Replies

Click!

http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/home/daily/site_090711/content/01125111.guest.html
With Freedom Under Assault, We're Told We Must Moderate?
Moderation is not a substantive belief. This is my problem with moderates. There isn't a core there! Moderation is a tactic. It's not a set of principles. It is a tactic that says, "Regardless of the situation, regardless of events, my first impulse is to find a different way around." I know moderation, per se, is illogical because there are clearly times when it is self-destructive or counterproductive. For instance, moderation after we were attacked at Pearl Harbor would have been irrational. Moderation against slavery would have been immoral. How do you debate the issue of moderation if it has no core? You wind up debating tactics, but tactics without principle are pointless -- and this has always been my problem with moderates. ...

Particularly in the face of the most radical and destructive administration in modern American history, where the president has said he wants to fundamentally transform the nation, what does moderation look like? Where am I supposed to moderate? What am I supposed to moderate? Are all these Republican candidates tonight at the debate be asking themselves, "Who's willing to go further in compromising with the Democrats?" To show what? To accomplish what? Isn't the purpose of this debate tonight for one of these people to stand head and shoulders above everybody else in demonstrating he or she is the one who can beat Obama?
Republican moderates are guaranteed losers in eight out of ten elections you're gonna have. Now, I think that people who write pieces about "moderation" need to do a little bit more than just sit back and be critical. We need to know what it is these moderates think is worth fighting for. Is it just winning elections with whoever can win so that the result may not even be productive? These moderates need to tell us what are the principles that they believe that an individual or a nation should stand firm on, because, so far, moderates don't do that. That's why they are moderates! They don't want to be tied down. They want to be able to preach moderation because it gets them praise.

Rush Goes On the Record with Fox News Channel's Greta Van Susteren

VAN SUSTEREN: Why has Governor Mitt Romney not had a so-called "surge"? We hear "surge" used with basically every Republican nominee, but you don't see that "surge" with Governor Romney.

RUSH: Well, every poll I've seen of Republican primary voters, he can't crack 30 percent. It has been curious. And you look at it from the reverse, 70 percent of Republican voters want somebody else. This is why we have the phenomenon of the "Not-Romney." Bachmann was the "Not-Romney" for a while. Herman Cain was the "Not-Romney." Now Newt is the "Not-Romney." I think it boils down to something that's not complicated at all. Republican primary voters are conservative. They don't believe that Romney is. They believe that he will stick a finger in the air and moisten it and see which way the winds are blowing and try to get in that direction. They remember that Romney said he believes in global warming and he believes that man is causing it. Well, conservatives don't believe that. They believe it's a hoax. Conservatives know that the whole story of man-made global warming is a hoax. And they're not going to get excited by a candidate who is trying to gain favor with non-Republican primary voters by articulating that stuff.

Here's the big problem, Greta, for the Republicans. And I am a lone wolf on this. The rule of thumb in elections, both parties, 40 percent are going to vote Democrat automatically, whatever you do, 40 percent are going to vote Republican, automatic, no matter what you do. And in the middle, who do we have? The precious, God love them, independents and the moderates. And they are the targets. They are the focus of every election. And our brilliant campaign consultants tell our candidates they are the ones that know how to go get a majority of those independents. And we have, as Republicans, put ourselves in prison to this whole silly notion that you only win elections by moving to the center and getting great independents. Fine and dandy, but if you squander your base in the process, you haven't a prayer.

The Republican Party is trying to do something in this primary that is unprecedented. They're trying to split the conservative vote and win the primary with a moderate, with Romney. It's the other way around. You consolidate your base and then you move to the center in the general. The Republican establishment has decided they don't want any part of conservatism. And this is really not new. People are surprised to hear this, but the Republican Party formative event with conservatism is Goldwater's landslide defeat. That's what they think of when they think conservative. They don't think Reagan. They think Goldwater.

They believe what the inside-the-Beltway philosophy is about conservatives. They're racist, sexist, bigot, homophobe, Southern hayseed hicks. They're pro-lifers. They're embarrassing to have to go to the convention with them. And they're just embarrassed to have those kind of people in the party. They're dumb. They're not erudite. They're not educated in Ivy League schools. We'll take their votes on election day, but we really don't want to hang around with them. We don't want anybody in Washington thinking that we're really that close to them and aligned with them. So in the process -- you know, it's a very sophisticated electorate. The Republican primary voter can sense that the Republican Party really doesn't like them, really doesn't want them, thinks that they are the route to defeat. That's the problem in a nutshell. The Republican establishment thinks that a conservative nominee is the route to defeat because they think Goldwater landslides are going to happen because they believe what the popular misconception the left has created of conservatives.