Join 24/7   Help
The Voters are Angry at Democrats
May 17, 2010

Listen To It! WMP | RealPlayer 

Audio clips available for Rush 24/7 members only -- Join Now!

BEGIN TRANSCRIPT
RUSH: Now, the Washington Post today: "Tuesday's Primaries Could Provide Early Answers for Election Year," by Chris Cillizza and Dan Balz.  "An angry electorate, which already has delivered a series of shocks to the political system, will render a fresh verdict on Washington, incumbency and both party establishments in a slate of high-stakes contests Tuesday that are shaping up to form one of the most important voting days of the year.  Sen. Arlen Specter (D-Pa.) could be the next incumbent to fall, but by late Tuesday night, everyone from President Obama to Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) could feel the sting of voter anger that has shaped the election climate and that could produce a dramatic upheaval in Congress by November.  Everyone has a different definition of the anger: anti-incumbent; anti-Obama; anti-establishment; anti-Washington. But the expressions of displeasure are everywhere.

"Some voters think Washington is spending too much..." I would have a question for these people in the media.  They write the story, Dan Balz and Cillizza, without one regard for context or one regard for history. Recent history! During the of the Obama administration, what were we told?  "A new day, a new man, a politician unlike any who has ever trod American soil. A man who can unify not just Americans, but the world.  We will have a post-partisan presidency. We will have a post-racial presidency.  We are going to have a unity and a happiness and a contentment unlike that we've ever seen."  Now, the very people who either wrote those stories or echoed them when the regime made those statements during the campaign, are now filled with stories of the gigantic unrest and diabolical dislike of Washington, DC.  

Do you not think, Mr. Balz and Mr. Cillizza that after you write a story here that tries to lump the Republicans in with the Democrats and all this "anti-incumbancy" and you do so facetiously and falsely, you think you might go back and ask: How did this happen?  You led everybody to believe -- with you and your brethren in the Drive-By Media -- that there wasn't going to be any more discord. It was going to be loving bipartisan. It was going to be unity and love and contentment and peace.  The world was going to love us! Iran would stand down. The North Koreans would stand down. Europe would once again love the United States.  Instead, Europe is disintegrating before our very eyes. The Iranians are nuking up. The North Koreans are nuking up.

There is more partisan divide in this country than at any time in my life.  The exact opposite of what these people expected, the exact opposite of what they reported is happening, and yet here is this story: "Everyone has a different definition of the anger."  Shouldn't the story be: Why is there anger?  There is an all-time high disrespect for Washington: 75% of the American people.  Seventy-five percent think Washington's a big problem.  They don't trust it.  In just a year and a half after the election of "The One who we've all been waiting for," The Messiah, why is there anger?  That should be the story. There's anger everywhere.  There's anger on the left; there's anger everywhere. Why?  How can this possibly be?  Are you in the media not the least bit shocked?  None of this was supposed to happen.  

"Democratic pollster Peter Hart said anyone searching for meaning from Tuesday's races need only look to grievances that have been building for months. 'How many times do we need to tell the same story, which is that voters are looking for something that is not in Washington right now,' he said." Whoa.  A Democratic pollster says, "[V]oters are looking for something that's not in Washington"?  But we were told that when Obama got there, it would be almost heaven-like, idyllic, utopian -- and now there's anger unlike anybody's ever seen, and "voters are looking for something that's not in Washington right now"? I can understand them writing this if Bush were still in office, but Bush is gone -- and the smartest, cleanest, most well-spoken president in our history is bombing? Yet we get stories on "anti-incumbancy."  

What's really going on here, ladies and gentlemen, is Mr. Balz, Mr. Cillizza, and the rest of the media are trying to equate Democrat primary fights like Sestak and Specter and what's going on in Arkansas with voter unrest with liberals Democrats and Republicans-in-name-only. They are intentionally, here, trying to confuse the subject.  This primary is not a reflection on the unrest across the country.  It's whether the Democrats in Pennsylvania will back one of two losers, Specter or Sestak." "Specter-Sestak Dogfight Tops Senate 'Super Tuesday' Primaries"  The New York Times has: Angry Voters, But How Many?"  Now, the fight in Arkansas is between a liberal who poses as a moderate (that's Blanche Lincoln) and a liberal who is a liberal.  Once again, this has nothing to do with what's occurring across the country, which is a conservative revolt against socialism.

That is what the revolt is, and the revolt is against Obama. It is against anybody in Washington who is for the expansion of Washington.  Put very simply, ladies and gentlemen, people in this country today do not think, by a wide margin, that they should be paying for others in this country who don't want to work or who don't want to pay for their homes or don't want to pay for their health insurance.  Furthermore, people in this country today don't believe they should be paying for all of that for people who aren't yet born.  There is a revolt against socialism. There is a revolt against statism. There is a revolt against the regime, Mr. Balz and Mr. Cillizza.  I know they don't miss it.  They're just trying to deflect attention.  

They don't want anybody to remember all of the platitudes that we were treated to during the 2008 presidential campaign.  Post-partisan! Post-racial! Euphoric! Utopia! Contentment, happiness, peace breaking out all over!  What the media, these guys are trying to do, they're trying to use the primaries tomorrow to intentionally misstate what has and is taking place in this country.  In Pennsylvania, you have a battle there among many Democrats to stop Specter 'cause they don't view him as a Democrat. He's a turncoat.  In Arkansas you have a battle by the libs to take down Blanche Lincoln, who isn't liberal enough for them.  It has nothing to do with the rise of conservatism and anger over our out-of-control government. 

Kentucky's different. There is a battle between a more establishment candidate and Rand Paul in the GOP primary there.  The more establishment candidate is the secretary of state of Kentucky, Rand Paul's a private citizen, and the lib media will do anything they can to downplay the rise of conservatism and the opposition to big government that exists in the country today and try to focus on, "What are people mad at?  Are they mad at incumbents or are they mad at Washington or are they mad at Democrats?" They want to say, "They're just mad at Washington."  They are missing it or if they're not missing it they are deflecting attention way from it on purpose because the anger is at them.  The anger is at the left.  There is a rising ascension of conservatism here against socialism, against big government, against the Obama way of doing things.  That's what's happening and that's what they don't want to report.
BREAK TRANSCRIPT

RUSH: John Harwood today, New York Times: "Angry Voters, But How Many?"  Now, this is hilarious, this story.  "Three United States Senate primaries on Tuesday offer new signs of the election-year intentions of America's dyspeptic voters."  See what they're setting up here is the American people in November are going to have another childlike "temper tantrum" by throwing out Democrats.  That's what they're setting up here.  All of you voters, you're deranged and you're unstable.  "A few voters, anyway," he says. The real question is, how many are really angry? How many are really angry?  He said the voters on Tuesday is "only a sliver of the population." There's "no groundswell" out there.  So prior to this story being published, the tea parties were just a bunch of racist, hate-filled, firebombing mobs swarming town halls, and now we're nothing.  

It's just a tiny sliver! Nothing to get worried about, Mr. President.  These people showing up on Tuesday are just a small sliver of the population: " Yet the voters rendering those verdicts will represent only a sliver of the population."  So that's intellectually dishonest.  Not everybody can vote this Tuesday! There aren't primaries in every state, Mr. Harwood.  Of course it's a sliver of the population.  But that is not to say that these voters are irrelevant.  How can we on one day be a mass, growing mob that wants to blow everything up -- that you wish had planted the bomb in Times Square -- and yet on Election Day we don't count; we're just a sliver? Cutting us right once and just stick with it?  We're either the unruly mob that wants to blow up the country or we don't matter.  But you don't get to interchange it depending on the news outcome you'd like on that particular day.  

He writes, "Polls show that Republicans are at least poised to erode the Democrats' House and Senate majorities. But as with the Democrats' midterm gains four years ago, the uprising will almost certainly be narrow and targeted -- not a mass movement. ...  In the 1994 midterms, for example, overall turnout as a proportion of eligible citizens dropped slightly." So what?  So now we're trying to diminish what happened in 1994 by saying, "Not that many people voted anyway.  Doesn't matter."  So history must always be revised.  The truth of the eighties, the truth of Reaganism, the truth of supply-side economics, the truth of the '94 elections, the truth of the destruction that's being wrought daily by the regime? Can't write that.  Have to revise that, have to mischaracterizing it, have to continue the fiction Obama's got a 50% approval rating.  Where does Obama have a 50% approval rating?  In his own poll?  In no other poll does he have a 50% approval rating.
BREAK TRANSCRIPT

RUSH: Houston, Texas, this is Jason, and welcome to the EIB Network, sir.  Nice to have you here.

CALLER:  Hi, Rush.  Longtime listener, big fan.

RUSH:  Thank you.

CALLER:  I was calling in, I find it extremely ironic that the state of California is currently violating federal law for the sale of illegal drugs and/or the paraphernalia associated with it is trying to dictate to a state that is enforcing what federal law is not being done --

RUSH:  Wait, wait, wait, wait, how is California violating federal law by selling illegal drugs?

CALLER:  Well, the state doesn't, not necessarily the state, but there are communities within California, Encino (sic) County I believe is the name of where all the marijuana is sold and used and whatnot.

RUSH:  Oh, you mean under the guise of medical purposes?

CALLER:  Correct.

RUSH:  Okay.

CALLER:  And so obviously it's illegal by federal law, and I find it extremely ironic that the state of California is then going to dictate to another state that is choosing to enforce federal law.

RUSH:  Well, once again, you start analyzing -- it's a good point, don't misunderstand -- but we start analyzing these things rationally or logically, it's not going to make any sense.  The boycotts of Arizona are not based on genuine heartfelt concern for anything.  They're not based on rationality or logic.  California and elsewhere, the boycotts of Arizona are purely political.  The oil spill is purely political.  We need to depoliticize the oil spill.  We need to depoliticize the environment.  The whole thing has become politicized.  Four Corners of Deceit: Media, government, academia, and everybody else.  It's incestuous and it never stops.  Everything is a political opportunity or a problem for the left.  Nothing is real.  Nothing is as it is.  The oil spill is not an oil spill that might threaten marine life and poison the Gulf for a number of years.  That's not what it is.  This is an opportunity to expand and create crisis, to expand the opportunity to implement more liberalism and big government growth, expansion in the American law.  They just say they're concerned about the oil.  But you don't see 'em doing anything to try to stop it, do you?  

Do you see one leftist group out there trying to stop it?  Do you see any group in the government shrieking about all this?  Are they out there trying to stop it or are they simply pointing fingers of blame and simply saying, "See, see?  This proves we can't drill for oil. We gotta stop drilling for oil."  Are they trying to stop it?  All of the problems their legislation's created, the war on poverty -- we just had somebody call who accurately described what liberal welfare policies have done regarding black families, split 'em up, they've blown up the black family.  Single parenthood is almost a guaranteed invitation to poverty.  Do we see them doing anything about it?  No.  We see them criticizing us who want to do something about it as trying to impose our morality on people.  Do they really care about all these things they say they care about?  No.  They want you to think they do.  But they don't.  It's all a political opportunity.  Every negative thing that happens, Dick Gephardt back in the early 2000s, stock market was plummeting after the dot-com bubble, he's all happy.  "Every hundred-point drop in the stock market, we pick up another seat."  They're not real, folks, they're not genuine, they're not tolerant, they're not compassionate, they don't have a monopoly on feeling.  And even their supposed commitment to fairness is not a commitment to fairness.  Their commitment to fairness is nothing more than an attempt to punish high achievers.  It's no more complicated than that. 

Jason, Traverse City, Michigan, welcome to the program, sir.

CALLER:  Hey, how you doing, Rush?

RUSH:  Very well, thank you.

CALLER:  I'll get right to the point.  I got some more deception for you by the left, and they're doing it right here in Michigan, and we're pretty sure that Mark Brewer and the Michigan Democratic Party are behind it.  There's a movement or petition drive to get a third party on the ballot, a tea party on the ballot but nobody here in Michigan, none of the tea party leaders in Michigan even have an idea of who's behind it.  The organization that's actually doing the petition drive is a company called Progressive Campaigns, Incorporated and it was reported on OutsideLansing.com.  Apparently they get paid a dollar a signature, and they're trying to get this --

RUSH:  Yeah.  I know.  Look, Dingy Harry tried to do this in Nevada. He tried to get a guy, a Democrat, an extremist nutcase to say he was running on the tea party to try to split the vote and so forth.  They're scared to death of this.  The left must by definition be scared of what's real.  They have to be frightened by what's real, because none of what they are is real.  Everything they are is a lie, everything they are is a head fake, is a distraction.  Something real comes along, real and substantive, and they panic, and they have to destroy it and that's what they're trying to do with the tea party, Sarah Palin, me, whoever gets in their way.
END TRANSCRIPT
Read the Background Material...
New York Times: Angry Voters, But How Many? - John Harwood
Washington Post: Tuesday's Primaries Could Provide Early Answers for Election Year
*Note: Links to content outside RushLimbaugh.com usually become inactive over time.
OBSCENE PROFIT CENTER

Become an EIB Advertiser!
Click for more Information
Terms of Use | Privacy Statement | Copyright & Trademark Notice | The Rush Limbaugh Show® Premiere Radio Networks © All Rights Reserved, 2010.