Posted on 09/19/2012 2:52:45 PM PDT by Kaslin
BEGIN TRANSCRIPT
RUSH: You know, I could be wrong about this, but here's Bill Kristol, who is saying that Romney... Let me get this quote in front of me. I always put this stuff the bottom of the Stack. Bill Kristol says Romney was "stupid and arrogant," and every Democrat under the sun is retweeting it. On the tape, talking about the 47%, Kristol says Romney was "stupid and arrogant." Every Democrat under the sun's retweeting that all over the place, Donna Brazile and others.
You know what struck me about this? During the primary, all these people -- not all of them, but a lot of the people -- who were telling us, "Romney's the only guy. He's the only chance we've got! Romney's the one," they've bailed. They've bailed on him. Now they're running around saying, "He's not the candidate we thought he was gonna be. He's stupid and arrogant," and all these things. And those of you, you and me, who were said to be problematic during the primaries? We're the ones supporting Romney!
We're the ones trying to do everything we can to help get the guy get elected, because this election's about stopping Obama! This election is about stopping the Democrat Party. This election is very important. It's very crucial. I say it again: I don't think that the inside the Beltway glitterati look at it all that way. I don't think they think anything's really at stake here, except committee chairmanships in the Senate, or control over the federal budget, or finding enough people to tell you they'll go on a cruise with you after the election.
But for all of us, this is ball game, the way we look at it. I find it interesting. We're the ones supporting Romney. And the guys that were all-in at the beginning and saying (muttering), "Romney's the only guy who can win. He's the only guy that's electable. He's the only one," now they're bailing on him. You know all they're doing is trying to protect their own reputations. They think everybody else sees Romney as stupid, so they gotta say so, too, to make sure that they're not looked at the same way people are supposedly looking at Romney.
But they're totally misreading the American people on this.
The American people... Democrats are wrong to this, too. The American people are not fit to be tied, angry, insulted, or what have you over what Romney said on that tape. Let's go back to the audio sound bites. Frank Luntz, well-known... What does he do? Well, he's a well-known focus grouper. He's a pollster. (Just a mental block there.) He does all the focus groups with Hannity and so forth. He was on CBS This Morning today and they had a discussion about the "secret" video Mitt Romney recorded at a May fundraiser.
Again, there are two minutes of this thing missing. David Corn of Mother Jones said (paraphrased), "Hey, we got the whole thing! Here it is! The whole thing's there." Bill Jacobson at Legal Insurrection blog said, "No, it's not. There's two minutes missing, and nobody knows what's in the two minutes." Norah O'Donnell, the hostette, says to Luntz, "Now you see a number of Republicans, former Republicans criticizing Mitt Romney for his comment. Is this a turning point in the campaign?"
Everybody thinks Romney lost the election yesterday.
The glitterati, the intelligentsia, the stars inside the Beltway think Romney lost the election yesterday. They really do. That's why it was so hard for you watching television last night 'cause you see all these people on all these networks. "Oh, it's over!" I never met a bunch of quitters like these in my life. I never met a bigger bunch of defeatists! We haven't even had the debates. It's not even October yet. Anyway, here's what Luntz said. When Norah O'Donnell asks, "Is this a turning point in the campaign, Frank?" what she means is: "Okay, Romney stepped in it. Is that it? Is it over now?"
LUNTZ: First we had the 99 to 1%. Now we've got the 47 to 53%. Americans do believe that there's too much dependency on government and they want more personal responsibility. What they don't like is that line in Romney's statement where he says, "I don't care about them." They want a president to care about everyone, regardless of whether you vote for them or not. First you're trying to decide, are you in the 53 or 47; then (snickers) you're trying to decide, do you pay or not?
RUSH: Now, Frank spends all day with these independents who can't make up their minds, and they're now trying to figure out whether they're in the 47%. But they don't like that Romney said he doesn't care. Now, did Romney actually say that? Did he say he don't care about them? See, if he did, it's a problem, but that still is the opportunity that was presented. He's gone places on TV now like with Cavuto. (interruption) Exactly.
What he meant was: In the terms of the election, those people are already committed to Obama in his view. Obama starts out with 47% of the vote, is what he means. And he's gotta focus on the remaining people that he can get to vote for him. But, anyway, you also hear Luntz say, "Americans do believe that there's too much dependency on government and they want more personal responsibility." So O'Donnell then says, "But Romney was suggesting that these people are mooching off the system. He wasn't offering a helping hand. That's how they might interpret it."
LUNTZ: That's the whole issue. It's the interpretation versus what is meant. I want to make this clear: The race isn't over. It's not a game-changer. Not only is it not over, if Romney can change the focus with 23 million unemployed, he's got a tremendous opportunity.
RUSH: There you have it, folks! The expert says it's not over, nowhere near over. And it's not a game-changer, but everybody in the media thinks it is. There was a Politico story somebody sent me last night. It was a Politico headline, or story, and it literally said the race was over last night. It was finished, it was done, because of this Romney comment. Now, Luntz says, "Not only is it not over, if Romney can change the focus with 23 million unemployed, he's got a tremendous opportunity."
I guess what that means is there are some in the 23 million unemployed who would vote for Obama because they want a continuation of unending benefits? My way of thinking -- which I know is crazy, cockamamie, out of the mainstream. By my way of thinking, I don't understand why more than ten or 20% of the unemployed would want anything to do with Barack Obama! Why are they unemployed? Romney hasn't had anything to do with them being unemployed.
Not one Romney policy has had anything to do with unemployment in this country. Not one! The only candidate in this race who can be tied to high unemployment is Barack Obama. Now, somebody explain to me how the 23 million unemployed wouldn't automatically want an alternative to Obama? At least a majority of them. (New Castrati impression) "Mr. Limbaugh, what you are forgetting, sir -- what you are missing -- is many of these 23 million unemployed really blame Bush, George W. Bush, who's really responsible for this!"
Well, there probably is some of that because of the media. But, again, common sense is rearing its head here, and I don't know how you make the case that a guy who has not been in office -- who has never been president, who hasn't had his hand on one aspect of federal policy -- is in any way linked to unemployment. "Mr. Limbaugh you're forgetting something else! There are guys like Romney who are going to increase unemployment by giving all the money to the rich!"
Well, if we've gotten to that point where people think that, then this is all academic anyway, and I just refuse to accept that. I just think this is all cockamamie. I think way too many people on our side fall for this. It's hard to avoid it, I must admit. The media bubble is there every day. Snerdley? It traps him every night! He leaves here with one view of the world after having listened to this program -- and after absorbing the news for three hours later that night, he's back down so low that when he looks up, he sees the gutter.
And if you choose to expose yourself to the modern day so-called news media for any length of time, you're gonna end up thinking the same thing. If you don't think that, then you're gonna think, "My gosh, there's no way. How can we overcome this?" And it's true. There has never, ever, in any of our lifetimes been anything this. We've never seen a news media so activist and in the tank like this for a candidate. Never, never. I mean, to the point of making up news stories, to the point of being ridiculous. The guy in the video caused the riots in the Middle East and ultimately it's Romney's fault?
And they try to do news stories, serious news stories with that premise? Now, I've never understood how the rich steal from the poor anyway. I've never understood the math on that, how the rich got rich from taking from the poor. I know I didn't go to college, but nobody's ever shown me mathematically how that formula works, that the rich got rich by taking from the poor.
BREAK TRANSCRIPT
RUSH: Wiesbaden, Germany, Angelo. I'm gonna get you. How long do you have here with us?
CALLER: I can stay with you as long as you need, Rush.
RUSH: Oh, cool. Okay, what's on your mind?
CALLER: Well, sir, first off: Thank you very much for taking my call.
RUSH: You bet.
CALLER: But I was listening to you during the Republican convention and the coverage after the convention, and it struck me that the advisers to Mitt Romney sound to me a whole lot like RINOs that just don't want to lose their jobs. They're so entrenched in the status quo that they just want to keep it the way it is. That's why they're giving him all this, um, I would say "questionable advice" about not running on Obama's very public lack of a record.
RUSH: Yeah. But he hired them.
CALLER: And that if --
RUSH: Yeah, but wait. It's a known quantity. He hired 'em. Is it their fault or his? He hired 'em.
CALLER: (sigh)
RUSH: He's the one who decides.
CALLER: That's true.
RUSH: He doesn't have to listen to 'em.
CALLER: No, you're right. You're right.
RUSH: It could cut both ways. If you go hire the architects of McCain's defeat and expect something different... So, I mean, they are who they are, is the point. There's not a... (groans) Thanks for the call. I really appreciate it.
END TRANSCRIPT
I was not addressing it to you. Please accept my apology.
I was addressing my comments to all the Mitt naysayers.
Both, but we MUST DEFEAT OBAMA!
I didn't sign such an agreement and neither did Patton@Bastogne.
It's good to be a free man.
I think the collapse and they don’t want the GOPe to be blamed is a more likely scenario.
There are several problems with the whole losing now may be good eventually for the party, for conservatives, and for the nation.
One is the Supreme Court. I don’t know that a President McCain would have nominated good judges, and if he did if he could have gotten them confirmed. Same for Romney should he win. But we know how horrible Sotomayor and Kagan are, and that was a huge opportunity lost to finally right the Court. Now we have decades of insane, activist, power-usurping jurisprudence from these two. If Obama wins again, then he’ll replace Ginsburg for sure. Breyer might retire too. That would mean we lost the chance to replace every one of the most recent liberal retirements. If Kennedy or Scalia were to retire, then it’s over as far as the Court goes. Gay marriage will be imposed on the entire nation (though that may happen now with the threat of Kennedy or Roberts jumping ship). The Second Amendment victories will be reversed and in its place the worthless collective right interpretation will reign. Inevitable ‘anti-hate’ speech laws will be sanctioned. And so on and so on.
Another thing to consider is Obamacare. For it to be overturned Romney must win and the GOP must retake the Senate. Otherwise it stands and it will never be overturned.
And finally there are the mass immigration-driven demographic shifts that are favoring the Democrats, and making it harder for the GOP and conservatives each cycle. I don’t know if a Romney loss would result in the party ‘moderating’ (i.e. going left) even more, or if it would mean we get a real conservatives in 2016. But either way, the country and electorate will be less white, and that won’t be good for the GOP or conservatives.
Does that hurt?
“Everybody thinks Romney lost the election yesterday.”
Funny how the polls look to have bumped up. So much for what “everyone” thinks.
Look, I think willard stinks. Don’t believe me that I think willard stinks? Feel free to check my posting history. But honesty compels me to note that he did good the past few days. He didn’t say anything that was untrue, and any votes he “lost” weren’t his anyway. So he told the hard truth, the base agreed and he got a bump as a result.
As for kristol, there’s a gop-e bootlicker if there ever was one.
Ruth Bader Ginsburg, age 79 (and fighting pancreatic cancer)
Antonin Scalia, age 76
Anthony Kennedy, age 75
Stephen Breyer, age 74
Clarence Thomas, age 64
Samuel Alito, age 62
Sonia Sotomayor, age 58
John Roberts, age 57
Elena Kagan, age 52
The odds are pretty good that 3 or possibly even 4 of them will retire during the next administration, either to replaced by Obama or Romney.
.
“We can fix the RINO problem, but it is for damn sure that if Obama wins on Nov, 6 it will not be fixed.”
Really? If willard loses, the gop-e that supported him loses as well. At minimum, the leadership of the gop is up for grabs. And the gop-e will be fighting both the conservatives on the outside and the Paulistinians on the inside for control.
Also possible is that the gop finally goes down in flames. Another political party would fill it’s spot. And that party couldn’t be any worse than the gop.
I don’t see a willard loss as being a win for RINOs any way you cut it. Ain’t got a dog in the fight myself, but I don’t see the gop-e winning anything if their candidate loses the most winnable election in my lifetime.
I didn't sign such an agreement and neither did Patton@Bastogne.
It's good to be a free man.
Not naive, I know enough that they don't always endorse each other after the primary. Ron Paul this year is a case in point.
Regardless, Gingrich not only endorsed Romney, but stated that "Mitt Romney is a solid conservative." He also stated that he will be campaigning for Romney.
So the point remains, P@B was still recently advocating Gingrich as having the intelligence and values to be President, yet P@B trashes the man that Gingrich endorsed and campaigns for as being evil incarnate.
That is an absolutely irrational stance.
.
All the GOP-e crowd would need to seek our permission for an honorable seppuku ~ but I’m not sure we can offer an honorable one ~ so they’d probably best start looking for tall bridges without those guard fences on top.
Bill Kristol has always had lots in common with lefties, except that he’s a war monger.
We see the problems State Department has defending its ambassadors and others in the Middle East. We have well over 100,000 Iranians, Afghanis, as well as other Moslem and Arab speaking people in the DC area. I have no idea how many of them are "safe' but they are all relatively easy to compromise.
Could be that we might be doing business without any of the top officers of state sometime in the next 4 years.
So, the question could well be ~ who, in Nebraska, is going to take over and when will we run the next election.
Yes let's be real. Kristol best not look over his shoulder because he will discover no one behind him but the usual beltway buttkissers.
>Excellent points, especially about the Supreme Court.
Ruth Bader Ginsburg, age 79 (and fighting pancreatic cancer)
Antonin Scalia, age 76
Anthony Kennedy, age 75
Stephen Breyer, age 74
Clarence Thomas, age 64
Samuel Alito, age 62
Sonia Sotomayor, age 58
John Roberts, age 57
Elena Kagan, age 52
The odds are pretty good that 3 or possibly even 4 of them will retire during the next administration, either to replaced by Obama or Romney.<
Obama or Romney appointing judges? No difference.
Read this:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-bloggers/2693159/posts
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.