RUSH: Folks, also, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, there continues to be postelection analysis of this woman. And there’s an excellent piece today — where did this run? This is in The Atlantic, and it’s by somebody who used to write at National Review. I’m not sure how you pronounce the first name. It’s R-e-i-h-a-n. I would look at it say it’s Reihan Salam.
The New York Times had never heard of this babe. They did one story on this woman during the campaign. They didn’t even think she had a prayer. So there wasn’t a whole lot of study of her campaign while it was going on, but this guy’s gone back and looked at it, and it’s kind of interesting to look at the things that she did not campaign on.
This is the babe that beat the dinosaur Democrat Joe Crowley in that Bronx, Queens district, that shook up the Democrat Party. And if you look at the things that she did not campaign on, I’ll give you a little hint. She didn’t spend any time on Russian collusion. She spent no time on Trump conspiracies with obstruction, collusion. None of what the Democrat Party and the Drive-Bys have been devoted to. But there’s more.
RUSH: Well, no. The reason it’s interesting is that it shows the variation, the difference here is this woman is a Marxist, communist running for election, a Democrat, doesn’t mention what the Democrat Party and the media are living on, and gets elected. I guarantee you the Democrats are looking at that.
RUSH: Let me get back to this Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez for just a minute — because this kind of stuff, I will admit, is interesting to me. This woman won in a landslide. She 28 years old. Let me tell you what I really think of her, by the way. I have not done this. But I want to go through just a brief character analysis or… “Character” is not totally correct. But she’s being compared to Obama. Do you notice that? Now, in the process of comparing her to Obama, they are trying to say, “This woman is great. This woman is the next last great hope.”
This, they say, is the female Obama. Well, let’s take a look at who both of them actually are, shall we, if we want to really get down deep and analyze this. Let’s first look at Obama. There are a bunch of stories out there right now that Obama is secretly working feverishly behind the scenes to overthrow Trump, to paralyze Trump, to thwart Trump, but he’s doing it quietly. Remember, I predicted Obama’d be very public, that he’d be going on TV every time Trump (or whoever the president was) was attempting to unravel an Obama agenda item.
But he’s not done that. There’s a story recently by Paul Sperry in the New York Post (summarized), “Hey, this guy, if you think Obama’s drifted away and is out on golf courses playing golf or whatever? No, no, no.” Mr. Sperry said, “He’s got a big staff at his house. He’s got Organizing for America, and they’re working hard. They’re working every day to undermine Trump and to reestablish the Obama agenda,” and that version seems to have become dominant, that Obama is active but invisible, that he is working hard but nobody can see it.
He’s doing everything he can — being the brilliant guy he is — to stop and destroy Donald Trump. Okay, let’s just think of. How is that working out for him, No. 1? But it has been my observation that, on balance, I don’t think Obama fits the definition of a traditional hard worker. Obama did not put in a lot of hours. He didn’t get to the Oval Office particularly early. He rarely got there before 9 a.m., and he spent much of his day engaged in following his hobbies and so forth. He really was not working. He delegated a lot.
But I don’t think Obama — and, by the way, I’m not saying this in a critical sense. Don’t misunderstand me. I just don’t think Obama has actually worked very hard at anything in his whole life. I think that he has benefited from a lot of people handing him things, thinking he’s something special, thinking he’s something great, and paving his way for him here and there. He’s obviously told how special he is all the time. He believed, you know, that he’s godlike. But let’s put it this way. Donald Trump does more in a day than Barack Obama did in a month.
I’m talking about actual hours spent, hours spent achieving. Trump barely sleeps. Trump is consistently and constantly on the go to the point that the Democrats and the media really can’t keep up with him. And it’s not new. Trump has lived his life this way. I don’t think Obama has a personality type or anything close to Trump’s in the sense of traditional work ethic. I don’t think Obama’s had to. You know, Obama’s benefited from being a number of things, including being a guy that a lot of people wanted to attach themselves to because they figured he was going someplace.
I mean, look at how hard did he really campaign for Hillary? I mean, his legacy was on the line. His very legacy. And when he did campaign, he was telling everybody (impression), “If you want more of me, if you want a third term of Obama, then you’ve gotta vote for her.” But he didn’t say it much. Now, I know that all these people thought Hillary was gonna win and win in a landslide. But he wasn’t out there working hard for her. Now, maybe he really didn’t want her to win. Who knows? But I’m just saying he wasn’t out there busting tail.
Obama never did.
Obama is not, never has been the traditional hard worker that you conjure when you think of that. I also don’t think — and I’ve said this before. I don’t think that Obama is a political whiz, and Hillary isn’t. Now, they benefit from image builders who have told everybody, “Man, there’s nobody smarter!” Note that Obama was saying that about her, and she would say that about him. I’ll never forget the Democrat convention where Obama’s out there making his speech, and he looks at the audience, he finds Bill Clinton, and he says, “Bill, look. We gotta be honest about it: She can run rings around us, Bill. She has…”
Barack Obama said there has never been anybody more qualified in the history of the world to be the president of the United States than Hillary Clinton.
Well, that was a joke. Obama didn’t believe that. Obama thinks he’s the best guy that’s ever been around to be president. That was being loyal to the party and loyal to his secretary of state and loyal to his agenda, but he doesn’t really believe that. I’m telling you, folks, 80% of the candidates Obama endorsed flamed out. He’s a great community organizer; don’t misunderstand. He understands Alinsky better than Alinsky does.
Obama doesn’t have to consult the Alinsky manual to know what Alinsky would do in terms of community organizing, agitating, upsetting apple carts. But when it comes to the political science of political strategy and planning, I think there were other people in Obama’s administration and his campaign who did that.
Now, Valerie Jarrett is a different matter. I think she was probably that person I’m talking about. I’m sure she is in charge of whatever number of people that are part of Obama’s PAC that are trying to undermine Trump. I’m not saying that Obama’s not doing it. That it’s not happening under his auspices. But he’s not the guy doing it. Obama’s not out there doing this.
Obama doesn’t roll up the sleeves. Other people do it. Valerie Jarrett and others that were in the Obama administration and in his campaign are probably doing the hard work. He’s a figurehead. I don’t even think he’s the real leader. He’s the figurehead. He’s the picture. He’s the face of whatever the movement is. But that’s just my perception.
Now, they’re saying that Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez is the next Obama. Okay. Well, let’s run down her list. She is a community organizer. And she has a very ethnic name, Ocasio-Cortez. Like Obama, she is shockingly inexperienced in real life. Her big accomplishment, until her upset win, is that she managed to graduate from college. I’m not putting anybody down here, folks. Do not misunderstand.
She has light brown skin similar to Obama. She’s mixed heritage like Obama. She talks very well like Obama. She can be persuasive like Obama. She is the youngest in her circle like Obama was. The leftist media adores her to the point that she is the female Obama. Her background is not exactly how she presents it, like Obama’s wasn’t. She has also upset the Democrat establishment. Like Obama upset Hillary, she’s come along and upset Crowley and everything he stands for.
But nobody really knows who she is other than this. There is confusion about her background. She may have grown up in a very wealthy — well, she did grow up in a very wealthy, toney New York suburb, Westchester County, which she doesn’t talk about much. She also is very loud and up front about her socialism, where Obama tried to hide it and mask it. So to that extent, we have progressed some, they have progressed in the sense that Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez is not at all uncomfortable by wearing her Marxism on her sleeve.
So she wins, and she wins in a landslide that nobody saw coming, which is akin to what Donald Trump did. So Reihan Salam, The Atlantic, goes out and, after the fact, starts looking at her campaign. And here’s a few things that he noticed about Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez campaign.
She had nothing to say about Russian interference in the 2016 election. Now, this fascinates me because that is the tent pole of the Democrat Party’s future campaigns. They believe they were cheated out of the election. That’s all that’s mattered. Trump-Russia collusion. Election was stolen. They’ve gotta make it right. This White House is really Hillary Clinton’s. The Democrats won that election. It was Trump that stole it working with the Russians.
This has been the thing that’s animated ’em, motivated ’em, inspired ’em. This is the thing they’ve all gotten out of bed every day trying to prove, from the deep state, the intel people, the FBI, the DOJ, the DNC, the Democrat Party, everybody else; and this woman doesn’t even mention it in her campaign?
Now, you think the Democrat Party at large will note this? Why didn’t she mention it? I mean, if it’s so important, if it’s so crucial, it is the primary reason the Democrats say they should be voting for her is to correct this major, major, controversial sabotage. And she doesn’t even mention it.
She didn’t even talk about James Comey. She didn’t spend any time talking about how Comey stole the election by reopening her email investigation. She didn’t spend a lot of time criticizing Trump and what he’s doing to the so-called international order. She campaigned on Marxism and socialism, and that was her bread and butter. She spent some time ripping Trump, but on the basis that Trump is a reprobate and a fool and a brute and unsophisticated. But she didn’t spend any time at all on the things the Democrat Party has staked their future on. She campaigned on pure, unadulterated socialism.
Now, the reason all this fascinates me is because the Democrat Party at large looking at her campaign and others are gonna be scratching their heads left and right, because they don’t want to give up this collusion story. They don’t want to the give up the obstructionist, they don’t want to give up on Mueller. She didn’t mention Robert Mueller in the campaign. She didn’t mention the special counsel. I mean, maybe in passing. It was not a focal point.
She was all about selling America as a socialist, Marxist country. Now, the Democrat Party knows full well that if they do that party-wide, nationwide, they are finished and they are cooked. And yet this young woman being now portrayed by the media as the future of the Democrat Party is inspiring a lot of people.
I think it all adds up to a gigantic identity crisis for the Democrats, and they’re gonna have to figure out, going forward, whether or not they want to nationalize these elections against Trump and how they want — and does the Democrat Party really want to promote candidates like this woman, who are going to be seeking election the House of Representatives — ’cause, remember, they want to impeach Trump — she didn’t even talk about that, folks! So are they gonna adopt what this woman won in a landslide, pure socialism, Marxism, communism as a thrust of the campaign? This will be fascinating to me.
RUSH: Let’s listen to this audio sound bite. This is the avowed socialist Tom Perez, the chairman of the Democrat National Committee. This morning he was on the radio and had this to say…
PEREZ: My daughters — I have three kids to whom our — our daughters — one just graduated college; one is in college — and they were both texting me about their excitement over Alexandria, because, you know, she really — she represents the future of our party. She ran a spirited campaign.
RUSH: There you go. She’s the future of the party. She didn’t talk about Trump. She didn’t talk about Russia. She didn’t talk about James Comey. She didn’t talk about any of the things that the Democrats are talking about. Here’s the DNC chairman saying she is the future.
Over here is Democrat Senator Tammy Duckworth. She’s from Illinois. And she says, “I don’t think you can go so far to the left and still win the Midwest.” She said this on CNN’s State of the Union on Sunday. “Coming from a Midwestern state, I think you need to be able to talk to the industrial Midwest. You need to be able to listen to the people there in order to win an election nationwide.”
Hey, Tammy, you may be right on, but your party has kissed those people off and good-bye beginning in November 2011. The white- and blue-collar working class, your party has whisked them away in exchange for this gigantic coalition of minorities and illegals. And you’re in trouble.
RUSH: I just want to keep on this theme here of Fredo Cuomo on his show. They’ve moved Fredo to prime time on CNN. Have you seen it? It’s… I don’t mean the show. The ratings… I hate saying this. You know, I see these stories on these guys’ ratings, and it’s embarrassing. (interruption) Oh, it’s bad. Snerdley’s asking me, “How bad is it?” It’s bad. But I get nervous talking about it, because we’re all…
You know, we’re all subject to the vagaries of ratings here, although the EIB Network is sitting up there at the peak. But they had high hopes. They moved Fredo from what is called morning drive, and they moved him to prime time. He’s up against Hannity. And it’s just — just — but nevertheless, Fredo decided last night to weigh in on this split that’s happening in the Democrat.
CUOMO: You got him in a bad place on immigration. He screwed up. He did something that is inhumane and indecent, and people are callin’ him out for it, of allllll kinds of political stripes except for one concentrated aspect of his base. Then not since Roseanne Barr said what she said only to be followed by Samantha Bee — who somehow wound up doublin’ down on dumb — have we seen the Democrats help Trump in a moment of need. Because abolish ICE plays right into you’re about open borders, you’re not about law enforcement, you’re about letting anybody come in here, even if they’re killers and drug dealers. Why make this play?
RUSH: Because they believe it! Chris, they believe it, and so does your party! This is the dirty little secret. You know, to hear you guys go on and on and on about Trump separating families? You know that that’s not true. You know that it was the law doing that, and you know now that it was Trump that stopped it because you guys whined and moaned about it. You know that the reason families are separated is because people send their kids all the way up here from Central America unaccompanied.
You know why they get separated. They come up here and they’re breaking the law by arriving, trying to get in, and then they claim asylum. The Democrat Party stands for… Look at Black Lives Matter. Hate the cops! The NFL’s even picked up that refrain. The NFL now is identified with the cops suck, the cops are bad, the cops are a bunch of racists. I’m sorry, Fredo, but the Democrat Party is now identified with an anti-law enforcement identity.
When you go out and you make it a point to attack the first president in our lifetimes to really — well, let’s say in the modern era. The first who really is trying to enforce immigration law, and you attack him as some sort of inhumane family divider, it’s your party where this anti-cop refrain’s coming from. It’s your parties where anti-ICE is coming from. Samantha Bee is in your party! Roseanne Barr is in your party! You can sit here and say these people are doing dumb things — and maybe they are — but they are in your party.
They are speaking as Democrats and as leftists. When did these guys all of a sudden develop respect for ICE? Indeed, that’s not what it is. They don’t have respect for ICE. They just realized that the problem that’s happening here is not what people believe; it’s what people are admitting they believe. See, the Obama era and pretty much all previous Democrat eras, they had to lie to people about what they believed. They had to mask and camouflage (you know this drill) their liberalism and their extreme radicalism.
But now these youngsters don’t want to do so that. They want to lead with it. They want it right out in the open, and Fredo and his crowd say, “Oh, my God. You can’t say that. You can’t say that. We’ll never win anything.” But they are saying it, Fredo, and they’re Democrats. They are leftists. They are radicals and they are Democrats, and they are your party — and you’re gonna have to either figure out how to shut ’em up or you’re gonna have to join ’em.
But I don’t think these youngsters want to play by your rules. I don’t think they want to have to lie about who they are anymore. I think they want to hit everybody both barrels right between the eyes with who they are. That is going to be the fight the Democrats are gonna have.