God has given the Democrat Party, or this apparent Christmas present that God has given the Democrat Party. Now, I happened to mention that to some people this morning, “Ah, that’s old news. I saw it last night.” Some Democrats this morning, some liberals, “Ah, that’s old news. I saw that last week and I had my heart attack then.” And so you’re probably saying, “Heart attack? God gives the Democrats a Christmas present, they have a heart attack?” Pretty much sums it up. Here’s the headline, it’s in the Los Angeles Times today. Did you see this story last week, did you hear about it at all? Did you, Mr. Snerdley? I didn’t, either. This is news to me today, but apparently it came up down in Florida, the Democrats were down there vying for whoever was going to be the next party chairman. Can you believe that they actually think it matters who the party chairman is? I mean, they raised more money than Republicans this time and they didn’t win. I mean, the candidate of the party determines the identity of the party, not the party chairman. If they think the party chairman is going to shape the view of the Democratic Party, they’ve got another thing coming. It can’t help much, it can hurt. I think McAuliffe ended up hurting them not just because he was chairman, but because of the way he looks on TV and the way he sounds on TV. They need to get somebody, you know, telegenic and pleasant and nice, which is why we’re hoping for Howard Dean. (Laughing.)
Anyway, here’s the headline in the LA Times today: Democratic Leadership Rethinking Abortion. (Gasping.) Folks, do you know if this were true, what a Christmas gift God would be giving the Democrat Party? Well, let’s read the story, shall we? Let’s see what this is really all about. “After long defining itself as an undisputed defender of abortion rights, the Democratic Party is suddenly locked in an internal struggle over whether to redefine its position to appeal to a broader array of voters.” A-ha. A-ha. Not change, “redefine.” “The fight is a central theme of the contest to head the Democratic National Committee, particularly between two leading candidates: former Vermont Gov. Howard Dean, who supports abortion rights, and former Indiana Rep. Tim Roemer, an abortion foe who argues that the party cannot rebound from its losses in the November election unless it shows more tolerance on one of society’s most emotional conflicts.” Now, you know what’s interesting about this? Let’s just stop right here and let’s do some on the spot analysis as we go.
For how many years, ladies and gentlemen, have we been hearing that if the Republican Party doesn’t change its position on this, that it is doomed? And how many years have we been hearing liberal Republicans say this, ladies and gentlemen? I can go back to Houston — (singing) “Going back to Houston, Houston” — 1992, went down there to the convention and this Ann Stone, Republicans for abortion, she was then-wife of Roger Stone, big Republican operative, and she was leading the charge back then, probably precedes 1992 anyway but I remember becoming, you know, inflamed and impassioned back in 1992, and it stayed that way. All these years, 12 years, “Republican Party better moderate its position on this or it’s not going to be able to win elections.” I’ve been to so many Republican functions, cocktail parties, dinners, and the blue-blood Republicans in the group would come up to me and say, “You’re gonna have to talk to those Christians.” What do you mean? “This abortion stuff is going to kill us, I mean it’s going to kill us, it’s going to kill us. The women are not going to change, they’re gonna kill us, they’re going to have ’em anyway, it doesn’t matter, you’ve got to talk to them, Rush.” Why me? Why is it up to them — this is a fundamental belief. “Ah, we can’t win.” I’ve heard this for as long as I have been a prominent media figure, ladies and gentlemen. And now all of a sudden guess who it is talking about how they may have to redefine their position on this issue if they are to rebound?
“Tim Roemer is running with the encouragement of the party’s two highest-ranking members of Congress, House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi of San Francisco and incoming Senate Democratic leader Harry Reid.” That would be Dusty Harry Reid of Nevada, the new Senate majority leader. Now, if Roemer, Tim Roemer from Indiana also on the 9/11 Commission, if Roemer were to succeed Terry McAuliffe, The Punk, as the Democrat chairman in the February 10th vote, “the party long viewed as the guardian of abortion rights would suddenly have two antiabortion advocates at its helm. Reid, too, opposes abortion and once voted for a nonbinding resolution opposing Roe vs. Wade. Party leaders say their support–” This is the interesting paragraph so stick with me on this, folks. “Party leaders say their support for preserving the landmark ruling will not change.” Well, what’s the rest of the story about? What is the rest of this story about? “Party leaders say their support for preserving the landmark ruling will not change. But they are looking at ways to soften the hard line, such as promoting adoption and embracing parental notification requirements for minors and bans on late-term abortions. Their thinking reflects a sense among strategists that Democratic presidential nominee John F. Kerry and the party’s congressional candidates lost votes because the GOP conveyed a more compelling message on social issues.”
All right, that’s true, there’s no question that’s true, but if these people don’t wake up and realize that it was also the war on terror that cost ’em big, they’re gonna still be swimming in the swamps trying to find their way out of the tall grass and getting lost in there doing circles. If they keep ignoring that — you’ve got to give them credit here, they are looking at what they can say about abortion, while not changing their position. Which is typical, which is just typical of where they are. They’ve glommed onto this guy Lackoff at Berkeley who’s written this book on linguistics about how to fool people with language, a-ha, there’s our answer, there’s our guru. So now they’re trying to take what they’ve learned from Lackoff and apply it to the abortion — I know, it rhymes with — (laughing) — and trying to apply it to the abortion debate. So they want to soften the hard-line position but they’re not gonna change the position. But, I’m gonna tell you right now the reason I said this is a Christmas present from God to the Democrats, because even if they ever decide that they’re gonna come out and embrace adoption and parental notification, do you realize they’re the ones that lead the pack against all those things? Well, maybe not adoption, but when it comes to parental notification requirements, bans on late term abortion, I mean these people are in there, there’s nothing that’s going to affect any abortion if they can have anything to do with it.
“Their thinking reflects a sense among strategists that Democratic presidential nominee John F. Kerry and the party’s congressional candidates lost votes because the GOP conveyed a more compelling message on social issues… A senior official of one of the nation’s largest abortion rights groups said she would be concerned if the party were to choose Roemer to head the Democratic National Committee.” Well, duh. See, this is the interesting thing. What’s the base going to do when they learn about this? This is what I’m — and I know there are a lot of liberal Democrats in this audience. You know you’re out there. And I just love passing this news on to you, that they’re thinking about actually coming out saying they’re going to to be in favor of parental notification and a ban on late-term abortions and so forth. This is going to rock the base, folks. I mean, the Democratic Party is made up of a bunch of different little constituency groups and one of the them is the pro-abort group, and in that pro-abort group you’ve got some of the civil rights coalitions and you’ve got the NAGs, the National Association of Gals, and their related subgroups, if you will, and this is their single issue, this is what keeps them aligned to the Democratic Party. And if this stuff — if the Democrats go soft on this they’re going to blow themselves up even more. You’re probably saying, “They’re not going to be this stupid, they wouldn’t do this.” Folks, they quest power so much they will say anything to get it back. Whether they’re gonna substantively change their position on this, I wouldn’t give you two bucks for that.
The official from the largest abortion rights group said, “‘We want people who are pro-choice. Of course I would be disappointed,’ said the official, who asked that her name be withheld because of her close alliance with party officials.” See, not even willing — now that’s interesting, too. You have a leader of a major pro-abort group, normally any other 
day of the year she’d be quotable and let her name be used. Now she wants anonymity because she needs her seat at the table of power of the Democratic Party. If she comes out and starts dissing these guys right now, it may not serve her well personally so she’s gotta stay in the background while offering up all of these threats. “Gloria Feldt, president of Planned Parenthood Federation of America, said Democratic strategists who were pushing for the abortion discussion had misconstrued the results of the November election by overstating the strength of ‘values’ voters.”
Tim Roemer said, “We should be talking more about adoption as an alternative, and working with our churches–” (laughing) What is he talking about? Does he actually think that he is going to get the chairmanship of the DNC by talking about the need to talk to churches during Christmastime? Doesn’t he realize the problem with Christians and Christmas is that Christians are trying to intrude on Christmas, and Christians go to what? They go to church. And here he is talking about reaching out to churches as a candidate for the chairmanship of the Democrat National Committee. Now, I’m being facetious about a lot of this, but the truth of the matter is, folks, if they’re talking this way, if they’re even talking about this, even if it’s just games, I tried to tell you they’re spiraling downward out of control, and I have told you at some point there’s going to be a Democrat somewhere that gets it and is going to figure out what — I didn’t tell you he’d survive once he started speaking this way, but I knew there was going to be a Democrat that gets it somewhere. What if it’s not just games? Then it’s God’s Christmas present to America. It’s God’s Christmas present to the Democrat Party. If they get this right, if they have a fundamental change on this, that’s why I’m calling it God’s gift to the Democrat Party.
The politics of whether or not it will succeed for them and help them out in various regions of the country in red states, who knows, it might. Just have to wait and see. But they’re not going to be able to move in with just a stated change. They’re going to have to have a sustained period of time where actions back up their words, because if people don’t see the actions backing up their intent — they’re not going to get away with good intentions alone on this issue. They may get away with good intentions alone on poverty and welfare and all that, but they’re not going to get away with just good intentions on abortion. That’s not an ephemeral issue with the people who are heavily attached to it, tightly attached to it, strongly attached to it.
END TRANSCRIPT
