RUSH: Let's dial things back. Monday night, Pasadena City College, Democrat rally for the governor candidate out there in California, Phil Angelides, Senator Kerry strode to the microphone.
KERRY: We're here to talk about education, but I want to say something before -- you know, education, if you make the most of it, and you study hard and you do your homework, and you make an effort to be smart, you -- you can do well. If you don't, you get stuck in Iraq.
RUSH: Now, the story is, if you don't you get "us" stuck in Iraq. That was the spin. That's what he meant to say: "You get us stuck in Iraq." Well, it still doesn't make any sense, because Bush went to school. He studied hard. He got better grades than Kerry! [four D's his Freshman year alone] Kerry has no sense of humor. You know, John Kerry is a pretentious fool, ladies and gentlemen. Because he looks and appears aristocratic, he is granted status into the club of elites. But he's dense. It's one of these amazing things that happens. Liberals have their favorite people. I don't think he's one of them, by the way, but he's not examined under the microscope that others are examined under.Here he is talking to a bunch of college kids about how to get ahead in the world, and he wouldn't dare tell them what his prescription is: go out and find as many wealthy women as you can, date 'em and hope one of them becomes a widow and you can marry her. I mean, that's his script for becoming successful in life. If it weren't for that, what would he be? He's never made a payroll. Well, I take it back; he had a cookie shop once for a while in Boston. It didn't work out well. I want to then, as we're going back in time, I want to play for you the first thing I said on Tuesday after opening the show after hearing what Kerry had said.
RUSH ARCHIVE: The Democrats, the liberals are trying to muzzle themselves and shut up. They want their candidates to sound like what Harold Ford is saying, that he's pro-life, and that he's a big Christian. They want candidates to hear the criticism that James Webb is using in his campaign. They don't want the Democrats speaking in public betraying who they really are, and along comes Lurch. Along comes ol' long-faced John Kerry and steps in it again. It is typical of who they are. I'm not surprised. This is not the first time Kerry said something like this. Look at that other things they said about the troops that, they are terrorists that, they terrorize Iraqi women and children in their homes at night disrupting their religious services. This is who the Democrats are, folks, this is what they actually think.RUSH: This is what they actually think, and so we got his apology yesterday, "As a combat veteran, I want to make it clear to anyone in uniform and to their loved ones, my poorly stated joke at a rally was not about and never intended to refer to any troop. I sincerely regret that my words were misinterpreted to wrongly imply anything negative about those in uniform, and I personally apologize to any service member, family member, or American who was offended." Okay, let's parse this -- and, by the way, this is on his website. He hasn't uttered this personally, not behind the microphone, not in front of a camera.
Like I say, it's like breaking up with a girlfriend on a voice message. You know, you call up the voicemail. You know the phone is not going to be answered. You say, "Hey, babe. We're through. I can't handle it anymore. I'm outta here. See ya!" Real gutsy. I sincerely regret that my words were misinterpreted. He's still telling people that they're stupid. He's still telling you you're too stupid to get what he said. He is so smart he is unable to get down to your level so that you understood what he was trying to say. His remarks were not misinterpreted. He's still blaming people like Bush and me and others for twisting what he said.
What he said is what he said. You know what else about this that is funny as hell, folks? What was his whole point? According to his spinners, according to the cable networks, according to the Democrats who did everything they could to sweep this away. He was insulting Bush. He was trying to tell people that Bush is stupid. He was trying to suggest that you'll end up like Bush if you don't study, if you don't get good grades, and you'll be president one day and you can send dumb people to Iraq. Well, isn't this funny.
Here is a guy who's being totally stupid and dumb and can't speak in a way he claims he intended to, insulting George W. Bush as being stupid. So here you have a veritable stupid idiot, John Kerry, acting like the smartest guy in the world, trying to insult George W. Bush, and he's so dumb and stupid, trying to insult another dumb and stupid guy, in his mind, that didn't have the brains to sound smarter than the guy he's insulting. Meanwhile, if you look at the record I don't think you'll find foot in mouth disease on the part of George W. Bush like exists with Kerry and a whole lot of them. We're not through with this.
BREAK TRANSCRIPT
RUSH: All right, John Kerry. We know who he is. We know who the Democrats are when it comes to the military. As I said to the president yesterday, he's just the latest. The Associated Press was not through with this yesterday. The Associated Press went back and found some earlier quotes from John Kerry in 1972. "During a Vietnam-era run for Congress three decades ago, John Kerry said he opposed a volunteer Army because it would be dominated by the underprivileged, be less accountable and be more prone to "the perpetuation of war crimes." Well, that's what he thinks this army is doing now.I'm telling you, he hasn't changed who he is since he was 18 to 20, 24 or 25 years old, and neither have the Democrats. The New York Times today, folks. It's interesting on their front page. I guess they're not getting too many leaks lately so they had a sandbag poll question, front-page poll. "If it is in control of Congress, which party do you think is more likely to bring US troops back from Iraq more quickly?" The Democrats polled 76% here. Now, the Democrats are out there saying they don't want to cut-and-run. "No, no, no, no! We're not going to cut-and-run! How can you say that about us?"
Well, people listening to them apparently get the point: 76% of the people in the New York Times poll say Democrats will bring the troops back from Iraq more quickly, not specified under what circumstances, defeat or victory. It seems the voters know that the left wants to cut-and-run. I know that this is a Democrat audience and it's a New York Times audience responding to this. I think it is. But their message is getting out. They are cut-and-run. Here's what Kerry said. "In 1972, as he ran for the House, he was less apologetic in his comments about the merits of a volunteer army. He declared in the questionnaire that he opposed the draft but considered a volunteer army 'a greater anathema.'
'I am convinced a volunteer army would be an army of the poor and the black and the brown,' Kerry wrote. 'We must not repeat the travesty of the inequities present during Vietnam. I also fear having a professional army that views the perpetuation of war crimes as simply "doing its job." Equally as important, a volunteer army with our present constitutional crisis takes accountability away from the president and put the people further from control over military activities,' he wrote." Kerry's hack spokesman, David Wade, who is the guy that comes up with "the doughy Rush Limbaugh." Kerry approves it all, but David Wade's a guy that writes all this stuff, "the stuffed suit Tony Snow" and so forth.
"David Wade, said Wednesday the historical document needed to be viewed in the era in which it was written but that it nonetheless raised a 'bedrock question in a time of war when sacrifice should be shared by all Americans.'" All this does is confirm everything we know that Kerry said Sunday night, everything he's been saying, everything the Democrats say. We have a volunteer army, and Kerry told us what he thinks of that army, not just on Sunday night or Monday night; he told us many, many times. He's told us, Richard Durbin has told us, the Democrats have constantly minded us -- and they've done so with pride, by the way. They've stood up. They've been proud to say what they think of the US military.
Durbin thought he was scoring huge points on the Senate floor when he compared interrogators at Club Gitmo to the regime of Pol Pot or the Nazis or the gulags in the Soviet Union. There was a great post on The Corner at National Review Online yesterday by Mario Loyola. He said, "Folks, I do NOT agree with letting Senator Aristo-Slacker off the hook for his plainly delivered insult to the troops. It is a basic talking point of the Pelosi / Kerry / Dean wing of the Democratic party that the troops are in Iraq not there because they are deeply committed to the mission (they need to deny that) but rather because of a system that takes advantage of their lack of social and economic opportunities.
"It naturally follows that Kerry would exhort young students to use school as a device of upward social mobility, and thereby escape the fate of those poor fools who wound up in Iraq because of mediocre talent or effort while in school. This is very basic to Kerry's worldview, and for him to deny that he thinks it is weaseling mendacity, not apology. John Kerry is a pompous fool who can't see what's right in front of his face, and that's why he steps on clearly marked landmines left and right. Viewed from the headquarters of the Bush campaign in '04, the Kerry campaign was an unbelievable spectacle of how to create problems for yourself that everybody else in Washington is competent enough to avoid. "People need to understand: This man does not work. He is super-slacker. His brain is soft. He doesn't have anything to say, and gets by in life only because he says it like an aristocrat. The really important thing about this entire gaff is that Kerry drew attention to a structural flaw in the DNC's communications strategy (which Kerry does all the time, which is why he is such a liability to them) namely that the Democrats do not support what our troops are fighting for..." and, my friends, they don't. Mr. Loyola here is exactly right. The Democrats do not support what our troops are fighting for.
They are embarrassed by the troops' dedication and sacrifice, and thus they do not support the troops, and I am of the opinion that we should clobber them with that ruthlessly until the day of the election, just like we did in '04, because it is the most basic reason they deserve to lose -- and they cannot wait to talk about Iraq, from their standpoint. But it is. Mr. Loyola is exactly right: "t is the most basic reason they deserve to lose..." It is the most basic reason they deserve to lose. They have disdain for the troops, for the mission. They have actively engaged in sabotaging it, from trying to kill the Patriot Act, to mischaracterizing the foreign surveillance program as domestic spying, trying to grant lawyers and judges the right to prosecute the war on terror and take it away from the commander-in-chief.
They have done all of this and more. Their words have been designed to destroy morale. Ted Kennedy talking about how Abu Ghraib is the same now as it was under Saddam, it's just under new management. They have done their levelheaded best on purpose to denigrate and impugn the character of the US military and the mission of the US military, all the while claiming they support the troops. Yet all the while they have done everything they can to demoralize the troops and to sabotage their mission, and it is the most basic reason at this point in time in this nation's history that the Democrats deserve to lose this election.
They have not in any way, shape, manner or form earned the right to govern. They may with these elections on Tuesday, who knows, because I think if they do win, it's going to be more of the result of historical trends, the sixth year of a two-term presidency, the natural fatigue that voters have -- and we will know, by the way, by how big their margins are if they do win. Remember, the average here is 33, 37 House seats. If they barely squeak by... Folks, here's the bottom line. Democratic Party is a party in ruin, the Democratic Party is a party crumbling, the Democratic Party is a party that has no idea what it stands for. Well, not true. They haven't the ability to be honest about what they stand for. They have to hide their leaders two weeks before an election.
Where is Nancy Pelosi? Where is Harry Reid? The only guy out there continuing to make an utter fool of himself is Howard Dean. Where are these people? They don't dare show up. In order to win these elections, they're having to go out and act conservative. I've got a story in the stack here about how church going people are warming up the Democrats as they hear Democrats talking about how they love Jesus. I don't know if the stories are true. If they're true, it frankly surprises me. How many years has it been the Democrats have made it known they hate church people? They despise and make fun of evangelicals and Christians and Catholics and anybody else who is deeply religious and they can be bought off with some words.
I think there's a lot of hope invested here in these news reports about this, because they're clearly making it plain in these reports that I have in the Stack of Stuff today that the Democrats are making great inroads are religion, talking about how they "love Jesus," and they're "deeply religious people" and so forth. That is not who the Democrats are, ladies and gentlemen. A party on the ascendancy would be robust and proud to tell you who they are. They would be proud to announce their real agenda. Instead they hide their leaders. You need an Amber Alert program to go out and find Nancy Pelosi. They nominate a bunch of Democrats who are actually conservative to run in southern districts; and this is one of the reasons the House leader, Nancy Pelosi and Dingy Harry, have to hide. It's one reason why they can't announce an agenda because it would undercut the real effort here, which is to win the House with conservative Democrats.
