RUSH: Let’s look at some post-election election data. “Americans who voted in the midterms on Tuesday overwhelming are opposed to President Barack Obama’s executive amnesty and do not want foreign workers to take jobs from Americans and legal immigrants who are already here. An exit poll conduct[ed] by Kellyanne Conway’s The Polling Company found that three-quarters (74%) of voters” reject executive amnesty.
Those 74% of voters… Are you ready for this? Seventy-four percent of voters “believed that ‘President Obama should work with Congress rather than around Congress on immigration and separately.'” So, 74% think that Obama should work with Congress, not that Congress should work with Obama; 74% oppose executive amnesty. Well, there you go. This we knew. We knew this is what the election meant, and incumbent in this is stop it.
Seventy-five percent oppose it. People went to the polls knowing Obama wants to do it. The message: “Stop it.” Plain and simple. How can it be anything else? It cannot be anything else. Again, I want to stress, the left cannot afford for this to take hold. They simply can’t. This would constitute an acknowledgement that liberalism has been rejected and must be stopped, and they will never, ever permit that to take hold.
This is a big deal.
Folks, I can’t… This is not braggadocio. Believe me, all I’m trying to do is inform and have as many of you as possible so you understand what is really going on out there, and the fact that I keep popping up all over the media with this statement that the mandate of the election is to stop Obama and stop the Democrats? The reason why it’s everywhere, particularly Democrat strategists being asked to comment on it, is this has hit a nerve.
This has hit a nerve, and it’s the most sensitive of all nerves for liberals. Because what this means is, what they believe in has had a six-year run — and it’s actually longer than that. It’s been tried countless times in world history. This is just the most recent time. But this is most radical. This is the most unadulterated. This is the most undisguised, progressive, leftist, extremist agenda ever attempted to be imposed on this country, and it has failed.
It has had a six-year run. It’s been tried and failed, and that is a huge deal for the left. It’s a shot to the heart. This would be the equivalent of turning them into their version of Herbert Hoover and the Republicans of 1932. He never made it back to the White House, you’ll recall. They can’t permit this to sink in and take hold. From the liberal point of view, it’s bad enough that I’m out there to begin with.
From the liberal point of view, it’s bad enough that there’s Fox News. From the liberal point of view, it’s bad enough that there’s conservative talk radio. But now, at this moment, having us out there characterizing this massive defeat as a demand to stop implementing what they believe? Now this has become a real threat, and so they’re out trying to re-characterize, misstate.
Of course, they can’t take this on substantively.
So what they do is character assassinate and criticize the personality or what have you, of the people that disagree with, ’cause they can’t take this on intellectually. You know, liberalism is the premise of everything. That’s the starting point. When they’re running the show, liberalism is the premise. It’s the underlying baseline. It’s the understanding of everything. “We need to raise the minimum wage.”
“Because liberalism tells us we have to. We’re a liberal country, a liberal population.”
It’s the assumption, it’s the premise, and that needs to be destroyed. You know how this manifests itself? We’ve talked about it on this program constantly. In Congress, for example, the Democrats will announce a bill. Let’s say it was Obamacare. Immediately the Republicans begin to debate it and then think they have to come up with their own version of it. That’s what I mean by setting the premise.
For too long the Republicans have allowed that to happen. Whatever the Democrats propose is the premise, it becomes accepted, and then the Republicans say, “But we have a better way, and it’s smarter,” and whatever. But it all adds up to bigger government at the end of the day. Instead of accepting these various liberal premises, what needs to happen is: Democrats propose X and Republicans say, “No. We have enough already on that.
“We’ve got a fine health care system. We need to improve it in the free enterprise economy. The government can’t make it any better. The government’s only gonna make it worse! We don’t need to do this.” Rather than say, “Okay. Obamacare, health care, massive comprehensive health care reform? Okay, we’ll go for that, but we think we ought to do it this way,” and then start a debate.
They’ve won. Their premise has been accepted. That is what is at stake here. The liberal premise is always automatic and has been. That is also, from these election results, no more. The liberal premise is no more. Now, I’m not saying voters went to the ballot box saying, “We’ve gotta stamp out this liberal premise.” But when you say, when you vote and your meaning is:
“Stop what’s happening now, stop Obamaism, stop liberalism,” it’s plain and simple. Concurrently with that you advance your own agenda. You don’t “do nothing,” and nobody ever said, “Do nothing.” And you don’t “throw something in Obama’s face.” Nobody said throw something in his face. Of course you advance your agenda.
So the Washington Post. You know, a lot of people… We are at Friday now. Newspapers today went to bed last night. So you have a bunch of reporters, editors, producers, and it’s just now hitting them. Tuesday night and Wednesday, were denial. Tuesday night and Wednesday, the media were trying to find any explanation they could use, they could sell, that would diminish the Republican results of Tuesday night — diminish the outcome, diminish the impact.
The more they tried to come up ways to make it look like something it’s not, the more depressed they got. Washington Post: “The 2014 Election Wasn’t Close — Not Even the Toss-ups.” This is Aaron Blake writing. “Say what you want about the American people; on Tuesday, they were decisive. Very decisive. In fact, of the 435 House and 36 Senate races, only about 9% of them (41) were decided by single digits.”
Let me repeat something: Twenty-nine — and soon to be 30 after Mary “Baby Fat” Landrieu goes down in December. Twenty-nine Democrat senators who voted for Obamacare in 2010 are gone. Three of them died in office. Senator Daniel Inouye, Robert “Sheets” Byrd — and I always forget him. I couldn’t remember Byrd the last time. So Daniel “In No Way,” Sheets Byrd, and Frank Lautenberg in New Jersey.
Those three died, five or six retired, and the rest were defeated. But no matter how you slice it, 29 Democrats who voted for Obamacare are gone. Sayonara. Eighty-three House districts in 15 states were decided by single digits. Twenty percent of all House districts and 30% of the states. I mean, it wasn’t even close. Everywhere else it was double digits.
Yet, let’s remember something: The polls and the news channels all told us that every election was too close to call. Why is that? Could it be the polls purposely lied to us? Why would they do it? Near the election, these polls want to get their results as close to accurate as they can for their credibility. But I think this was so important, they were willing to make it up as they went along.
It didn’t matter where we got in terms of proximity to the election. ‘Cause it was a skunk, it was a massive rout, it was a landslide, and yet all of these races they said were too close to call. Even election night when the returns were coming in — didn’t matter what network you looked at — it was too close to call, and the spread was 15 or 20 points. “Still too close to call. We don’t have enough precincts in.”
Nobody could believe what was happening. What happened was so far and away beyond what anybody expected. Even people expecting a Republican wave had no idea how big this was. And look, I’m gonna say it again: The Republicans weren’t on the ballot, in a national ideological sense. Of course Republicans were on the ballot. But each race was its own race.
Each race had its own set of issues. Obamacare was dominant in most of them and repealing it and getting rid of it. But the Republican Party was mute. They didn’t announce an agenda. They didn’t do a Contract with America-type campaign where they said, “Here’s what we’re gonna do if we win.” They purposely shut up. It’s profound what happened here. There can be only one take.
This was totally anti-Obama. “Stop Obama. We do not want any more of this.” The Washington Post story says, “And it’s not gerrymandering, either. The recent round reduced the number of single-digit presidential districts, but only to 74 … far more than the 33 House districts that are being decided by single digits this year.” But the news media has told us for the last two years the Republicans only had an advantage because of gerrymandering.
Remember that? But now they say: No, that can’t even explain it. “Even many Senate races that were supposed to be ‘toss-ups’ — Mitch McConnell, Pat Roberts, and Arkansas, for instance — wound up being double-digit races.” Yeah, how did that happen? McConnell won by 16% — and remember, he was gonna lose to Alison Lundergan Grimes. Pat Roberts? Why, he was gonna lose because he was Pat Roberts and bald!
He ends up winning by double digits. How does this happen? In Arkansas? Every member of the Arkansas delegation in the House of Representatives is a Republican, despite all the endorsements from Slick Willie and Hillary. Stephen Moore writing at National Review Online: “Winners, Losers, and Lessons Learned — The magnitude of the GOP’s tidal wave in Tuesday’s election is just coming into focus.
“Just as in 1994’s landslide election that gave Newt Gingrich and the GOP control of the US House for the first time in half a century, the media are underplaying the rout and portraying the 2014 midterm as a temper tantrum on the part of the electorate. NBC said that it was a bad night to be an incumbent. No: It was a miserable night to” be a Democrat. “Only one major Republican, Governor Tom Corbett of Pennsylvania, lost,” and do you know why?
It wasn’t even about politics. Do you know why Corbett lost? Take a stab. Pennsylvania. He’s the governor of Pennsylvania. Why did this guy lose? I’ll give you one name: Sandusky. The Penn State scandal and the perceived way he dealt with it is what did Tom Corbin in. Only two Republicans in the House lost, and there was poor Juan Williams all night on Fox steadfastly maintaining it was just an anti-incumbent mood.
But it wasn’t. It was an anti-Democrat incumbent mood. “Republicans grabbed hundreds of state legislative seats. They now control more seats in state capitals than at any time since the 1920s, unofficially,” and just like 1994: “Down-ticket is where Republicans really blew out the Democrats. Why was the blowout so severe? The Fox News exit polling tells a lot of the story.”
Are you ready? “‘A 59% majority feels dissatisfied or angry toward President Obama, while 41% are enthusiastic or satisfied with his [Regime]’s performance. … [A] third of all voters said opposition to the president was a reason for their … vote in House races, while only 20% expressed support for Obama in their choice of candidate.'” Stop Obama. Opposition to Obama and the Democrat Party.
Stephen Moore writes, “It was a huge victory for the supply-side agenda. The tax issue was a major factor in many state races. All the GOP tax-cutting governors — Brownback, Scott, etc. — won. In many states with Democratic tax-raisers — Maryland, Massachusetts, Illinois, etc. — Republicans won. Liberals had said this election would be a referendum on taxes. It was.”
People are fed up with them!
“The big winners among the governors who want to be president were John Kasich of Ohio (who won in a super blowout”), Scott Walker of Wisconsin (who won with surprising ease)…” Three times Scott Walker ran for governor in Wisconsin, in four years. The Democrat Party machine, both elements of the Democrat Party… There are two elements.
You got the usual, the Pelosi, Reid, Chuck Schumer, Dick Durbin — you know, the usual union, corrupt-thug bunch — and then you’ve got these community organizer-type liberals that make up the Democrat coalition today. And they’re quite different. The liberal bunch — the real radical leftists of the Democrat Party, like Obama — don’t really live and breathe with elections won or lost.
I mean, they’ll take a win, but losing an election does not stop them. They’re agitators. They’re community organizers. They dig deep down into the culture and get in there and cause upheaval and rot it out and all sorts of things. They don’t care whether they win or lose. Well, they care but they’re not set back when they lose. Obama’s not set back here. This is not gonna change anything he’s gonna do.
It ain’t gonna change anything his buddies at ACORN are gonna do. It ain’t gonna change anything his buddy Jeremiah Wright or Bill Ayers are gonna do. They’re gonna keep doing what they can to transform this country to something it wasn’t founded to be ’cause they don’t like it. Winning elections helps them, but if they lose them, they don’t shut themselves down.
The Reid/Pelosi people, they don’t want to be in the minority, they’ll quit, they’ll do something else, like Henry Waxman. Joe Manchin is probably gonna change parties. My guess is that he would change parties. You look at things, and it would make sense. There was an open seat in West Virginia. Republicans won by 25 or 30 points or some such thing. It would make total sense if he did change parties.
Scott Walker had to run against this Democrat coalition — the thugs, the corrupt people, and these new liberals — three times in four years. There were a couple of recall elections and a straight reelection campaign, and he won every one. Three times in four years, and they threw everything at him. They tried to destroy his career, his reputation, his life (ditto, his family), and he won by a comfortable margin.
Everybody was telling us the day before the election, “It’s gonna be very close! He might lose.” This election was misrepresented practically every which way possible in the days and weeks leading up to it. One of the huge losers was this wacko environmentalist nutcase on the Democrat side, Tom Steyer, a billionaire hedge fund manager.
He spent almost up to a hundred million dollars on people like Alison Lundergan Grimes and other candidates who were gonna just wipe out the coal industry. That was his objective: Wipe out the coal industry. And he lost big. Joe Manchin. That’s right. An open Senate seat in West Virginia went to the Republicans by more than 25 points. So it would total sense for him to change parties.