RUSH: Snerdley is saying, “You’re not the least bit energized looking at the political consequences fall over this?”
That’s a good question, and I submit that if you are energized by the political possibilities that ensue from this, that you need to get your head out of the twentieth century and you need to stop looking at things in the conventional way. I hadn’t intended to get into this now, but I’m gonna mention it now, and I’ll do it again later on in the broadcast when I had intended to. There’s a great column today in the Wall Street Journal, and it’s by one of our old favorite standbys, Daniel Henninger.
In its own self-contained universe, it’s a great column, but it misses a huge point.
The column — and I don’t have it on top of the Stack because it’s down there lower. I didn’t intend to have it there now, and I’m not gonna start shuffling papers to find it. So I’ll just do it off the top of my head and get to the details later. In essence, Henninger chronicles all of the trouble Democrat Party is in, how the mainstream Democrats and independents are abandoning them because the technocrats (meaning the elites, the self-proclaimed smartest in the room) are in charge of the Democrat Party and they are ruining the Democrat Party.
They just don’t know it yet, but they are ruining the Democrat Party. They’re creating so much trouble, so many problems for themselves, it’s only a matter of time. I read it, and as I say, in its own silo, it is a brilliant piece. But it is 20 or 30 years behind the times. Folks, the idea that this is going to hurt the Democrats? It may, but that’s the wrong way to look at this. “Oh, man, there’s gonna really be some blowback! They don’t know they’re destroying themselves. They’re destroying the Democrat Party.”
Well, don’t forget now, there’s a whole wing of the Democrat Party that doesn’t care about winning or losing elections as the primary way they corrupt the country. They don’t need to win elections to corrupt the country. Losing elections is not that big a deal to them. And that wing is running the Democrat Party right now, and they don’t care about any of that. They got whipped in the eighties, didn’t they? “Yeah, man, that Democrat Party, Reagan?
“Two landslide losses, they fell apart. Exactly right — and they lost again in ’88, man! I mean, it was really three elections in a row they got creamed. And then they lost in 2000, and they lost in 2002 in the midterms, the Democrats did, and they were in disarray like you can’t believe. They lost in 2004, and they lost in 2010. Oh, man did they get shellacked in 2010. And they just lost in 2014.” Really? And the Democrat Party is falling apart? Is that right?
They’re in big trouble? Where are they in big trouble? They’re not in any trouble. They’re getting away with it, folks, is the bottom line. The problem is that if you look at this the way Mr. Henninger is and the way Mr. Snerdley’s question indicates he might be, you think there’s gonna be fallout from this. There’s gonna be blowback. Well, there used to be. Elections used to change the direction the country was taking.
But they don’t anymore, and that’s the big difference.
I’ll take a break and I’ll come back and elaborate. I had not intended to get here yet. By now I intended to be into prosecutorial discretion, but Snerdley peppered me with this question. That’s what, I mean, this program’s improv. But don’t worry, it’s all gonna happen, we’re gonna get it all in there.
RUSH: Very simply put, the Democrat Party screwing up, the Democrat Party losing support, does not mean the Democrat Party fails to advance its agenda. So here’s Daniel Henninger’s piece. I’m not gonna read whole thing, I don’t need to. “Obama: The Hangover.” It’s a great piece in its own self-contained silo. But I think it’s in a time capsule, and it’s written from a political view that has long since ceased to exist.
“The problem is not one MIT economistÂ’s arrogance. The problem is that the technocracy itself –” the Democrat smartest guys in the world. The technocracy, the elites, the guys running the show, self-appointed. “The problem is that the technocracy itself has become a political problem for the Democratic Party.” No, it hasn’t. But let me continue.
“For some 80 years, that technocracy has been the life force of the Democratic Party. Now itÂ’s a kind of noxious green sludge consuming the party. Calling itself ‘the administrative state,’ a technocratic army of social scientists, lawyers and bureaucrats has kept the Democratic Party supplied for decades with the policy details behind its promises to the electorate. ObamaCare was going to be one more victory march into the end zone of federal entitlements with a playbook designed by Jon Gruber and the other grandchildren of the original administrative elites.”
It goes on to detail how all of these things are falling apart, how they’re all disasters, and how this is gonna have dire consequences for the Democrat Party. With all due respect, what I find missing in pieces like this is, despite cataloging the disaster that is befalling the Democrat Party, they are achieving lasting damage on this country, which, to me, makes the trouble they get into, an election here or an election there, somewhat irrelevant. This is a way of looking at politics that’s stuck back somewhere in the twentieth century when voter reaction to events actually changed the direction of the country. Voter reaction is a term for elections.
Now, you might disagree with me, but my perception is that elections are not changing the direction of the country much. Not Democrats losing elections. Let me address just that specifically. Democrats losing elections is not changing the country. They may lose an election here or there, and they may get in trouble here and there, but their agenda is marching on. The Democrats are losing support, eh? Yeah, right. They lost support in the eighties big time. I mean, they lost two landslides and then they lost in ’88. And they lost support in 2000. And they lost support in 2002 in a surprise upset loss in the midterm elections, and they lost again in 2004.
And they lost again in 2010, and they were in a mess after each one of these losses. Remember? We got stories, “Man, the Democrat Party is falling apart. Look how out of touch they are. The Democrat Party is in such dire straits, the old lions, the old liberal war horses are killing the party.” We’ve read this piece before. I’ve read this piece for 30 years. And every morning when I get up, the Democrat agenda is a little further down the road. So the Democrat Party’s losing support, eh? Well, show me how that’s manifesting itself.
Now, folks, do not go fatalistic on me. I’m not saying this to be fatalistic, or even pessimistic. What I’m saying is everybody’s gotta change their perspective on what’s happening here. It’s why I opened the program with, “I can’t believe what we’re about to see here.” We’re actually gonna watch a crime take place, and we’re eagerly counting down the time and we’re gonna watch, we’re all gonna watch as the Constitution, BB gun aimed, holes are gonna be fired right through it, and that’s it. And then we’re gonna talk about, “Yeah, this is really bad for the Democrats. I can’t believe Obama. Do you realize how ticked off people are gonna be?”
Doesn’t matter. The Constitution is still gonna have holes in it tomorrow, because nobody is stopping them. It used to be that elections stopped out-of-control parties and out-of-control politicians. They got the message. The Democrat Party doesn’t care. Obama on down, they don’t care what the electorate thinks, what the electorate does, as evidenced by what is going to happen tonight. They don’t care. And, until such time as somebody decides a way to stop them, this is gonna keep on happening.
RUSH: I don’t remember exactly when, but it was after the Democrats won an election. It might have been a Clinton presidential election, or it might have been the Democrats winning a midterm. I forget which. For some reason I think it was back in the nineties. It was fairly long ago, and I remember talking to some elected official, some elected Republican who was trying to keep things in perspective after this massive defeat.
He said to me… It doesn’t matter who it is and I don’t remember who it is. But he said to me, “Don’t worry, Rush. Don’t worry. The Democrats are gonna overreach. They always do. They’re going to misinterpret the mandate that they think they’ve got. They’re gonna overreach and they’re gonna really tick off the American people.” That is exactly the kind of antiquated, no-longer-applicable thinking I’m talking about. You can’t overreach any more than Barack Obama has, but it doesn’t apply anymore.
Democrats overreach, and when the Republicans rely on that be with Republicans relying on the voters to get mad and throw the Democrats out. That’s not enough. They’ve got to be stopped. They are in Hollywood. They’re on every television show. They’re in every song that’s written, practically. But if there’s not a coordinated effort to stop the advance of liberalism, it’s gonna keep marching forward. Writing of the temporary disarray that the Democrat Party is in as though that’s some kind of victory…
It’s no different than McConnell. Remember last week when, for one of the first times in 25 years, I was rendered speechless? I was reduced to a stuttering mass of incoherence here for two minutes. We played an audio sound bite of Mitch McConnell after Obama had announced some outrageous plan of his, and McConnell’s statement was, “Well, I guess the president is not going to move to the center as we thought he would.” That’s what used to happen 30 years ago. The losing party would move in the direction that they lost.
But that doesn’t happen anymore. It isn’t necessary. And the Democrat Party has been governing against the will of the people for I don’t know how long anyway. They want to win elections, obviously. That solidifies their power. But losing elections doesn’t stop them. Being in party disarray doesn’t stop them. Barack Obama tonight is gonna go out there and tell everybody he’s addressing a problem, and he’s not addressing a problem; he’s magnifying one, on purpose.
Not only is he going to put millions of illegal aliens on a path to amnesty; he’s inviting millions more to come to the border and cross it because eventually it’ll happen again. There will be more amnesty.