GOP Eyes Senate, Not WH in 2012
November 10, 2011
RUSH: I'm questioned about this every day. For example, I've been inundated with questions from people, why did Karl Rove grant Gloria Allred credibility in this Herman Cain business? And the answer to me on something like that is obviously that Herman Cain's not Karl Rove's guy and this is a primary, an election, it's a nominating process, and Karl wants his guy to win whoever it is.
Karl is probably opposed to Herman Cain for a bunch of reasons like he was opposed to Christine O'Donnell and Sharron Angle, not thinking they can win. He probably doesn't think Herman Cain can win, if you want me to honestly analyze it. But I think that what inspires them here is that they're still ticked off. I think some of these guys on our side, do you remember Mike Murphy? He was a campaign consultant and he was livid over Christine O'Donnell beating Mike Castle. He was just livid that Christine O'Donnell won that primary and that Castle didn't have a prayer because Castle was the only guy that could win, and these guys -- this is where it gets important -- these guys are obsessed with being the ones to tell their candidates what to do to win and it's basically get independents, get the middle of the road guys.
They make their money there. They tell their candidates for whom they work, "The Democrats are gonna get 40%, you're gonna get 40% of the Republicans, and who gets that bunch in the middle? I'm the one that can get 'em. I'm the one that can tell you how to get the independents." And they just look at candidates like Sharron Angle or Christine O'Donnell and say the independents are never gonna go for 'em, no matter you do, it's impossible, can't win, we don't want to be part of it, and if you think you know more than I do, you run the campaign. I guarantee you they were happy that O'Donnell lost because it made 'em look good, and they're still, I think some of them -- and I don't mean Murphy specifically here, it's the whole group of them -- I think they still have ego drive here to prove they were right about O'Donnell and Angle, and that's one of the reasons why they're doing what they're doing to oppose people they think are going to lose and people they don't want to win.
There's also that aspect of it. That's the thing. H.R. just said, "Don't they want to win at the end of the day?" I think that you've hit the nail on the head with the question, and you have actually provided what a good caller does: Make the host look good. I think they are more concerned, our consultants, with holding the House and winning the Senate. I think they believe (deep down in the depths of their soul) that Obama can't be beat. I think they look at Mitt Romney as the single only hope we have of taking the Senate even if he loses the presidential race. Snerdley, you stop and think about this and you're gonna realize I'm right again -- and I wish I'd thought of this months ago.
O'Donnell and Angle were opposed because they wanted to win the Senate. They didn't care about anything else. Remember, it was the midterms, and they wanted to win the Senate. They wanted their committee chairmanships. They wanted to be in charge of the money. When you're a Senator, it can be said that you're in charge of one one-hundredth of $3 trillioni or $4 trillion, whatever amount we're gonna spend that year. It's a lot of power; and you run committees, that's even more power, and they were ticked off 'cause they didn't think that the Senate was gonna go our way with those two candidates. So I really believe that they're looking at Romney not because he can beat Obama, but because he can limit the damage in the Senate and House races, which is what they really want.
I do believe that in some cases (and I'm not prepared to name names right now) on our side they would rather Obama win than a full-throated conservative beat him, because they don't control the conservatives. They don't control the Tea Party; they don't control where that victorious conservative candidate would come from. (interruption) Well, I do, too, but the thing to remember about 2010 was that a lot of the seats that we picked up that got us to a majority number were marginal districts. They're not guaranteed reelects. They're not these so-called safe seats; it's gonna take a lot of work to keep winning them in perpetuity -- and if the base ends up being suppressed, depressed? If something happens in the energy, the can't-wait-to-get-out-there-and-vote aspect?
If that declines all and if the unions are able to get-out-the-vote on the left and they're able to get their energy back up, then some of those seats that we won in 2010 are not guaranteed. They're marginal and we might lose them, and if the Democrats are out there fielidng good candidates...? I'm just telling you how the inside the Beltway consultants think on our side. These are not my thoughts right now. I'm telling you how our guys are thinking. So they're thinking we could lose the House. I guarantee you they are thinking, "With the wrong presidential candidate we could lose the House, not to mention lose the White House race." Well, they don't want to lose the House. They want to win the Senate. They think Obama's gonna get reelected and that's the best way to stop him is to have both houses: House and Senate.
And they look at Romney as, "Eh, cool. He's a moderate; he's not total ribald conservative," but they think because sounds intelligent and he's smooth talker now (he doesn't have many gaffes), that he can, while losing the race for the presidency, still bring off a number of victorious Senate and House raises. Now, I think the only way to pull it off with Romney is if sufficient and consistent pressure is brought on him to run on conservative policies. Like Daniel Henninger said in the Wall Street Journal about three weeks or a month ago: "You're gonna have to constantly push Romney to the right. That's not where he naturally lives," and so you're gonna have to push him to run on conservative policies and produce and project a distinguishable contrast with Obama.
RUSH: The official program observer has a question. What's the question? Hm-hm. Right. Both parties have had trifectas and both have lost. You mean consultants, why they try go be more moderate or candidates in general? No, I think it's a business. I think they really believe that the 20%'s where every election's won. And I think they believe that they are moderates, that they're not wacko conservatives or wacko leftists, and that most people are like them. Snerdley is so disturbed of my analysis of a half hour ago, of why the Republican establishment is ripping into all of our conservative candidates. He's really disturbed by it. What, for the first time you're figuring out that they're not team players? That they're businesspeople first? I know this is a tough thing for a lot of people to accept.
You always think Republicans are all on the same side, same objectives. No way. No way. They want to win certain things. Some of our guys, I'm telling you, do not think Obama's beatable. Now, I know it makes no sense. They live in Washington. It makes sense if you live in Washington. It makes sense if all your friends are the liberal media. It makes sense if that's your life, that Obama can't lose. Obama's God! If you live in Washington, if that's your life, it makes total sense. If you don't think that any of these conservatives can beat him, then you're gonna go pick the guy who can help your candidates for the Senate and the House win so that you can chalk up some victories for your business.
You are assuming that everybody's on the same team here. I have observed that with the death of Ronald Reagan and with the death of William Buckley, it's wide open. There's no discipline on the team. There is nobody that sets the agenda. Everybody is trying to be the smartest kid in the room or the power broker or what have you. It's patently obvious. And Snerdley, this gonna really destroy you, but they don't all agree. A lot of them don't think Obama's destroying the country. They don't think that this is anything out of the ordinary; it's the United States of America. We just print money. We've always run deficits since the founding. It isn't any big deal. I've been saying this for years. You ought to have learned it by now.