{"id":14870,"date":"2012-08-10T18:55:30","date_gmt":"2012-08-10T18:55:30","guid":{"rendered":""},"modified":"2012-08-10T18:55:30","modified_gmt":"2012-08-10T18:55:30","slug":"hosanna_krauthammer_gets_it_ideology","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/admin.rushlimbaugh.com\/daily\/2012\/08\/10\/hosanna_krauthammer_gets_it_ideology\/","title":{"rendered":"Hosanna! Krauthammer Gets It! Ideology!"},"content":{"rendered":"

RUSH: Well, looky here! Look what was just been brought to my attention. It\u2019s Charles Krauthammer\u2019s column today: “The Case Against Re-Election — Krauthammer encourages Romney to attack Obama\u2019s ideology, not just his poor record.” It is about time! “There are two ways to run against Barack Obama: stewardship or ideology. You can run against his record or you can run against his ideas. <\/p>\n

“The stewardship case is pretty straightforward: the worst recovery in US history, 42 consecutive months of 8-plus percent unemployment, declining economic growth — all achieved at a price of an additional $5 trillion of accumulated debt. The ideological case is also simple. Just play in toto (and therefore in context) Obama\u2019s Roanoke riff telling small-business owners: ‘You didn\u2019t build that.\u2019 …<\/a><\/p>\n

<\/p>\n

“Mitt Romney\u2019s preferred argument, however, is stewardship. … The ideological case, on the other hand, is not just appealing to a center-right country with twice as many conservatives as liberals, it is also explanatory.” Thank God somebody has joined my refrain here, folks. Ah! I can\u2019t… I can\u2019t tell you how excited this makes me. I did not know this. Krauthammer is on board with going after the ideology! Finally, somebody besides me!<\/p>\n

Oh, this makes my day! <\/p>\n

“The ideological case, on the other hand, is not just appealing to a center-right country with twice as many conservatives as liberals, it is also explanatory.” Yes! “It underpins the stewardship argument. Obama\u2019s ideology…” YES!!! (clapping) Folks, I\u2019m …<\/line>I\u2019m near orgasm time here! Do you know what it\u2019s like to be all alone on this stuff? No, no, no. I know you understand. How many years have I been talking about this?<\/line><\/p>\n

(interruption)<\/p>\n

Snerdley is saying, “Everybody\u2019s afraid to talk about his ideology.” It was his ideology that made me say I wanted him to fail. How else did I know that this was going to happen? How could I know? “How did you know, Rush?” His ideology! He\u2019s a liberal! Liberalism means things. Words mean things. Ideas have consequences. Idea-ology! He\u2019s a liberal. This was not hard to figure out. So you\u2019re saying that people were simply afraid to say this? <\/p>\n

(interruption)<\/p>\n

Well, okay. Snerdley\u2019s theory is there\u2019s been a lot of fear to talk about Obama\u2019s ideology because once you talk about his ideology, then you\u2019ve got to talk about where he got it. And that means you have to talk about Reverend Wright and Frank Marshall Davis, I assume, and people don\u2019t want to do that. You have to talk about all the stuff that people didn\u2019t want to talk about regarding Obama, and still don\u2019t want to. Okay. Well, I\u2019m telling you, all there is to Obama IS his ideology. <\/p>\n

The “stewardship” (i.e., the things he\u2019s done) is explained by his ideology. He\u2019s defined by it! He\u2019s defined by liberalism or Marxism, socialism, whatever you want to call it. See, to me, folks, this has been… Don\u2019t misunderstand me on this. It\u2019s been simple, and I know it is for you too. You know what this cuts to? This actually… We can make a linkage to what I was talking about before the break at the bottom of the hour.<\/p>\n

<\/p>\n

I really have been thinking about the difference between the Democrat Party and the Republican Party<\/a>, just looking at it this way. And when Byron York asked me, “Why does everybody always surround Obama to protect him? Why do they circle the wagons? Why don\u2019t the Republicans do it?” It\u2019s because we\u2019re not unified. We don\u2019t have the same purpose. This is an illustration of the divide. <\/p>\n

There are some Republicans who will simply refuse to look at Obama ideologically because, maybe, they\u2019re not conservatives themselves. They\u2019re RINOs or they\u2019re moderates or what have you. And you and I have discussed, profoundly and deeply during the Republican primaries, how even members of the Republican establishment don\u2019t like conservatives. They associate conservatism with Goldwater\u2019s landslide defeat, not Reagan\u2019s landslide victories. <\/p>\n

But this is a “Hosanna!” moment.<\/p>\n

Here\u2019s more Krauthammer. “Second, radical reform of health care that would reduce its ruinously accelerating cost: ‘Put simply,\u2019 he said, ‘our health-care problem is our deficit problem\u2019 — a financial hemorrhage drowning us in debt. Except that Obamacare adds to spending. The Congressional Budget Office reports that Obamacare will incur $1.68 trillion of new expenditures in its first decade.<\/p>\n

“To say nothing of the price of the uncertainty introduced by an impossibly complex remaking of one-sixth of the economy — discouraging hiring and expansion as trillions of investable private-sector dollars remain sidelined. The third part of Obama\u2019s promised transformation was energy. His cap-and-trade federal takeover was rejected by his own Democratic Senate. So the war on fossil fuels has been conducted unilaterally by bureaucratic fiat.<\/p>\n

“Regulations that will kill coal. A no-brainer pipeline (Keystone) rejected lest Canadian oil sands be burned. (China will burn them instead.) A drilling moratorium in the Gulf of Mexico that a federal judge severely criticized as illegal. That was the program — now so unpopular that Obama barely mentions it. Obamacare got exactly two lines in this year\u2019s State of the Union address. Seen any ads touting the stimulus? The drilling moratorium? Keystone?” <\/p>\n

That\u2019s exactly right. Take a look at that Obama\u2019s “Romney Killed My Wife” ad. <\/a> If Obama was proud of Obamacare, that would have been what they said in that ad, not “Romney killed my wife!” They would have said, “Obamacare would have saved her life,” if he was proud of it. But he can\u2019t say Obamacare! He doesn\u2019t want to mention Obamacare, because it\u2019s unpopular. He doesn\u2019t campaign on the Keystone pipeline. He doesn\u2019t campaign on anything he\u2019s done. <\/p>\n

He\u2019s a sitting duck, ideologically. <\/p>\n

He\u2019s a sitting duck. <\/p>\n

He\u2019s a landslide defeat waiting to happen, if we would just unify and go at him ideologically. Now, Krauthammer points out here that the Romney campaign decided they\u2019re going to go after, “He\u2019s a lousy president. He\u2019s a lousy steward.” And Snerdley may have a point on that because it\u2019s Romney who said, “I\u2019m not going to call him a socialist. I\u2019m going to call him a nice guy who doesn\u2019t know what he\u2019s doing.”<\/p>\n