It's Up to Us to Win This Election and Mitt Romney is the Man We've Entrusted with the Task...

RUSH: Now, yesterday, ladies and gentlemen, I spent practically the whole program discussing the state of the country, where we are, where we're going, what kind of country are we. And admittedly, a lot of people yesterday felt -- well, not a lot, but I had enough e-mails from people that made me realize I'd better come in here and set some things straight. Even Cookie said, "Are you giving up? Is it all over?" And this is the problem that you encounter. When you attempt to properly, honestly identify a problem -- I mean a problem, by definition, is negative, and when you properly identify a negative, a lot of people paper them over.

No, I'm not giving up at all, folks. Quite the contrary. The whole point of yesterday's program is identifying the problem. Here's what we're up against. This is what we have to do. The whole point yesterday, for example, Boehner had this quote. We had a caller irritated at Boehner who was asked about Romney. (paraphrasing) "Nobody is gonna fall in love with Romney." And I said, "Nobody's gonna fall in love with Boehner, either." The bottom line is we don't have anybody on our side that anybody's gonna fall in love with, and frankly that's fine with me. We don't want people falling in love with candidates. That's what people did with Obama in 2008. We don't want that.

We find ourselves in a unique situation here. We don't have the ideal nominee. There wasn't the ideal nominee this time around. But we do know something that trumps everything else and that is this administration must be dispatched on Election Day. We have to get rid of it. Regardless what Romney is, if Romney is less than a Reagan -- of course, everyone is -- if Romney is just somebody to occupy the Oval Office for four years while we put a stop to what's going on and try to reverse the direction of the country, it's all gonna boil down to us. (interruption) What are you saying? What's your reaction? No, it's not McCain, but my point is we conservatives do not have a Ronald Reagan running here. I don't want that to make people feel negative about what our prospects are.

What I'm getting to here is that it's up to us to do something about this. We are not big government people. We don't want to rely on other people to do things for us. We have to place our trust in elected officials, but to take ourselves out of the equation and to say that we play no role in this is a mistake. What I'm going to try do today is focus a little bit on the problems the Democrats have, 'cause they've got a myriad of problems. They are weighed down. Obama, as Krauthammer said yesterday, and I happen to agree with Krauthammer on this, Obama, by doing what he did yesterday with the Bush tax cuts is basically waving the white flag. He's basically surrendering on the whole notion that his economic answers work. That's really what he did yesterday. By extending the Bush tax cuts for 98% of the American people, he is tantamount admitting that his policies are failures. This must be said. This must be pointed out.

Now, if Republican elected officials aren't gonna point it out, we do, we will. But I happen to think that's a correct estimation, because, as I mentioned yesterday when I opened the program, Obama has been blaming the Bush tax cuts for all the problems he inherited. He has admitted that in three-and-a-half years he is unable to do anything about what Bush did, not able to fix it. He's admitting his incompetence. He's admitting yesterday that his policies are failures, and he's moving to the right, which I said yesterday and on numerous previous occasions, the Democrats always do this when it nears elections, when we near elections, when it comes to time to win them, what do they do? They move to the right, try to make themselves sound and look conservative, not in name, obviously, but lifestyle policy-wise. You won't hear any more talk of gay marriage, for example, that kind of stuff. That stuff's all out of the way.

You're gonna see Obama tacking to the right throughout this campaign while offering lip service as much as he can to his fringe kook base. Ninety-eight percent of the American people are going to now benefit -- here's another thing about this. Everybody keeps calling these the Bush tax cuts. They aren't tax cuts. They are the current tax rate. The Bush tax cuts occurred ten, 11 years ago now. That is the current tax rate. The Democrats want to continue to call them tax cuts as though they're always temporary and that we gotta get back to some norm. They're talking about the Clinton tax rates that we should get back to, which I've agreed to if we'll go back to Clinton spending levels. Clinton's budget in 1992 or 1993, $1.8 trillion. That's an Obama deficit now. And the Democrats talk about the Clinton years as magical and wonderful and filled with prosperity. Well, let's go back to 'em. Including the spending levels, which, of course, they won't do.

My point here, and I don't want to be misunderstood, is I'm simply trying to rally everybody. We are going to have to pitch in and do this rather than count on elected officials. We don't have an ideal nominee. We weren't gonna get one in this cycle. (interruption) What do you mean, I won't play the game? What game? What game am I supposed to be playing? Well, but that's not happening. Snerdley, you are falling prey to the game. You're succumbing to the conventional wisdom of what happens after a nomination is completed and so forth. Boehner said, (paraphrasing) "No, you're probably not gonna love Mitt Romney," and he went on and added his Mormon stuff. And my only point is we don't have to love these people. The objective here is to stop Obama. That's it, in its entirety. Romney is the vessel for that. He's going to benefit from that.

One of the central themes of yesterday's program was that a traditional campaign on the economy isn't gonna work because a bad economy has become accepted by way too many people. It's no longer something that creates a crisis mentality in a lot of people. Pat Caddell has a huge -- I mean this thing prints out to over 20 pages, if you include the comments, and I've got an audio sound bite somewhere here in the stack of him talking about it. His point is the Republicans don't know the great opportunity they've got here. They're blowing it by continuing to focus on the economy, and it's not about the debate of whether Obamacare, the mandate, is a tax or a penalty. It's a tax, and it's the biggest tax increase in the world. It's the biggest tax increase in world history. And that ought to be the focus on how to talk about Obamacare and the economy and Obama and his regime, his administration.

This tax, while he's trying to get credit for a tax cut, which they're now saying Obama is cutting people's taxes. He's not cutting anybody's taxes. He's leaving the current tax rates alone, not cut -- for 98% of the people. And again he's a sitting duck on this stuff because he's blaming these tax cuts for the last four years for the economic malaise this country is in. He's blaming those tax cuts. Now here he is extending them for the second time in his three-and-a-half year term. He's a sitting duck on this. He's a sitting duck on taxes because of what he did yesterday. He's a sitting duck on taxes because of Obamacare.

One thing that is universal, one thing that is timeless, and that is nobody wants to pay higher taxes, and when they find out how much a tax increase Obamacare is, it is the best way to go about, A, defeating Obama, B, repealing Obamacare. And we can get into the nuts and bolts of the actual things that are gonna happen with the implementation of Obamacare, but we've done that. But the thing that's new here is that thanks to the Supreme Court, it's just been called a tax. It's not even Obamacare anymore. It's ObamaTax. And it needs to be approached that way and it needs to be hit on that way and Caddell is exactly right in this. I'll share some of his thinking on it as the program unfolds before your very eyes and ears.

But the bottom has fallen out for Obama. I don't want anybody to think that the tone -- actually yesterday, folks, I must tell you, I felt great after the program yesterday because when you strip it all away, it was uplifting. It's what we all can be. It's what we all don't want to lose. We all know what the reason for this nation's greatness is. We all know why we're unique. We all know what American exceptionalism is. And we all have a president who doesn't believe in any of it; and, in my mind, it makes him a sitting duck. We've got serious problems taking place in the country, and I'm probably gonna detail some more of them today as show prep indicates here. I've got some more examples of it. So I just... I don't want to be misunderstood. Yeah, I was not trying to be negative, fatalistic, or anything of the sort. Just quite the opposite.

RUSH: Here's Pat Caddell, by the way. He was on Cavuto on Fox. Question: "The new poll puts the president ahead of Romney in 12 battleground states by two points. It's close, but he's surviving."

CADDELL: The fact that he is still even marginally ahead given the kind of month he had, says something about how well his campaign is doing, frankly, and how difficult his opposition is of (sic) keeping control of the initiative. The health care bill? He is the master distraction. He's been standing on quicksand since the court decision. Because the court decision made the mandate, which 67% of Americans oppose, into a tax. And he told them, "Oh, no, no!" It was not gonna be a tax. The Republicans cannot get their message. Instead, they're talking about trying to repeal the whole bill, which is a ho-hum thing, rather than even today saying, "Wait, Mr. President. You want to talk about taxes? We want to repeal ObamaTax, the health care bill."

RUSH: Now, if you read the entire Caddell piece, basically he says that the Republicans are blowing a big opportunity to talk about an issue called "trust." We can't trust Obama. Nobody trusts Obama. Hit it! Another thing he's pointing out is that this notion of "repeal, repeal," is falling on dead ears. It doesn't mean anything. It's been used for way too many months now. "Repeal this! Repeal and replace." Go for what's current! The Supreme Court just called it a tax. That makes it the biggest tax in the world. Go after this and put it all on Obama. It's made to order!

RUSH: Ladies and gentlemen, my staff on the other side of the glass here (I should tell you this), are still in a state of shock. In fact, if I weren't such a highly trained professional, I'd be distracted by what's going on in there. They are talking to each other. They are ignoring the program. They're not paying any attention to it attention to it whatsoever. They're talking to themselves, and I know they're talking about me, and they're talking about what I said about Romney. And they can't believe it.

They think that I've lost it, gone over the cliff, committed some sort of great political crime here because I dared say that there isn't a lot of love for Romney. I don't it. See, as the mayor of Realville, do I have to even explain this? All right, I'll give it a shot here. It's not a negative. There aren't very many political candidates that have that kind of passionate support. The last candidate who was loved in this country, for example, was Obama in 2008. And my point is: We don't want that.

We don't want blind, slavish attachment to people because we can make of them whatever we want them to be. My point in saying that Romney is not "loved" is only to illustrate what this election is about. Why were you not as irritated at me for saying what I said yesterday and the week before when I said, "Romney better understand the election is not about him"? It's the same thing. Saying people aren't in love with Romney is the same thing as saying the election is not about him.

In fact, I would think if anybody is gonna be offended is something it would be when I say, "Romney better learn the election isn't about him." All I mean is... Can I just be honest? Among our side, the conservatives, the independents -- everybody who wants there to be significant change in this country -- very few are running around saying, "We want Mitt! We want Mitt! We want Mitt." They're running around saying, "Get rid of Obama and the Democrats! Get rid of Obama and the Democrats!"

That is the animating thing of this election. That is the motivating thing of this election. Clinton was loved, and look how easy it was for him to mislead everybody. I don't like this notion that we fall in love with candidates. My point is we need to be adults about this. We loved Reagan and we still do. But Reagan was not a manipulative, insincere, conniving president. The love that people had for Reagan was a genuine love, not a celebrity idolatry. People loved Reagan deeply as a man, as a human being.

They loved his character, every aspect, policy, you name it. And we knew he loved the country. There was a profound respect. He wasn't the Celebrity of the United States. And those candidates are rare, is my only point. This election is about getting rid of the forces who are attempting to transform this country. No matter what... Let me try it this way: No matter what Romney is and no matter what he does as president, it ain't gonna be anything like this. Now, it might not be ideal, conservative-wise, but it's not gonna be anything like this.

Everybody on our side is oriented toward stopping this. The question is: How? I take you back to Michael Goodwin's piece yesterday. He said Romney's biggest problem is something he had no control over. He was born in a different era. He still thinks of American politics as it was practiced 30 and 40 years ago, and it's changed now. The economy, simply running on the economy is not enough. Too many people are accepting of the economy as it is. There isn't widespread outrage over it, because there's not a lot of pain attached to it.

Not as there has been to unemployment and similar economic distress in years past. What we love is the country. What we want to save is the country. And we are entrusting that task to Mitt Romney because he is the Republican presidential nominee. We are entrusting the task of stopping the direction this country is headed to Mitt Romney. This is a business decision. It is a full-fledged American, political, business decision that will be made in November, just as it was in the midterm elections in November of 2010.

Now, when you peel away all the phony poll sampling. When you consider the unpopularity of Obamacare. When you measure the mood of small business owners. When you look at the way Democrats are jumping off the Obama bandwagon (and more and more of them every day are jumping off the bandwagon and more and more are saying they're not going to the Democrat convention). When you consider the breadth and the depth of the results of the 2010 midterm elections.

When you consider the significance of Scott Walker's victory in Wisconsin. When you see the positive employment impact of Republican governors. For every Republican governor elected in 2010, the last 17 of them, unemployment is going down in those states. Unemployment is dropping in states that elected Republican governors. It is clear when you add all of that up. Those are individual items, but when you lump them together, when you add them all up, it is clear that a majority of likely voters are ready to replace Obama. I have no doubt that a majority of people are ready for this.

But Romney has to capture this momentum, and he has to bring home a victory. And the momentum is not attached to his winning the Republican primaries. It is not attached to him winning the nomination. There was going to be a Republican nominee. The momentum, the thing that needs to be gotten hold of here and ridden is the trouble the Democrats are in; the trouble Obama's in; the problems that they have that are the result of the disastrous policies they've implemented. That is the source of the momentum. It's all Obama. The election must be about Obama. It's got to be about the disaster that is Barack Obama and his administration. The economy is just one disaster. Obamacare is another disaster. They are inexorably linked.

There cannot be an economic recovery in the private sector with full implementation of Obamacare. Not possible. Because Obamacare has now been stripped bare, and everybody now knows, who is paying attention, what Obamacare is. It is a massive expansion of government, funded by the biggest tax increase the history of the world. That's what it is. And nobody wants it. A vast majority, 67% have been opposed to the individual mandate; over 53% have been opposed to the entire bill. There has never been public sentiment for this. There is no reason to act timid in opposing any of this. We're in a single elimination tournament, so to speak, one-and-done. A Republican loss in the House or the Senate or the presidency is game, set, and match.

We have to win all three, and then after that, we have to do the right things with the new power that we will have been entrusted with, or I should say they have to because we aren't gonna be there. If we lose the House, it's over. If we lose the Senate, it's over. If we lose the presidency it's over for the economy and for individual freedom. But the reality is, the truth is that the country is poised for a sweep of the series. A Scott Walker, Tea Party-style campaign is what likely voters want. There's an ABC/Washington Post poll out today. The sample has a 9% edge in Democrats, a plus nine. And it is of registered voters, not likely. Registered voters, which is meaningless. They sample 9% more Democrats than Republicans or independents. And in this poll Romney is tied with Obama in registered voters. That means Romney is way ahead in likely voters, which is why the Washington Post is not publishing a poll of likely voters.

RUSH: One slight correction. I erred when I said that the Washington Post sampled more Democrats than Republicans and independents. They sampled 33% Democrat, 36% independent, 24% Republican. So they sampled 9% more Democrats than Republicans. That is bogus, number one. You and I know that in terms of the ideological delineations that are made in the country, according to polling data, twice as many people identify as conservative as liberal. It is standard operating procedure. It's a blind assumption that there are that many more Democrats than there are Republicans, particularly now. So the sample is flawed, but even worse, it's registered voters, not likely voters.

The entire poll is difficult to believe. It claims that Obama and Romney are tied at 47%. Same as they were in May. This is July. Two months have gone by since the last poll, and it's still 47-47? We're supposed to believe that voters haven't changed their minds at the job numbers, the Supreme Court ruling on Obamacare, the unprecedented backdoor amnesty? We are to believe that with those major changes in policy, that nobody's changed their mind in the presidential race in the Washington Post poll? Sorry. I suspect things are much worse than the Washington Post is letting on.

The Rasmussen poll today has Romney plus three over Obama with likely voters and Obama with a minus 18 strongly disapprove number. And that poll, the Rasmussen poll, is likely voters versus registered. It's far more accurate just on that basis alone. Rasmussen Reports that 53% of likely voters want Obamacare repealed; 43% strongly support repeal; 31% strongly oppose repeal. There is not broad-based support for ObamaTax, which is what it is now, anywhere.

Agreed. We conservatives have to figure out a way (don't ask me how) to keep from splitting our vote in the primaries. That's killing us, and letting the RINO's take it all.

It would be a lot easier if an electable conservative were running.

Let's face it: Newt Gingrich and Rick Santorum, et al, weren't the strongest of candidates...and were far from the best we've got.

You don't give a damn about your principles, and refuse to accept any reasoned appeal to hold fast to them. Whatever.

You still don't get it.

I am sticking to my principles - my belief in the democratic principles this nation was founded on.

You're talking about overthrowing the will of the primary voters like some South American junta. Principled, my ass.

Mitt Romney is the Republican nominee. You don't have to vote for him, I don't have to vote for him either. But I'm not going to live in some fantasy land where I'm going to strip of the nomination, simply because I don't like the fact the more people voted for him than my guy.

You're talking about overthrowing the will of the primary voters like some South American junta. Principled, my ass.

Oh stop with the dramatics. I'm not suggesting any such thing. In days gone by, the nominee was always chosen at the convention. It's only in recent decades that candidates have been nominally 'chosen' during the primary voting period.

I suggest that it's still possible to ignite enough Americans to reject the outcome of the primary, which appears to have been criminally manipulated, in my view. Romney never had more than 30% support among the voters. Given a real chance, they would have surely gotten behind a real conservative in the race, and sent his RINO ass back to Martha's Vineyard, or whatever exclusive enclave he hangs out in.

As it was, the conservative vote was split between an honest conservative who truly intended to win the job, and a candidate who only appeared to want the job, but mysteriously dropped out, right after he'd sucked away enough votes from the real conservative to kill his hopes of winning.

Now, maybe we won't see a tide of conservative voters rise to the occasion and demand we give another hopeful a shot at being nominated. There's every chance that it won't happen, but that won't stop real conservatives out here from suggesting that it should.

There's every appearance at this stage of the game that Romney will be the nominee, unless he suddenly keels over from a heart attack. Barring that, he's going to be on the ballot in November.

That's not really where my attention is, though. I'm ready to concede that the conservative right has lost the presidency this go-round, and am fixing my attention of the down ticket and the future response to whichever nanny state Socialist wins the general.

I don’t get it, I really don’t. Does reality really escape you that much? You are playing russian roulette and you have two guns to choose from. One with 5 out of 6 bullets loaded, and one with 2 or 3 out of 6 loaded. And your allowing hte one with 5 to be chosen?

Those are the choices we have. We didn’t want it, but we lost in the primaries. You actually think your achieving anything by standing on the sidelines? Because that is exactly what you are doing. It’s being a coward. Deal with removing this dictator of a president and then let’s deal with the Republican party. If we do not deal with this President, we are in huge trouble and maybe won’t even have the chance to deal with the party.

We don’t know what Romney will bring. Sure, he could bring some very bad stuff. We don’t know for SURE. We can make logical guesses from his past, but that is all it is... guesses. We KNOW what Obama will bring. He’s shown it, time and time again.

In any aspect of life, if you have someone that is actively absolutely destroying a country, company, team, etc you get rid of that person. As quickly as possible. You replace them with the next best thing. You don’t allow him to continue his rampage. If you do, you won’t have a chance.

And you, are not giving this country a chance. Thanks.

We can be certain we won't be thrilled with Mitt, we can be certain he will do things that anger and make us upset; he's shown us he'a a RINO squish, and there's not a lot we can do about it.

Our choice is whether to endure disappointment, or reelect the worst, most divisive, most destructive, most pro-Marxist, pro-death, pro-muzzie, incompetent, anti-American, anti-free enterprise, anti-everything we love and care for administration ever. I think that's Russian roulette with 6 bullets in the chamber versus disappointment..........

I'm with Palin, Cain, Newt, Santorum, Perry, and Bachmann - it's a no brainer.

Finny, add me to that list, if I am not already on it.. I refuse to vote for either of the scumbags.
I don't bother with posting on these threads anymore because they go no where.. everyone's own mind is made up no-matter what evidence is presented... and I don't want to throw any more fuel into the fire (FRiendships for almost a decade.. lost because of a socialist liberal (R) that was able to defeat the system, thanks to the eneMedia (and Soros)).. :/

I'm really not interested in why you will not vote for Romney, or whether he is "100% the same as Obama, etc", and I already told you that. However, I think that someone like yourself who actually seems to believe that the nominating process has any relationship to the Warren Harding nomination and Daugherty's famous "smoke-filled room" prediction has no credibility at all. To actually use that as an example shows that you are seriously out of touch with the way the nominating process works in the 21st century.

Again, I have no problem with the ABR posters; I just think you come off as foolish when you (and others who say the same thing) suggest that "there's still time to nominate someone else". That is simply so divorced from reality it invalidates everything you write. If you said "I wish we still nominated the way they did back in the early 20th century", you'd make some sense; but you seem to believe it still can happen that way. It's like listening to the opinions of someone who says they were abducted by aliens. You just can't take such a person seriously.

When the only counter argument you have is insulting the person you’re arguing with it’s an admission that the facts aren’t on your side. So now YOU don’t bother to reply until you have at least one fact AND the ability to put together an insult free posts.

Meanwhile Romney IS a socialist, I don’t hate him, but I absolutely positively will never vote for him, for the simple reason that I’ve outlined. He’s a tax and spend liberal that pushed socialized medicine. Those are hate free insult free true actual facts presented to you by a well educated person.

See any significant difference in the trend? Me neither. Some of it is natural growth relative to GDP, but much of it isn't, and it barely pauses under Republicans. You have representatives like Steve King from IA who supposedly is a big fiscal hawk recently pushing subsidies for wind energy because he has factories in his district. That's what I mean by losers.

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.