RUSH: Two stories here on the slumber party that the Democrats in the Senate staged on Tuesday night. First is from the Washington Post. ‘Democrats won’t force war vote. — Senate Democrats yesterday halted their quest to change President Bush’s war strategy after Republicans blocked a proposal to begin withdrawing troops from Iraq. After the vote, which followed a rare all-night debate, Majority Leader Harry Reid (D., Nev.) startled colleagues by announcing that the Senate would not vote on several other proposals intended to force Bush to revisit his war plans. Although war critics in both parties had supported the measures, Reid and other Democratic leaders dismissed them as too weak. Instead, they are holding firm in their bid to persuade GOP critics of Bush’s Iraq policy to embrace more aggressive Democratic measures to begin withdrawing troops. Reid’s move was hailed by antiwar groups,’ and the anti-war groups in this case are the fringe lunatics that make up their Internet blog base.
Now, in the Christian Science Monitor, they have a story, ‘The strategy behind the Senate Iraq war vote. — The metal cots outside the Senate chamber were folded away and the pizza cartons carted away. A rare all-night session leading to Wednesday’s key vote about withdrawing troops from Iraq provided high drama on Capitol Hill.’ It did not. There was no drama at all in this. ‘Never mind that the amendment went down to certain defeat.’ Whoa! Certain defeat! Which means it was all unnecessary; which means it was a trick; it was a stunt to fool the American people. Never mind that ‘the legislative marathon changed only a single vote in the Senate. Washington’s political theater is part of a deliberate political strategy aimed at living rooms across America. By presenting the choice over the future of the Iraq war in the starkest possible terms, Democrats hope to convince Americans of the need to change course and ratchet up the political pressure on Republican lawmakers supporting President Bush.’
Now, there’s a question that leaps into my fertile gray cells, the deep, dark crevices of my brain produced this question. Democrats hope to convince Americans of the need to change course? Well, forgive me, folks, I’ve been listening to Dingy Harry and all these other people saying that that had already happened. He said just yesterday that 67% of the people want out of Iraq. He had a poll. Well, that’s a majority. That’s more votes than he can get for his side in the Senate. He’s losing votes every time he brings this up, which is my point. They know the American people are not on the same page with them. They are trying to get them there. The Democrats want you to think that they are trying to do your will when in fact they’re trying to persuade you to agree with them and their fringe lunatic kooks in the blogosphere. The American people are not on this same page, and that little statement right here proves it. Democrats hope to convince Americans of the need to change course.
”The Goal of Democrats was clear,’ says Julian Zelizer, a professor of history and public affairs at Princeton University.’ He said, ‘The goal of Democrats was clear: to put Republicans on record on where they stand on an unpopular war and to keep Iraq in the news, which is not good for the Bush administration.’ This is what’s wrong. We have literal dunces at major American institutions of higher learning. We have just, in the previous paragraph, seen where Democrats admit they don’t have a majority of the American public on their side, they hope to convince Americans of the need to change course. Then this guy says the goal of the Democrats was clear, to put Republicans on the record on where they stand on an unpopular war, to keep Iraq in the news not good for the Bush administration. The Bush administration is not running for reelection. It’s the Democrats who went on record as wanting to lose the war, and they did it in an all-night trick and hoax. They don’t realize how they are viewed. They think this makes Republicans look bad because they’re living with this myth that most Americans agree with them on this, which is not the case. ‘Democrats want Iraq to be for President Bush what Vietnam became for President Johnson: an all-consuming issue, where nothing else can be discussed.’ That’s, again, the Princeton expert. Lyndon Johnson did announce that he wasn’t going to seek a second term, but Bush is in his second term. So he can’t pull a Lyndon Johnson. You gotta wonder where these people — well, no — they’re liberals. That explains all.
BREAK TRANSCRIPT
RUSH: Yes, Dave. Thanks for waiting.
CALLER: Yes, Rush. Thanks for taking my call, and thanks for standing for the truth. I just wanted to say that the Democrats and the anti-war left don’t really understand the difference between a game and a war. A game has a time limit, a specific declared end point. A war ends in victory or defeat. Quitting equals defeat. The enemy understands this, and they are committed to victory. We had better be committed to victory or we will be defeated. The war on terror is not a game.
RUSH: Good point. But you’re exactly right. It is to them. And the game does have an end, and it’s the ’08 election, and the game is to get their power back, and the game is to saddle whatever misery and damage that they can convince people are happening with this around the shoulders and necks of Republicans, so that they can have a perpetual governing majority. They’re trying to destroy the future of the Republican Party and the ability to win elections. You’re exactly right, that is their game.
CALLER: They’re going to destroy the country, not just the Republicans, the whole country is going down the drain.
RUSH: They want to destroy it and rebuild it in their own image, right. Well said, sir. I appreciate that, Dave.