I DVR’d Rush’s epic speech at CPAC this past Saturday, and I finally ended up watching it later that night.  I normally don’t stay up too late, but Rush’s rhetoric, humor, and, most imporant, his message were too good to pass up.  He provided the energy I needed to stay awake.

It truly was a memorable speech, perhaps because true conservatives have been starving for a message from a leader.  Unfortunately, conservatives don’t have a real leader in Washington, D.C. at the moment.  Rush is the guy.  And, on Saturday afternoon, he was special.

Here are the first 10 minutes of the speech:

If you want to watch it in full, go to CSPAN.  (You really should watch the whole thing.) 

In this post, I want to highlight some excerpts of the speech, dissect and analyze then, and provide my own commentary:

“I learned that Fox, God love them, is televising this speech on the Fox News Channel, which means, ladies and gentleman, this is my first ever address to the nation.”

Obviously, a play on President Obama’s “State of the Nation” speech the week before and on the persistent arrogance of the 44th President.  Rush is, at his core, not just a brilliant intellectual, but a great entertainer with a phenomenal sense of humor.   

“Let me tell you who we conservatives are:  We love people.  When we look out over the United States of America, . . . when we see a group of people, . . . we see Americans.  We see human beings.  We don’t see groups.  We don’t see victims.  We don’t see people we want to exploit.  What we see . . . is potential.  We do not look out across the country and see the average American, the person that makes this country work . . . . with contempt.  We don’t think that person doesn’t have what it takes.  We believe that person can be the best he or she wants to be if certain things are just removed from their path like onerous taxes, regulations and too much government.”

This is, by far, one of the best definitions of conservatism I have ever heard and read.  It emphasizes the notion that conservatism does not, has not, and simply cannot discriminate.  It is a universal set of ideas based on the individual talents and skills of people.  Its goal is to facilitate the successes of individuals and to root out obstacles that prevent or prohibit people from maximizing their unique abilities.  Conservatism is also an optimistic way of life.  It prides itself not on what is in the way or what can’t be done; rather, it rests on the idea that anything is possible.

“We love and revere our founding documents, the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence.  We believe that the preamble to the Constitution contains an inarguable truth that we are all endowed by our creator with certain inalienable rights, among them life . . . liberty . . . freedom . . . and the pursuit of happiness.”

Conservatism is also based on America’s founding documents.  So much emphasis is placed on the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence because they the first of their kind.  Never before had a group of people declared that their right to liberty derived not from the government, but from God.  No other founding document had ever made such a claim.  That is why conservatives fight so hard to preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution.

“[W]e do understand, as people created and endowed by our creator, we’re all individuals.  We resist the effort to group us.  We resist the effort to make us feel that we’re all the same, that we’re no different than anybody else.  We’re all different.  There are no two things or people in this world who are created in a way that they end up with equal outcomes.”

I particularly liked this excerpt because it illustrates that equal outcomes (the aim of every liberal, big-government policy) are impossible.  Because we are individuals, and because we are all different, there is no way we can (or want) to strive for and achieve the same goals.  Moreover, because our differences include distinct skills and talents, equal outcomes are simply attainable.  The person with a talent for singing cannot achieve the same outcome as the person who can’t sing but who can run very fast.  Likewise, the individual with a passion for writing will certainly have a better chance at becoming a published author than the person with less of a passion for writing but more of a flare for writing music.  These simple examples of the variety of traits that permeate individuals illustrate the physical and mental impossibility of equal outcomes and results.  They also show that there really isn’t anything wrong with that. 

“We want the country to succeed, and for the country to succeed, its people — its individuals — must succeed.”

America was founded on rugged individualism.  It is what helped us become the most prosperous nation in the history of the world.  People, not government, created the massive wealth we have all enjoyed.  It is people, not government, who will get us out of the current economic mess.

“[F]or those of you in the Drive-By Media watching, I have not needed a teleprompter for anything I’ve said.  And nor do any of us need a teleprompter, because our beliefs are not the result of calculations and contrivances.  Our beliefs are not the result of a deranged psychology.  Our beliefs are our core.  Our beliefs are our hearts.  We don’t have to make notes about what we believe.  We don’t have to write down, oh do I believe it do I believe that.  We can tell people what we believe off the top of our heads and we can do it with passion and we can do it with clarity, and we can do it persuasively.”

This stretch of emphatic statements gave me goosebumps.  The Obama Presidency is, indeed, the result of careful calculations and contrivances.  Obama and his team of speechwriters carefully choose the words and phrases that will elicit the most effective response from his audience.  The words “change” and “hope” were not chosen at random.  Neither was the choice to sound “Reaganesque” during his ”State of the Nation” speech a couple of weeks ago. 

By contrast, conservatives don’t need to calculate anything.  Our beliefs are natural, and they can be expressed without effort.  They sound emphatic and persuasive because they are the result of natural human instinct and heart-felt passion. 

“We have transferred something like $10 trillion, maybe close to $11 trillion, from producers and earners to nonproducers and nonearners since 1965.  Yet, as I listen to the Democratic Party campaign, why, America is still a soup kitchen, the poor is still poor and they have no hope and they’re poor.”

Never before have I heard such an indictment of the War on Poverty and liberal policies in general.  They are, indeed, impossible to fulfull.  Wealth isn’t created by transferring it from those who work for it to those who don’t work for it.  So much wealth and prosperity has been lost because of liberal policies aimed at helping the poor and less fortunate.  This isn’t to say that we shouldn’t help them.  The point is that the best way to help people succeed isn’t to take money from the wealthiest 5% or 10% of the country and give it to them.  Rather, the way to help them is to remove obstacles and incentivize them to reach the potential that their skills and talents afford them.

“The people that make this country work, the people who pay their mortgages, the people getting up and going to work, striving in this recession to not participate in it, they’re not the enemy.  They’re the people that hire you.  They’re the people that are going to give you a job.  They’re the people that are going to give you a raise, the people that need you to do work for them.”

My favorite question to any liberal who wants to raise taxes on and/or penalize the “rich” is: “Have you ever gotten a job from a poor person.”  There is only one answer to that question.  Liberals tend to deny the basic reality that people make this country work, not government.  People start businesses and take risks.  People provide jobs for others.  People produce innovations in the marketplace.  Government cannot accomplish any of that.  People (particularly the “rich”) are not the enemy.

“When Obama talks about past economies, he somehow always leaves out the recession of the ’80s as worse than this one.  Why does he leave it out? . . . He leaves it out because we got out of that recession with tax cuts.”

Indeed, Obama never mentions the recession from the late 1970s to the early 1980s.  Reagan brought this country out of that recession with massive tax cuts.  It would serve Obama well to learn from that.  (But he won’t.  He’s a socialist.)

“President Obama, your agenda is not new.  It’s not change, and it’s not hope.  Spending a nation into generational debt is not an act of compassion.  All politicians, including President Obama, are temporary stewards of this nation.  It is not their task to remake the founding of this country.  It is not their task to tear it apart and rebuild it in their image.”

This excerpt conveys a two-part message. 

First, Obama’s policies and ideas are nothing new.  They have been tried before (during the 1930s with the New Deal and during the 1960s with the Great Society).  They have also been tried throughout the world.  They have never worked. 

Second, Rush highlights the arrogance of Obama and, for that matter, many liberal politicians.  They don’t believe that they get elected to serve this country.  Instead, they believe that they get elected in order to serve themselves and their liberal interests. 

“I sometimes wonder if liberalism is not just a psychosis or a psychology, not an ideology.  It’s so much about feelings, and the predominant feeling that liberalism is about is about feeling good about themselves and they do that by telling themselves they have all this compassion.”

I am convined that liberalism is, in the words of Michael Savage, a mental disorder.  It is such an emotionally-induced state of mind with no ties to reality.  Perhaps “pychosis” is a strong word for it . . . nah, it’s just perfect!

“Let me ask a question for those of you watching my first national address.  Take the favorite villain you’ve got, maybe it’s John Thain at Merrill Lynch, because he used . . . his company’s own money . . . to redecorate a bathroom in an office for $1.2 million. . . . [A]ll of a sudden John Thain’s thrown out. . . . He’s humiliated and embarrassed; how dare he? . . . [A]ll these Congressmen are standing up saying this is not going to happen. . . . [I]f you love [John Thain] getting attacked, if you love them being ripped, ask yourself the next day, do you have any more money in your pocket?”

Don’t bite the hand that feeds you.  That’s the essence of this hypothetical.  The more liberals attack the earners and producers in this country, the less money they will have in their pockets. 

“We’ve got factions now within our own movement seeking power to dominate it, and worst of all to redefine it.  Well, the Constitution doesn’t need to be redefined.  Conservative intellectuals, the Declaration of Independence does not need to be redefined and neither does conservatism.  Conservatism is what it is and it is forever.  It’s not something you can bend and shape and flake and form.”

Conservatism doesn’t need to adapt.  Liberalism is always adapting, but that’s due to its own inherent weakness . . . e.g., it’s not an ideology.  It’s a state of mind.  Conservatism, on the other hand, is a universal set of ideas that transcends time, culture, and people.  It applies in every situation and in every set of circumstances.

“The era of Reagan is over?  When the hell do you hear a Democrat say the era of FDR is over?   You never hear it.  Not only that, the President of the United States today thinks he’s FDR, thinks he’s Abraham Lincoln, and sometimes, Tuesday night, thinks he’s Ronald Reagan.  Our own movement has members trying to throw Reagan out while the Democrats know they can’t accomplish what they want unless they appeal to Reagan voters.  We have got to stamp this out within this movement, because it will tear us apart.  It will guarantee we lose elections.”

An obvious slight against Newt Gingrich, but well-deserved.  How can the era of Reagan be over when liberals are trying to appeal to Reagan voters with a “Reaganesque” state-of-the-nation speech a couple of weeks ago and when Obama effectively won the 2008 election by running on “tax cuts”?  The era of Reagan is alive and well.  The more Republicans try to march out moderate candidates who have no connection to Reagan’s philosophy (e.g., John McCain, Bob Dole, etc.), the more likely they will continue to lose elections.

“[T]his is something liberals will never understand about the United States of America and it’s right under their noses, right in front of their faces.  We are a competitive people.  We strive, enough of us do, to be the best.  We strive to win.  We strive to avoid defeat.  Enough of us still do.  Don’t believe otherwise.”

I certainly don’t like to lose.  And neither do liberals.  People innately strive to win at whatever they’re doing.  That is the very spirit of American individualism and the American Dream.  Liberals’ attempt to weed out that desire and drive is as fundamentally flawed as every one of their failed, big-government policies.

“[T]here’s some people [say] you can’t say you want the President to fail.  Ladies and gentlemen of the United States, the Democrat Party has actively not just sought the failure of Republican presidents and policies and now wars for the first time, the Democrat Party doesn’t stop at failure.  Talk to Judge Robert Bork or Justice Clarence Thomas about how they tried to destroy lives, reputations, and character, and I’m supposed to say I don’t want the President to fail?”

Therein lies the hypocrisy of all liberals.  They create chaos when a prominent conservative says he wants President Obama to fail, but they look past the previous 15-20 years during which they actively sought the failure of anything and everything conservative. 

I hope Obama fails, too.  And so do many conservatives.

God bless you, Rush.

If you like this post, please consider subscribing to my full RSS feed.  You can also subscribe by e-mail and have a copy of each new post automatically delivered to your inbox.