Somebody Needs To Introduce Rush To A Dictionary (CS)

Today I'll be pulling from the 11/10/06 Rush Is Right (HAHAHAH) rant, titled (also hilariously) "Liberalism Didn't Win Anything This Week."

Let's begin with this one:

I told you yesterday, ladies and gentlemen, the thing that you have to keep in mind here about the Democrats -- and this is serious -- is when they sit down to plot their agenda, their future, whatever, it's got one objective, many objectives. The number one objective is to never, ever lose this power again

I don't think Rush thought that one through. Or if he did, he might actually be as stupid as I tend to make him out to be. Let me break it down.

• Obviously people want to hold on to power. It's pretty hard to block or enact legislation when you're not in power to do so.
• Did the Republicans not want to retain power at any cost? Why was there such a coverup of the Foley incident and other scandals? Was that somehow not self serving or am I missing something? Doesn't this criticism of Rush's explicitly explain why the decisions for change made this November were the correct ones?
• If the Democrats WERE to actually use their power only to retain it, if they were not to move forward, be progressive, and challenge the status quo, then they will be betraying the people who put them there and, most likely, lose power. If the movement that initiated the change in the House and Senate is to keep its momentum, these Democrats are going to be less concerned with keeping power than they are with making progress (which will, conincidentally, help them retain power).
  

The point Rush is really trying to get at in this rant, though, and the statement that is probably going to become part of his mantra in trying to get assholes back into power is within this:

I think these Democrats are going to really fool themselves if they convince themselves that liberalism won.

Oh silly silly Rush, going and abusing the word "liberalism" again as if he knew what it means. Liberalism is about being open to change. It is about being unsatisfied with the status quo. Because of people like Rush Limbaugh perverting the word "liberal," many people considerate of the reality of a world that is always changing, people seeking ideas that move forward rather than stagnate, have resorted to the label (where they will accept one) of "progressive." Liberalism won because we have a change of balance. Liberalism won because the people rejected the current status quo (which, given the facts about Iraq, Afghanistan, the US economy, etc, etc... Was a pretty damn shitty place to be). Oh and as for Rush's probable definition of liberalism as specific party platforms? Well, the people voted largely against the direction of the war, voted FOR minimum wage initiatives, voted FOR pro-choice initiatives, and in one case even voted AGAINST a gay-marriage ban. So even in Rush's own convoluted definition of the word "liberal" he isn't right when he says "Liberalism Didn't Win Anything."

Do you need more proof that Rush is completely confused as to what is "Left" and "Right"? Well here's his grand conclusion:

What really happened in this election... I think one of the reasons Reagan Democrats and some of these moderate, so-called independents, one of the reasons they left is because the Republican Party in Washington took this country too far left. It embodied elitism and out-of-touchism, and that's the real nature of our problem.

The Republican Party took the country too far left? This is the same party that took the country so far to the Right that a mainstream press largely Right of Center could be criticized as (relatively) liberal, right? This is the same party that has spent the past several years floating anti-choice, anti-science, and anti-gay legislation, right? That sounds awfully Right, right?
And if we're going to talk about elitism and out-of-touchism, let's look at some prime examples:

I mean conservatism won, but we made the mistake of assuming that the country at large or a majority of it had intellectually crossed over and understood it. That wasn't the case. So we immediately started implementing things that shocked a lot of people because they were not ideologically prepared

Hmm, accusing the majority of the nation of not being intellectually up to speed. MUST be coming from some North Eastern academic right? Or how about this one:

you've got a large aging population in Pennsylvania that doesn't care about anything in the next five years because they may not be alive more than that, and all they want to know is are they going to be taken care of in the next five years. They're not worried about their kids and their grandkids

Whoa, there. Talking DOWN to "The Greatest Generation"??? Gotta be some holier-than-thou Democrat, right? Nope, both of those quotes are from Rush himself, in the very same portion of his show where he was criticizing elitism.
When Rush rants on like this, you'll often hear a loud *THUD*.... Don't be worried, that's the sound of liberals smacking their heads against their desk in frustration and conservatives passing out as their brains short out trying to buy into Rush with his contradictory and illogical leaps.