put any of those questions you have to rest. But Lugar in this statement, honestly, folks, seems to be proud how much he voted against his constituents’ wishes. That was a sign of maturity. That’s a sign of independence, a sign of not being on a leash. He knew better than his constituents. He knew they’re just not smart enough, informed enough.
Most of his statement is an attack on partisanship. And he worries that there will be less compromise with him gone. He warns against increasing partisanship of the Republican Party, says it’s gonna be too conservative. He says that factors that led to his defeat will make the Republicans a minority party. How out of touch can you be? He just lost in a landslide by Republican voters. Republican voters sent him packing. Democrat voters couldn’t save him. The Republican Party, the Tea Party, the conservatives, are trying to save the Republican Party. Here. Last night, Special Report with Bret Baier. During the All-Star Panel, Bret Baier said to Charles Krauthammer, “Dick Lugar, what about that race? What’s the significance, Charles?”
KRAUTHAMMER: I think it’s a generational issue. Lugar is a lion of the Senate. I think he’s served very well. He’s been very important in foreign affairs over these years, but that doesn’t appeal to voters. He’s been in there for a very long time. He’s had a lot of moderate opinions. He’s not a Tea Party favorite, and I think his time likely will have come. I’m not sure that there is anything he could have done differently in campaigning. He is who he is after all of these years. His generation of the sort of somewhat right-of-center Republicans is in eclipse.
RUSH: That’s it. Moderate Republican. That’s what center-right means. You’re either conservative or center-right. Center-right is moderate. Krauthammer doesn’t use that term; I’ll appropriate and apply it here. But what he means is the era of the moderate Republican is over. And it began a long time ago. Remember Christopher Shays lost, the moderate Republican, the only Republican in the House in Connecticut went down. It’s been a trend that’s been building a long time. And of course every moderate doesn’t lose, but moderate Republicans are seeing their eclipse. That’s what this means. Of course a moderate’s gonna see this as the end of compromise and the end of reaching across the aisle because, after all, what is a moderate Republican? For all intents and purposes, a Democrat.
A moderate Republican doesn’t have the guts to be a conservative. It’s no more complicated than that, and this Republican voters know. Dick Lugar was not looked to as a solution to any of the problems facing the country. It’s really no more complicated than this. He may be a fine guy, none of this is personal. I’m just telling you that the voters in Indiana, after 35 years, did not see Dick Lugar as a solution to the very real problems they face in their lives in this country and Indiana. Dick Lugar was looked at, if anything, as part of the cause of the problems. But if not that, it’s clear Dick Lugar was not looked to as a solution, nor are any other moderate Republicans seen as part of the solution. They all know it, but they’re hanging on for dear life.
RUSH: Zack in Evansville, Indiana, I’m glad you waited as we go back to the phones, great to have you here, sir. Hi.
CALLER: Hey, Rush, it’s a pleasure to speak with you.
RUSH: Thank you.
CALLER: I just wanted to comment, you know, as an 18-year-old, a senior in high school, I was very excited yesterday to vote against Senator Lugar. You know, just so we could get a commonsense conservative like Richard Mourdock in the White House. Because Senator Lugar’s positions, whether it be on Obama’s Supreme Court nominees or his vote for stimulus or support of the DREAM Act or a myriad of other issues, it was time for him to leave Washington.
RUSH: Exactly right. You know, you are 18, and you are so far ahead of the game. And Lugar even mentioned this in his statement. (paraphrasing) “Well, I’m sure it was held against me. I voted for TARP, and I voted for the DREAM Act.” He was voting right down the line with Obama, and that means he’s not part of the solution, but the problem, and people like you and others in Indiana know it. And you want the problem solved, correct?
CALLER: Yeah, the problem needs to be solved. We need to get Tea Party candidates like Richard Mourdock into the Senate. We need to take back the Senate, and we need to make sure that Mitt Romney defeats Obama in the fall, because it’s so important. We’re at such a critical time in our country right now, whether it be the debt or Obamacare or, you know, any other issue —
RUSH: Exactly right. Well, let me just illustrate for you. Thanks, Zack, for the call, and welcome. It’s great to have you on the team. James Carville last night, CNN, John King USA. Sound bite nine. King says, “When you meet with the fundraising guys, you meet with the activists, they say, ‘Oh, the polls are tight, but don’t worry, Obama’s got this in the bag,’ and they do think that. But, Mr. Carville, you don’t think it’s in the bag, right?”
CARVILLE: No, I don’t. And who in this world would be an incumbent? Not just in the United States, an incumbent would feel any sense of confidence whatsoever? And the Republicans are raising hundreds of millions of dollars, these Super PACs. Money is just pouring in to them and the Democrats are saying, “Oh we’re going to win this thing,” and it doesn’t make any sense. Right now the attitude among Democrats that I detect from across the board is not anywhere near close to what it has to be.
RUSH: Right. He thinks they’re overconfident, in the bag, Obama’s got it in the bag, raise all the money. One Tea Party group has raised $12 million, just one, and there are 47 of them. And he’s right, the Republican Super PAC’s out there raising a lot of money. This notion about independents all over the world losing, I want to deal with that in just a second. But one more Carville bite. John King said, “You study polling data. You travel quite a bit. Do voters think the president is not connected to their lives, not fighting for their interests?”
CARVILLE: A lot of people have too much of an incumbent mentality in this party, or this sort of attitude that we’re going to win no matter what. And they point to stuff like, “Well, the electoral map looks good for us,” or, “Ohio looks good,” and that’s not how elections are won. They’re won by going out there and getting on the offensive and staying there. And the combination of that plus the sense that Romney is just a really weak, bad opponent is causing, I think, unwarranted optimism among Democrats.
RUSH: That’s part of this. They really do think Romney is Ward Cleaver. They think Romney’s stuck in 1954. He doesn’t have the slightest idea what life is like in America. They think he’s a pushover. They think Obama’s got it in the bag because they still think people look at Obama as The Messiah. Carville’s properly concerned about it. But this notion — well, incumbents are losing all over the world. The French incumbent, Sarkozy, a conservative, by comparison, lost. Carville is talking about incumbents all over the world, not just here.