RUSH: So where are we with all the other things that are happening? Well, we’ve explored a little bit of Ebola today, but then there’s another thing that’s happening, and it’s probably related in somewhat, but not exclusively related. Other factors are making it reveled. It’s in no less than the New York Times, by Jonathan Martin who used to be at The Politico. The headline of the story: “In This Election, Obama’s Party Benches Him.”
This is stunning.
The New York Times has a story about how Democrat candidates for the Senate don’t want Obama anywhere near their states. They don’t want him coming in fundraising. They don’t want him coming in doing campaign appearances. Imagine if you are a dutiful, loyal New York City liberal, and the New York Times is your gospel, and you awaken today, and you go grab your cup of coffee and your croissant, and you sit down to digest your daily lesson.
Imagine the shock of seeing the headline: “…Obama’s Party Benches Him.”
Obama benched? The coach, the GM, the owner?
It turns out that Barack Obama’s become the problem.
Barack Obama is the problem, with Obama driving the Democrat Party bus to the far-left side of the road. “Every campaign…” This is a pull quote from the piece. “Every campaign has got to figure out — and this is true in this election, and it’s going to be true for every election going forward for Democrats for as far as the eye can see — is which Democrats are only going to be able to win if they turn out enough of the Obama coalition, whether weÂ’re in a midterm or a presidential.” That’s Dan Pfeiffer.
“So for candidates to distance themselves from the president, or even disparage him, is to ignore a potential path to victory.” This is an inconvenient truth for Democrats. So, for Democrats, candidates to distance themselves from the president is to ignore a potential path to victory. The New York Times is chiding Democrats for not wanting their young president nearby in their campaigns. How dare they do this to him! But it’s their business to get elected.
Again, a pull quote from the story. “But for now [Obama] has been reduced to something else: an isolated political figure who is viewed as a liability to Democrats in the very states where voters by the thousands had once stood to cheer him.”
And then from TheHill.com: “Most See Obama As a Failure — A clear majority of Americans describe President Obama’s tenure as a ‘failure’ according to a new poll released Monday. The survey from IBD/TIPP indicates that 53 percent of adults in the United States now characterize Obama’s presidency as a ‘failure,’ while 41 percent chalk it up as a success. Half of the people who live in states won by Obama see his tenure negatively, as do 59 percent of those aged 25-44 years old.”
Now, the real question is, is Obama a failure? Does all of this constitute failure? I contend that in Obama’s world none of this is a failure. There may be one aspect of it that’s a failure. I really think that in his desire to transform the country, I think he really hoped that he would bring a majority of Americans along with him cheering this transformation. That’s not happening. That’s why, in the people who fail to see Obama’s vision, the people that fail to want to tag along on this, they see Obama as a failure, but it isn’t a failure. He’s doing exactly what he set out to do.
The people that voted for Obama who now claim he’s failed don’t realize that Obama wanted to fundamentally transform America with his presidency, and who can deny that he’s done that even beyond his wildest dreams? I would say that in Obama’s world, when he and Michelle are up there in the residence quietly reflecting, I think that they look at what they’ve done as a resounding success. I think they have exceeded their wildest dreams in terms of what they wanted to accomplish. They’ve accomplished it.
Everybody else thinks he’s an incompetent failure, and he’s maybe incompetent in the traditional way we view the presidency, i.e., qualifications. Does he know what he’s doing? Does he have the same values in terms of foreign policy, defending and protecting the country, and all of that. He doesn’t. The United States isn’t special, and it’s not the solution. The United States is the problem, and it always has been the problem. Time to pay the piper now. Is there any way that you can measure and conclude the country is stronger today after six years of Obama? Nope. Therefore, job done. Obama, job done. Mission accomplished.
The country is not stronger today in any way than it was six years ago when he presumed office. So that’s failure to the blind voters who blindly supported him. To him, it’s rock on. And there’s still two years, and I don’t think it really matters to him who wins the Senate. I mean, it would help if the Democrats kept it, but he can make a lot of hay with the Republicans there. He knows he’s got a media that is gonna join him in blaming the Republicans for whatever he needs to do in order to overcome them.
I mean, if the Republicans do not help, if they don’t cooperate, if they don’t pass his agenda, that’s made to order for Obama and the media to rip into them and to praise Obama for taking whatever executive steps necessary to accomplish his objectives, even with an obstructionist Republican Congress. And make no mistake, the media can’t wait to report that story. The media can’t wait to report the story that the Republicans are standing in the way, refusing to cooperate, throwing and casting aside bipartisanship in exchange for selfishness and just motivated exclusively by stopping Obama.
And, as such, the Republicans will be blamed for excessive partisanship and playing politics with every issue while the president will be portrayed as decent and wonderful and simply trying to do the best for the country with the mean, rascally Republicans standing in the way. So that’s how he can play the Republicans winning the Senate. The Democrats win the Senate, he’s got a rubber stamp for whatever he wants to do. Even if the Republicans win it’s not gonna stop him doing amnesty ’cause half of them are on board for it anyway. Ebola might be the biggest obstacle he’s got to amnesty now. And in that case, pay special attention to the way the Regime deals with that.
RUSH: Jason in Ellisville, Missouri, you’re next on the Rush Limbaugh program. Hello.
CALLER: Thanks for having me.
RUSH: You bet, sir.
CALLER: And, by the way, my apologies to Mr. Snerdley, but I just wanted to tell you that I’ve already pre-ordered the next iterance of your book series. My daughter’s gonna flip out when she sees it arrive.
RUSH: Well, thank you, sir, very much. Why are you apologizing to Snerdley?
CALLER: Well, he told me to get to the point, so I just —
RUSH: Well, that’s the point, that’s the point. You don’t have to apologize for that.
CALLER: Okey-dokey. Well, my major point was, well, based off of Drudge’s brilliant headline on his site, and your talks about anybody talking about isolating Liberia and those countries and being racist. Well, why is the Democrat Party not also being judged as racist for isolating Obama?
RUSH: You know, if only the same treatment would descend on them that they pass out. I mean, I get your point, it’s right on the money. So here we have our first African-American president, and Democrat candidates are saying, “Stay away, buddy, stay away. We don’t want you anywhere near our campaign. Do not even come to the state.” Why isn’t that racist?
You know, if any Republican disagrees with any Obama policy, it’s always chalked up to racism and bigotry. And now here are these pompous, arrogant Democrat candidates out telling the world there’s no way they can win if the first African-American president shows up to help ’em. I mean, it sounds like racism to me. The same kind of racism they pass out all day. Does it not, Mr. Snerdley? I mean, it does. The guy’s got a great point here. Where are the accusations that these Democrat incumbents are racists and bigots?
Can you imagine having the New York Times report that you, a Democrat, do not want the help of the first African-American president in your reelection effort? Why not? Is it because he’s black? Is that why people aren’t gonna like it, hmm? How would that feel? You know, it’s kind of like that Ben Affleck and Bill Maher uproar. I wonder how Bill Maher feels when Ben Affleck calls him a racist and a bigot.
You know, they throw it around us all the time. And of course they never even consider it would even be possible for anyone to think of them in the same way. And here’s old Ben Affleck out there accusing them of it. Racism, bigotry, and whatever else he accused them of being because they are mean to Muslims. (interruption) Do people on the left think that Affleck is smart? Oh, yeah. Oh, yeah. Oh, my. Absolutely. But not because of this. Because of Good Will Hunting. Affleck — and what’s the other guy? Yeah, Matt Damon. They’re still living off of that. That’s the real Affleck, and that’s the real Damon.
Oh, yeah, there’s a lot of people that think Affleck, on the left — especially after this, after the dustup with Maher, absolutely. That’s why I’m saying, I wonder how Maher feels, being on his own show, by a fellow leftist being tagged as a racist and a bigot. We’ll never know, but it’s just something worth asking.