Election Commentary/Predictions

When the combined polls for Iowa had Romney and Huckabee at a dead heat and Clinton, Obama and Edwards in a dead heat, I said Obama would win by over 5 points and Huckabee by less than 5 points. I was close. I over-estimated the political geekiness of the Iowans, and thought that they might back off on Huckabee after all of his missteps of this past week and a half. I was wrong; they apparently did not notice.

I also predicted double-digits for Ron Paul, although he was polling at about 5% and he barely got into double digits (and it was hard to find this figure).

The Republican party is known incorrectly as the party of money, big corporations and money. Huckabee, who was outspent 15 to 1 by Romney, took Iowa with a healthy margin. Romney had millions of dollars; Huckabee had a little more than the change in his pocket.

Speaking of money, the Democrat candidates have pulled in millions of dollars more than the Republicans. They have more en toto and they have more per candidate. If the Democratic party is the party of the little man, where did the little man get so much money in such a bad economy?

Predictions

Hillary may win some primaries, but she will be defeated by Obama for the Democratic run for the presidency. Obama has brought in a significant electorate into the election process who were not there before. This is why he won the Iowa caucus. He will continue to bring people into the system who were not there state by state.

Obama will win in New Hampshire and he will go on to completely dominate the election is South Carolina. He will get more votes there than Edwards and Clinton combined.

Rush said about a week ago that Edwards had thrown in with Obama. This was clear in the debate yesterday. Edwards will join Obama on the Democratic ticket as Obama’s VP. There is the possibility that Obama will offer the VP position to Clinton (she would take it, by the way).

I’ve already told you that Lieberman will be VP on McCain’s ticket, and this will come about before the primaries are over.

I watched Obama’s victory speech, and, even though I was unmoved, and even though he said nothing of substance, he was electrifying to his listeners.

Will Obama be our next president? Probably. Then we will have someone with no background in foreign or domestic affairs, with absolutely no management experience, who will then attempt to nationalize and rule over the largest industry in the United States.

What I don’t know is, will the general news sources give him a pass? Will we be told the economy is good when it isn’t? If they admit that things are bad, will Bush be then blamed for it? Will Obama’s international policy blunders be swept under the rug? Will Obama accept the conditions which President Bush has set up, outflanking our greatest national enemy, Iran?

Debate Review

Hillary Clinton looked tired, kept repeating herself, and, at a time when she needed to kick things into high gear, blew it entirely. Obama and Edwards both looked exhausted, yet sharp and sober.

The moderator for the first two debates, Gibson, was excellent, stepping back and letting the candidates talk for extended periods of time, which worked against Clinton, who began to repeat herself.

Richardson warned us about supporting evil men like the Shah of Iran. We have an anti-American government in Iran precisely because President Jimmy Carter helped to remove the Shah. This was one of the greatest foreign policy blunders on record, rivaling President Bill Clinton giving nuclear technology to North Korea.

Obama had so much success using the word change, that he, Edwards and Clinton used the word change about 397 times in the first half hour of this debate.

The Republicans looked good in the debate, and it appears as though the Democrats and Republicans live in two entirely different worlds.

Global Warming

A New Hampshire New Year's Eve quote: "Today's snowstorm made this month the snowiest December in New Hampshire in more than 100 years."

http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5g2dNMr2yDI301eoBn6ZrLRPobnBgD8TTT1G80

Another Bush Myth

I cannot tell you how many times I have heard, “Bush has ruined our standing all over the world and the Democrats will need to come into power and fix everything that he has screwed up.” Hilary Clinton even said that her husband and George H. W. Bush would travel the world and repair all the evil that George W. Bush has done.

First off, George H. W. Bush repudiated this statement, as any father would be expected to.

Secondly, there have been notable national elections throughout the world—e.g., France and Germany—where very pro-American and pro-capitalistic leaders have been elected over the past few years.

Thirdly, Bush gathered Israeli and Palestinian representatives to try to hammer out some kind of an agreement, and did you notice who showed up? Representatives from nearly 50 countries and international organizations showed up. Now, if Bush has destroyed our standing with Arabic nations throughout the world, then who are these people showing up to this conference?

http://www.huliq.com/43243/bush-israel-palesine-agree-peace-agreement-2008

Here are some quotes from one story:

Moments later, it became clear what he [Bush] meant. The president read out an agreement that had been reached by the Israelis and Palestinians earlier in the day -- an accord that only a few people in the hall knew about. Like so many earlier agreements, the one Bush read on Tuesday affirmed both sides' determination to engage in earnest negotiations with the aim of eventually living peacefully side by side. But there was more. Rather than just airy rhetoric of the kind Bush is so good at, he was able to present a concrete timeline. The first meeting is scheduled for Dec. 12 with further negotiations scheduled for every two weeks thereafter. The talks will be facilitated by an American president committed to reaching an agreement by the end of his term at the end of 2008.

It is a real coup. And it is a surprise for all those who expected nothing of import to result from the conference -- as well as for those who question the Americans' ability to help negotiate a peace agreement due to their close relations with Israel. Even the mega-news network CNN was caught off guard. The channel completely forgot about the simultaneous translation of Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas' speech delivered on the heels of Bush's announcement. There was no sound other than the leader's speech in Arabic. For five long minutes, only Arabic could be heard, before CNN interrupts the program and cuts to a correspondent. "We are watching history be made," is all he can think to say

http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/0,1518,520152,00.html

Will some sort of real peace be achieved? I have no idea, but I doubt it. But, the number of nations and organizations which showed up is telling—Bush commands respect from the Arabic world, a story our news does not tell us.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/infocus/mideast/

http://story.californiatelegraph.com/index.php/ct/9/cid/b8de8e630faf3631/id/303672/cs/1/

http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/54D52034-46DE-4359-8867-1B33E5B32538.htm

Identity Politics/Populism

Rush has spoken of Identify politics and populism; what he says is excellent and sums up the 2008 election—both sides:

What we have going on here is identity politics, I think, in a large swath of support for Governor Huckabee. Identity politics is what the left does. Do you know what I mean when I say "identity politics," Rachel? Okay. Identity politics is: You vote for the Christian. You vote for the black. You vote for the woman. This is traditionally how the left looks at people. We, as conservatives, don't. We don't see you, for example, in a political sense, and see a woman first. We might see a woman first because you're beautiful, but we're men and we can't help it. In a political sense, we wouldn't say, "You don't qualify. You're not smart because you're a woman," and we wouldn't say you deserve anything special because you're a woman. We wouldn't look at a black and say, "Oh! Poor, disadvantaged, slavery heritage, presidential material!" without knowing anything about the guy. We wouldn't if there was the first admittedly open gay running, we wouldn't say, "Oh, terribly discriminated against, really has had no chance! We're going to vote for the gay guy because it makes us feel better about ourselves."

That's identity politics, or a little strain of it, and that's what's happening in the Huckabee race. The identity of Huckabee is: "Christian, Southern Baptist minister," and that identity is covering and is being translated by supporters as meaning whatever they want it to mean, as opposed to actually looking at how he's governed. Like the pastor who just called and said Huckabee is a light at the end of the tunnel. Pastor, the light at the end of the tunnel is the oncoming train, and you can't get off the track! That's the light at the end of the tunnel, and I think identity politics was a fundamental feature of the Perot campaign as well. People really didn't even care what his policies were. He didn't even have to articulate policies. Remember that? (classic Ross Perot impression) "I'll tell you, Larry, here's what we're going to do! We're going to get rid of all these 737s, going to hire a bunch of Lear 55s. We're going to have smaller airplanes." He cares so much! "You own this country! You own it. This is your country. We're going to give this country back to you." That's identity politics, and this is traditionally not what conservatives and even Republicans, right-wingers, do.

We're a little bit more serious about it, and this is also one of the things that I detect. Of course, one of the things that makes me convinced I'm right about this is that Governor Huckabee is doing what he can to avoid discussing his record and his policy beliefs and is, in fact, relying on his identity to keep people on his side, in his camp, and perhaps even grow it. In one way, you'd have to say it's pretty smart because on the other side his opponents, you've got admitted conservative flaws -- admitted conservative flaws which do trouble the Christian right, which is a large part of the Republican base. Either support for abortion or gay marriage, things that would be disruptive to the culture, and many people are very, very concerned about the culture. So with Huckabee, the identity is, Christian. That means hundred percent thoroughbred on social issues, the cultural issues. Yet you dig deep, and you find the policy on immigration. If you look at Huckabee in an identity sense and yet at the same time you really think illegal immigration is destroying this country, then your identity association with Huckabee as a Christian likely will make you overlook the fact that he's opposite your belief on illegal immigration. Jimmy Carter was a Southern Baptist and he ran on that and he tried to capitalize on that. He ran on the religious identity, too. (rare Jimmy Carter impression) "I will never lie to you," except when I see the giant rabbit attacking my canoe. Remember that?

——————

You're falling into this trap of becoming victims. You're allowing the news media to dictate your mood and your attitude and your contentment, your happiness, and then you're ultimately relying on the election of individuals to change your life. This is not what conservatives support candidates for, liberals do that. So if I have any angst of my own, it could probably best be expressed by the perception, anyway, that people who in the past have been rock-ribbed conservative and may still think they are, are all of a sudden looking to government as their salvation, as their fix, as their hope, and it just troubles me because that's not what government is in your individual lives.

BREAK TRANSCRIPT

RUSH: I'm getting e-mails, "Rush, what is this economic security business you're talking about? Where did this come from?" I'm watching the news last night. I'm watching the election coverage. I'm hearing all these Republican commentators say the Republican Party is blowing it by not understanding that this feeling of economic insecurity is really rife and widespread among conservative Republicans. Now, rather than argue with that... (sigh) I don't think there's any reason, or not a whole lot of reasons for economic insecurity. Here I'm going to sound like I'm out of touch. But I look at this economy, I see 96% of the American people paying their mortgages. They're not losing their homes. They're not being foreclosed on. I see record employment, record low unemployment. Sure, we've got some things: gasoline prices rising. This has happened before. The price of everything goes up all the time. We've got war in Iraq. I understand that there's angst! So let me just accept it. Rather than argue about it and rather than try to lift people up with an emotional and inspirational plea to just not participate in it. We're in the United States of America, for crying out loud! We are not prisoners of some tyranny or dictatorship yet. We have the ability to do whatever we want; try whatever we want. It's up to us!

Yet so many people seem so willing to turn it over to the government, when there's angst or trials or tribulations. So let me just ask you a question: Those of you in this large, sizeable, lovable, and highly appreciated audience who are in the midst of feeling this economic insecurity, what do you want Mike Huckabee to do about it? What do you want John McCain to do about it? What do you want Barack Obama to do about it? What do you want John Edwards to do about it? What I fear is that people are confusing populism with conservatism. Populism is a political figure telling you whatever he thinks you want to hear, designed to make you think he only cares about you and fixing your situation. You know, I have to chuckle. The Breck Girl tells all these horror stories that make this country sound like it's 1920s Louisiana, and he's out there and he's doing these personal interviews on stage during his appearances where people have lost their jobs, or they've lost money, or they've lost this or that. Remember in New Hampshire some time ago, he took a question from a young girl who was having problems with her student loans, and she was beside herself? She didn't know how she's going to pay 'em back, and what did the Breck Girl do?

Did the Breck Girl offer to help her personally? No! Did the Breck Girl offer to help any of these sorry cases that he cites? Does he ever offer to help them personally? Does he ever say, "I can help you right now"? No! He makes them wait until he's elected president, and what's he going to do? He's going to supposedly get even with the people causing them their stress. But he isn't going to help them because government can't, unless you turn your life over to it, and become a victim and you're going to become dependent on government doing everything for you, that's the only way it can happen. But you have a momentary economic crisis in your life, it's your responsibility; you fix it. If you turn it over to the government you've got to turn over every aspect of your life, because they don't fix individual problems. Yet so many people think that Candidate A or Candidate B is going to do that, especially in the area of health care. "Yeah, I wanted a liver transplant. I didn't get it in time and my daughter died." Yeah, so you're going to elect John Edwards and maybe 20 years from now the people responsible will be held accountable?

Where is this notion here that electing any single human being is going to fix a momentary, temporary, very personal economic problem? The resulting dissent into victimhood and then seeing a populist approach, and you think it's conservative because it's compassionate or cares or whatever? Folks, it just scares me, because this is how we get charlatans elected. It is how we get people who use the misery and suffering of others in order to advance their own political fortunes. I'm not thinking of a particular person. I'm speaking in terms of generals. Hell, there have been so many. Perot is a populist. Pat Buchanan in 1992 was a populist. Remember NAFTA? He was running against George H. W. Bush for the Republican nomination. I endorsed Buchanan in New Hampshire because I wanted a conservative presence in the debate because I feared that George H. W. Bush was going to lose because he had abandoned conservatism. ("Read my lips: no new taxes," remember this?) Buchanan is running, and I was stunned. He was one of the arch-conservatives of my youth and here he is running as a populist! He's talking about all these factories that he's visited in New Hampshire, and they're closing down, and he saw all these people.

And he went on to lose, by the way. He had the peasants with their pitchforks. Perot had the volunteers. It seems history repeats itself in this regard. Populists have an appeal, and I learned I'm really wasting my breath here. I ought to just stick with the issues and what happened in Iowa, and I think I'm going to be done with this at the end of this hour, because one thing I learned in 1992: You can't talk populist beliefs out of people. You just can't do it. All it does is: They hate you, and they resent you for trying to tell them that what they're feeling is incorrect. So you can't talk a cultist out of his cult belief. I learned that in '92 with Perot. You can't talk to people who have a populist belief in a candidate; you just can't talk 'em out of it. At some point it has to be revealed to these people individually. So I've had my say. Look, folks, it's real simple. I have more respect for you than you can possibly know. I have more appreciation and understanding for your potential than you do. You can be so much better than you are. We all can. But you're not going to get there waiting for a single candidate to come along and pay the electric bill, damn it!

RUSH: I want to try this one more time, ladies and gentlemen, because I still feel like I'm playing around the edges here when it comes to this populism versus conservatism thing. During the break it finally hit me how to explain to you and express to you what I really think, regarding populism versus conservatism, in the context of all this economic insecurity and angst that apparently is out there. I will tell you, it bothers me that there is that much, but it is what it is. See, here's the thing, a number of people have called me over the years, as you have probably heard, "Rush, the people in this country are a bunch of idiots. You're giving them too much credit." You've heard these calls when it comes to who wins elections, how many people vote liberal, Democrat and so forth. My rejoinder has always been, "Nah, I've got great faith in the American people." And I do. And that's really what I figured out here over the break -- what's bothering me.

I use my own life as sort of a guide, and I use the stories of people I know who have come from nothing, and led by their ambition and their desire, which is 80% of achievement, by the way, all other things being equal, how badly you want it, what you're willing to do to get it, that's the determining factor. What I know is that everybody -- there are exceptions, of course, because there are some self-starters -- but everybody has more potential than they even know. Everybody has more ability than they know. Everybody can be better than they are, in any number of ways. It's true of all of us. But most people, as I said, are not self-starters so we need mentors, teachers, people who inspire us, and a lot of people are looking for that, a lot of people are looking for leadership. We haven't had a whole lot of leadership when it comes to our movement. Peggy Noonan said it well today about Governor Huckabee. He's not really leading a movement. He's riding a wave. People want leadership, and they respond to it when they get it. And unfortunately, sometimes they think leadership is leadership when it isn't, when it's populism. But all of this angst -- let me join the angst crowd for just a second. All this angst is based on the fact that I have such an out-of-this-world notion of the potential of this country and the people who live in it. I know that it's the people who make this country work.

By the way, Obama stole one of my lines in his speech last night: Ordinary people accomplishing extraordinary things. That's what makes this country work; that's what makes it great. Politicians don't, lobbyists don't, people in Washington that are elected, they're not the definition of great. Government programs are not great. Let's say that you're in angst over college education for your kids, tuition. Well, yeah, it's a big problem. There's no question. It's exorbitantly high. Who's in charge of it? A bunch of libs. Who runs higher education? Bunch of libs. Who are the people always running around decrying what Big Oil is doing to you and Wal-Mart's doing to you? They want to punish these people. They want to punish the engine of freedom. They want to punish the capitalist system. When it comes to college education, you are being raped, and your kids are being sent off to a bunch of places that are just nothing more than indoctrination centers, yet you want to get them in there. You gotta take out student loans, it's exorbitant. What is a president going to do about this?

The president can't wave a magic wand and demand to liberal administrators that universities lower tuition. Change the college loan rules and so forth? Maybe. Any number of other economic circumstances. David Brooks, New York Times, who takes a swipe at me today -- but that's not my point -- says that the biggest problem facing America today, the biggest source of economic angst is divorce, that divorce causes more economic hardship on people than practically any other thing, and then it also causes a disruption of families. He says this is something that Huckabee knows. Huckabee is appealing to the morality and the culture and the values that keep families together will somehow resonate with people and they'll understand that this is a way to fix the culture. I hate to tell you -- Peggy Noonan makes this point, too, in a column today -- there's nothing the government can do about changing the culture. There really isn't a whole lot the government can do about changing the culture. Take a look at whatever cultural rot you see and ask yourself: What's happening in movies? What's happening in music? What's happening on television? What's happening in the pop culture?

Look at this latest incident with Britney Spears and her sister getting pregnant. Britney Spears carted out of her house on a stretcher, holding her own kids hostage, boozing it up. What can the government do to fix the coverage that we all get of this? What can the government do? What can any elected official do? They can stop subsidizing various kinds of things. They can stop subsidizing dependence. But that isn't going to happen with anybody, especially when you hear people talking about what the government can do to fix people's lives. You think they're going to try to make them less dependent? That's not what entrenches politicians to power. Look, what I'm getting at here is that I would just hope that here in 2008 that a majority of Americans would be motivated to rely on themselves to try to take advantage of the freedom that being an American is. You look all around and you see robust signs of prosperity, you see success, you see people accomplishing great things either in the neighborhood or in the city or town where you live, or you read about it happening in other parts of the country. And for some reason it doesn't click that maybe you could do the same thing. I just wish that it would.

So many people are so capable of so much more than they know. When that is the case, because this is the United States of America with unparalleled freedom and prosperity, for people to then throw up their hands in frustration and say, "Yeah, I really can't do it, it's not up to me, I'm going to let Obama do that for me, or I'm going to let Edwards, I'm going to let Huckabee, I'm going to let Fred Thompson," whoever the candidate is. You're giving up and you're allowing yourself to become a victim, and you're not going to get what you want. You may be satisfied when the people that you're mad at have things happen to them that hurts them so you feel like you're getting even, but it doesn't really help you out all that much. If people who earn more money than you do get a tax increase, fine, you may feel better, yeah, get even with those people. But how does it help you in your own bottom line? It doesn't.

Anyway, a brief time-out. We'll continue here with the continuing analysis of what happened in Iowa last night on all sides and your phone calls on Open Line Friday. Folks, one more thing. I want you to understand, I say this stuff precisely because I love you and I love this country, and I know what's possible here. I know so many people do not have the thought that they can do it themselves, and I just can't tell you how it hurts, and it depresses me, and it makes me want to go back to basics here and explain to you what conservatism really is, why it wins, how it wins, how it works, which is I guess what I'm doing here is essentially going back to basics. Politicians talk about wanting the best for everybody. Well, so do I. I just have a different recipe of how that happens, and I just don't think it happens through them.

——————

What is a populist? The dictionary definition is often, as in the case of dictionary definitions today of liberal and conservative, it is not helpful. But the dictionary definition of populist is: "A member or adherent of a political party seeking to represent the interests of ordinary people; a person who holds or who is concerned with the views of ordinary people." The root here is... Well, there was a Populist Party. It was formed in 1891 and at the time the Populist Party "advocated the interests of labor and farmers, the free coinage of silver, and a graduated income tax along with government control of monopolies." Now, the modern interpretation of populist, as I use it today, is not complimentary. A populist in this sense of "seeking to represent the interests of ordinary people," this is what people who employ populism want the ordinary people to think: that they are "one of them"; in fact, that they are from them; that they understand the ordinary, and that the ordinary are being shafted, and that the ordinary are being creamed, and the ordinary are being ignored.

So the populist comes along and says, "Not only am I for you, I'm of you, and I am going to go to Washington and I'm going to make sure that we ordinary people kick butt and we're going to kick the butts of the elites and we're going to kick the butt of the establishment! We're going to do this and we're going to do that." Most of them who do this are already from the establishment! They're elected governors. They're senators, or what have you. So it becomes a technique to relate to people on an emotional basis with a false promise, and that is that any one individual can solve all the problems of the ordinary. The ordinary would love their problems to be solved! I myself, not a member of the ordinary in my own definition, would love for my problems to be solved. But I'll tell you damn what: There is not a single politician on the face of the Earth that can solve one problem I've got. Now, I have complaints as well as problems. I don't like high taxation. That is something an elected official can do something about, but with a realistic proposal. But I've got problems with my cat. I have problems with doors that don't fit. I have problems with ants running around portions of the house, but I fix it!

I don't wait for some politician to say, "I, too, have ants! I have had ants. I've had doors that don't fit, and it's the corporation that cuts the lumber and makes the wood that's screwing your wood. We're gonna get even with that big, evil timber industry for making you have to deal with a wood piece that doesn't fit, or we're going to get even with the carpenter who cut it or the contractor who made it!" or what have you. It is simply not possible, ladies and gentlemen, for a single individual to solve the problems of The Ordinary. First, can we define "ordinary"? Is the ordinary average? What's the average? How many of you think of yourselves as ordinary? I hope not too many. I hope you all think of yourselves as special. All of us Americans are special. Not because of anything different about us, DNA or any of that. We're special because of our opportunity and because of our freedom. We're special because what those two things, opportunity and freedom, allow us to do with our lives! But there simply is no one man or woman who can appeal to everybody who's, quote, unquote, "ordinary" and solve their problems, but he can sure make 'em think so. For the ordinary to think that their problems can be solved, what must they do? They must turn over the solution of their problems to the person who seeks to fix them, and in the process they lose their freedom and they lose their individuality and all else that goes with that. So the populist is actually a big-government person in disguise. The populist is somebody who wants to grow government to take problem-solving and sadness and all these things, out of your daily life and replace them with whatever government can do so you will become dependent. John Edwards is a populist, for example. Mrs. Clinton is a populist.

Clinton’s Ignorance and Lies

Rush: From news just after I left the microphone on the Friday before Christmas, Hillary Clinton predicted on Saturday, December 22nd, that just electing her would cut the price of oil. "When the world hears her commitment at her inauguration about ending American dependence on foreign fuel, Clinton says, oil-pumping countries will lower prices to stifle America's incentive to develop alternative energy. 'I predict to you, the oil-producing countries will drop the price of oil,' Clinton said, speaking at the Manchester YWCA. 'They will once again assume, once the cost pressure is off, Americans and our political process will recede.'"

Now, I have to tell you, Mrs. Clinton has said a number of things which are just downright ignorant. She has said a bunch of things which are downright scary. This is right up at the top of things that she has said that are ignorant and stupid. If you take this at face value, and I know what she's doing, she's out campaigning, she said this in New Hampshire, and she's out campaigning just as the Breck Girl is on the notion that the middle class is being shafted and that the elites in this country are in bed with the oil producing sheiks in the Middle East. But they're going to realize, when we get a woman with a testicle lockbox in the Oval Office they're going to be scared to death and they're going to lower the price of oil because they will be afraid to deal with Mrs. Clinton. Item number one, the oil producing countries do not determine the price of oil. There is not one producer of oil that determines the price. It is not the director of OPEC, it is not the emir of Abu Dhabi, it's not Sheik Maktum of Dubai, it is not Hugo Chavez in Venezuela. It's not anybody in Canada.

There is not one producer of oil that determines the price. There are two things that determine the price of oil on the world markets today. One: The good old laws of supply and demand. Number two: The oil speculators, the commodities market, which are bidding up the price of oil on the futures market, which affects the price, the barrel price in any number of untold ways. But for Mrs. Clinton to suggest that the aura of her presence and the no nonsense testicle lockbox of her presidency will frighten these

producers to finally being fair, is simply ignorant.