All Episodes
Previous Next
June 7, 2005 - Rush Limbaugh Program
36:05
June 7, 2005, Tuesday, Hour #2
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
And welcome back, eh?
Hosanna, Josa.
Thank God the first hour is over and I don't have to talk about Hillary Clinton anymore.
There's so much good stuff here in the stacks of stuff, but everybody's so worked up about Hillary.
Well, I'm not.
I don't care.
It's 2005.
Greetings, my friends, and welcome back.
The Rush Limbaugh program, fun, frolic, and frivolity for all, as well as a serious discussion of issues.
We combine both in an unprecedented media presentation, irreverent humor, serious discussion, credibility on both sides, telephone numbers 800-282-2882, and the email address rush at EIBnet.com.
Very briefly, this little piece, I just was sent this by my mistress in North Carolina.
And it's a little blurb from the—I knew that'd get you.
Anyway, it's a blurb from Michael Musto's column in the Village Voice.
Another chat legend, Merv Griffin, beamed when the Museum of Television and Radio honored him in a misty homage to a freewheeling personality, crack businessman, and self-possessed quarter sexual, whatever that means.
Griffin had just smirked to the times that he's always done anything with anyone for a quarter.
No wonder he's so rich.
Anyway, let me get to this line.
Things reached a more profound level when Merv Griffin spoke to Nancy Reagan via telephone for all of us to hear as a Rush Limbaugh employee at my table started cheering.
I would have screened shut the hell up, but Merv brought out the best in Nancy, commending her for her pushing stem cell research.
Ronnie would have been proud of you on that one, said Merv, even though it's the wrong party.
Now, I want to know which one of my employees was at the Museum of Television and Radio honor for Merv Griffin and started cheering when he interviewed Nancy Reagan.
So I want to give this person a bonus.
Somebody at this table claiming to be an employee of mine.
Now, no employee of mine has told me they went to this thing.
No employee of mine said, hey, you wouldn't believe what happened the other night at the Museum of Television and Radio.
I was there and they interviewed Nancy Reagan with Merv Griffin and I stood up and cheered and made everybody in the room mad.
I would think I would hear about this if this had happened.
So I think somebody at Musto's table identified themselves as an employee of mine, but may not have been.
Which I can totally understand.
A lot of people would like to be employees here, would like to be part of the EIB network, but nobody's come forth.
The bonus is waiting.
Well, how do I know it got quiet in the New York studio all of a sudden?
I don't hear them anyway.
Oh, you can monitor the New York.
Oh, you can monitor the audio, what's going on in the New York studio, and they got all quiet, huh?
Well, see, what's going to be interesting is if more than one people or person comes forth and says it was me seeking the bonus.
All right.
You know, for the longest time, Senator Kerry, the Democratic presidential nominee who served in Vietnam, refused to release his entire medical file while in the Navy.
He refused to sign what is known as the Form 180.
We now know why, ladies and gentlemen, because his Navy records revealed his grades at Yale, and they were worse than George W. Bush's.
And the Democrats in Kerry so enjoyed ridiculing Bush's intelligence that would have backfired on him if the Navy records would have been released.
That's the simple explanation.
And no conspiracy.
It's no more controversial than that.
It would have made them a laughingstock.
They're out there talking about Bush as a dunce, Bush as a cowboy, Bush as a party man, a frat man, not taking anything in life seriously, skipping out of the National Guard.
He gets better grades at Yale than John Kerry.
In fact, the Boston Globe and Michael Cranish, a reporter and official biographer of John Kerry, writes this.
During last year's presidential campaign, John Kerry was the candidate often portrayed as intellectual and complex, while George W. Bush was the populist who mangled his sentences.
But newly released records show that Bush and Kerry had a virtually identical grade average at Yale University four decades ago.
In 1999, the New Yorker published a transcript indicating that Bush had received a cumulative score of 77 for his first three years at Yale and a roughly similar average under a non-numerical rating system during his senior year.
Kerry, who graduated two years before Bush, got a cumulative 76 for his four years, according to a transcript that Kerry sent to the Navy when he was applying for officer training school.
He got four Ds in his freshman year out of 10 courses, but he improved his average in later years.
The grade transcript, which Kerry has always declined to release, was included in his Navy record.
During the campaign, the Globe sought Kerry's naval records, but he refused to waive privacy restrictions for the full file.
Last month, he gave the Navy permission to send the documents to the Boston Globe.
The transcript shows that Kerry's freshman year average was 71, got a 61 in geology, a 63 and 68 in two history classes, a 69 in political science, top score, a 79 in another political science course.
Another of his strongest efforts, a 77, came in French class.
John Kerry, the haughty, French-looking candidate who served in Vietnam.
So, his grades were no better than Bush's.
It is noteworthy, however, Kerry received a high honor at Yale, despite his mediocre grades.
He was chosen to deliver his senior class oration, a testament to his reputation as a public speaker.
He delivered a speech questioning the wisdom of the Vietnam War, in which he would soon see combat, and which he would not stop reminding people of for 30 to 40 years following.
So here's the thing.
This is the bottom line.
Kerry's grades would not have mattered.
They wouldn't have meant anything to anybody if the Libs and their media buddies weren't mocking Bush's intelligence.
I remember we had audio of Kerry saying, I can't believe I'm losing to this idiot.
I mean, he didn't say it publicly.
It was saying it backstage, off the cuff, off the record.
I can't believe I'm losing to this idiot.
He wanted everybody to think he was smarter than Bush, and he feared that his grades would show otherwise.
I mean, it's just, it's classic.
It's typical.
A bunch of pretentious, spoiled, lying brats.
What a vain guy, folks, to continue propagating the false notion that he's smarter than Bush or he's some kind of top-shelf mind, and he has to conceal his actual grades in order to pull this off.
And by the way, folks, and I'm a living and walking testament to this.
I'm not saying you have to go to college or even get good grades to be smart.
But I mean, that was the implication that the Libs put out there about Kerry, that he did go to Yale, and he studied seriously.
He had good grades, and Bush was just partying and goofing off.
You know, and not only that, even though Bush went to Harvard, he was just an average student, blah, blah, blah.
So I think maybe now it's time to question Kerry's intelligence, the way they always question Bush's and the way they question ours.
But it's just more phony baloney plastic banana good time rock and roller stuff from them, folks.
They create these templates.
Bush is an idiot.
And they have to hide their own records of their own candidate because it would take away that weapon from their arsenal.
Quick timeout.
We will be back and continue in just a moment.
The vote, by the way, on Janice Rogers Brown, 5 o'clock Wednesday afternoon.
Cloacher was a chief today, a 65-35 or 65-something or other.
65-42, right?
65-42 votes, so they got cloacher.
That's pretty close.
You need 60 votes.
The Democrats promised in the Gang of 14 deal that it would happen, and it did happen.
But the debate, the debate was unbelievable.
We have some of it.
I'll let you hear it when we come back.
Don't go away.
The cloture vote was 65 to 32, not 65 to 42.
Ladies and gentlemen, 65-42 would mean that some senators voted twice, which is why I originally didn't question it since we do know Democrats vote multiple times in a number of elections.
All right, let's go to the audio tape.
Dick Durbin cannot get me off of his mind debating Janice Rogers Brown on the floor of the Senate today.
At her confirmation hearing, Justice Brown said her speeches, she dismissed them.
She said they were just an attempt to stir the pot.
They did more than stir the pot.
They set the kitchen on fire.
Her speeches show she has the temperament and ideology of a right-wing radio talk show host, not of a person we want to serve on the second highest court in the land for a lifetime.
A lifetime.
Oh.
Justice Brown's nomination to the D.C. circuit of all courts is particularly troubling.
Yeah, because it's a farm club for the U.S. Supreme Court.
Now, Senator Durbin, as you know, did not mention a name then, but I think that's only because he's been chastised by Democrat colleagues to shut up about Limbaugh.
Every time you mention Limbaugh, you just elevate Limbaugh.
Don't mention Limbaugh, but he can't help it.
He's got me on the brain.
Just to give you an example, April 25th of this year, Dick Durbin Senate floor.
We are not going to set out to close down the Senate or to close down the government.
Senator Reed, our Democratic leader, and all the members of the Senate feel as I do.
That shutting down of the government was the hapless tactic of the Gingrich Revolution.
It was a terrible idea.
Rush Limbaugh was the only American applauding it every day, but the American people knew better.
Two days later, Senator Durbin went back to the Senate floor.
Some have said on the floor, well, certainly at that point, the Democrats are going to shut down the Senate and shut down the government.
Trust me, that isn't going to happen.
We saw that tactic once.
Remember the name Newt Gingrich, contract with America?
He was so emboldened by Rush Limbaugh, he said, you know, if we shut down the federal government, no one will notice.
Well, we noticed in a hurry, and it hurt the Republican Party when they did it.
We're not going to make that mistake.
Yeah.
They're going to make others.
Going to make all kinds of other mistakes.
So today he says her views sound more like she has the temperament and ideology of a right-wing radio talk show host.
I'm sure he's been spoken to about it.
Let's keep going.
This is Chuck Schumer.
Now, this is just, if you want to know where the Democrats are, you want to talk about Democrats and unity and trying to unify the people of this country?
Here's Charles Schumer talking about Janice Rogers Brown.
What does Janice Rogers Brown want to be nominated for?
Dictator or grand exalted ruler?
Please.
How can a conservative who believes we ought to follow the rule of law, who believes that there shouldn't be strict construction, that there should be strict constructionism, and is against activist judges, say, support someone who says, I am disinclined to perpetuate dubious law for no better reason than it exists.
What arrogance.
What gall.
Yeah, grand exalted ruler, that didn't sit well with Senator Jeff Sessions of Alabama.
Senator Schumer used words that really were interesting.
Did she want to be a dictator, he said?
What in her record indicates she wants to be a dictator, Mr. President?
And then he said this.
Did she want to be a grand exalted ruler?
Was that some reference to the Ku Klux Klan?
This African American who left as a teenager to go to California.
One reason she left was for discrimination and segregation that existed in rural Alabama where she grew up at that time, the daughter of sharecroppers.
To have it suggested that somehow her ideas are consistent with a Ku Klux Klan is really offensive to me.
It ought to be offensive to Americans.
Yeah, well, it is to those that are hearing it now who may not have been watching C-SPAN 2 today and heard this.
But this is how out of whack the Democrats are by this.
This is a black nominee.
They would never allow these kind of things to be said about a black nominee of a Democrat president.
They would be charging racism and all kinds of things to compare Janice Rogers Brown to the Ku Klux Klan when they have a member, a former member of the Klan sitting in the same body, Sheet Bird.
They have a former member of the Klan as one of their leaders.
And they accuse this woman of being a grand exalted ruler.
Why the panic?
Barbara Boxer will set this all up for you.
She here explains the real reason that they hate Janice Rogers Brown.
It's one speech that she gave about the New Deal.
It was what I was talking about yesterday when the marijuana ruling came out from the Supreme Court about interstate commerce.
It is what Clarence Thomas said in his dissent.
If the Congress can say that any commerce is interstate commerce, then there are no limits on what government can do and there are no limits to its powers.
They may as well just get rid of the states.
May as well get rid of the states because that's the direction this court is taking us.
States' rights are being upturned, overturned every opportunity the Supreme Court gets it.
Whether it's the death penalty for minors, whether it is what states want to write in their laws about sodomy or what have you.
Now medical marijuana prescribed by doctors, the U.S. Supreme Court is to hell with you.
The federal government's going to decide all these things.
States' rights don't mean diddly squat.
Well, we may as well just get rid of the states because they may as well not exist.
Janice Rogers Brown is worried about that.
We posted her speech on my website and we're going to repost it.
I mean, it's always there.
It's in the Essential Stack of stuff, but we're going to feature it on the homepage tonight.
We update the site to reflect the contents of today's show.
So if you missed it, you'll be able to see it.
Here's Barbara Boxer talking about why they really oppose Janice Rogers Brown.
calls the Supreme Court decisions upholding the New Deal protections like the minimum wage and the 40-hour work week the triumph of our own socialist revolution.
I didn't know it was socialism to say that people ought to work 40 hours, basically.
Accuses senior citizens, and this is one of my favorite, of blithely cannibalizing their grandchildren because they have a right to get as much free stuff as the political system permits them to have.
So she looks at grandparents like me as cannibalizing our grandchildren.
How can someone who looks at grandparents as cannibals because they may think it's important to get the social security that they paid into the system for and Medicare that they paid into the system for, they're cannibals.
I'm going to give her the benefit of the doubt.
I think she knows this is all BS and smoke and mirrors because social recipients, Social Security recipients today are receiving far more than they put into the system, far more than was taxed.
In fact, the burden on workers today is getting bigger and bigger.
And we're down to three workers for every retiree.
Read this speech by Janice Rogers Brown and you will see exactly why the libs are upset because she called a spade a spade.
It was a series of Supreme Court decisions that made the New Deal constitutionally possible.
And what she meant by the term cannibalizing grandparents cannibalize their grandkids.
All she means is that it created an entitlement mentality and institutionalized it as part of the American fabric of life.
And it was the New Deal that did this.
Janice Rogers Brown's exactly right about it.
And it was this Supreme Court decision, one of the court decisions in 1942, that the justices yesterday cited to validate no state's rights when it comes to the people of it.
Again, not talking about the issue, but the people in 11 states of this country have voted for medical marijuana as prescribed by a doctor.
The Supreme Court said, nope, not going to allow that.
Interstate commerce clause has been violated.
There is no interstate commerce within one state.
Read Justice Thomas's dissent.
You'll find out exactly what the problem is.
But John Paul Stevens, who wrote the majority opinion, went further and said, well, you know, we've heard stories of patients who don't need the marijuana who go get it and give it to friends.
We've heard stories of unscrupulous doctors who prescribe when it isn't necessary.
And they're making the claim that the justices are, that this is just a ruse by basically a bunch of potheads to get their pot under the guise of phony medical reasons.
That's what the majority basically said in its opinion.
And so Janice Rogers Brown has given a speech.
It was to the University of Chicago Law School about her thoughts on Supreme Court rulings during the New Deal, which established the New Deal as an institution of the American Constitution and of American life.
And of course, since the New Deal is the foundation of liberalism and socialism, and she's right, they cannot stand anybody to tell the truth about it, especially somebody who ought to be in their party, a black woman from Alabama.
Janice Rogers Brown to them is the epitome of a traitor.
She ought to be on the receiving line of all these goodies that FDR set up instead of out there trying to tear it apart.
That's why they hate her, and that's why they consider her a threat.
But she will be confirmed in the vote at 5 o'clock tomorrow afternoon.
Quick time out.
Back after this as we roll right on.
Destined for my own wing in the Museum of Broadcasting, probably my own museum before it's all over.
Great to be with you, Rush Limbaugh.
On loan from God.
And the Ditto Cam is on.
Did you go back here and throw the switch there, Brian?
Good.
Okay.
Ditto Cam is on the feed.
Is on its way to you.
Those of you who subscribe at rushlimbaugh.com, day three of our official podcasting underway today.
The reviews come in.
They're just astounding.
We've got a whole section of testimonial emails from satisfied podcasters on the website at rushlimbaugh.com.
And it's very easy, folks.
All you have to do is become a member of 24-7.
You go get the 24-7 Center software, Media Center software, download it and install it, Mac or Windows.
It's simple.
It's idiot-proof.
And once you install it, open it, run it.
And when these podcasts are available, yesterday it was within an hour of the conclusion of the program.
The software will go get it and download it to your computer.
Keep the program up and running all the time, the media center software.
Whenever there's a podcast, it'll get it.
And then you can do whatever you want.
You can copy the files, play it on iTunes if you have it, or you can put it on your MP3 player, your iPod, or what have you.
And then you have portability.
And we're just having tremendous fun and success with this.
So now not only on the cutting edge of societal evolution, the cutting edge of radio, but of podcasting as well.
The EIB network takes the lead.
I want you to listen, and it's going to sound boring to you, but I've got a point to make after this.
Barbara Boxer yesterday on the Senate floor came to the floor with a whole bunch of big signs in the aisle next to her.
And basically, this was debating Janice Rogers Brown's nomination to be an appellate judge on the D.C. Circuit.
And all Barbara Boxer does is read the list of names of all the wacko-liberal groups that came together to oppose her nomination.
I want you to listen to the groups that are opposed to Janice Rogers Brown.
ADA Watch National Coalition for Disability Rights, Advocates for the West, AFL-CIO, Alliance for Justice, Alliance for Retired Americans, American Association of University Women.
And I want you to think about why these groups oppose her.
Every one of them opposed her because they have read her list of cases and they understand that she will hurt them, retired Americans.
Will you hear about what she thinks about seniors?
American Association of University Women, American Federation of State, County, and Municipal Employees, American Lands Alliance, American Planning Association, American Rivers, Americans for Democratic Action, Americans United for Separation of Church and State, Amigos Bravos, Basilan Center for Mental Health Law, Center for Biological Diversity, Center for Healthcare Advocacy, Citizens Coal Council,
Clean Air Council, Clean Water Action, Clean Water Action Council, Black Women Lawyers of Los Angeles, California Abortion and Reproductive Rights Action, California Association of Black Lawyers, Californians for Fair and Independent Judges, California Federation of Labor, AFLCAO, California League of Conservation Voters, California National Organization for Women.
Do we have more here?
Yeah, they did.
Okay, so you're asking why, Rush, why waste our time with this?
Folks, this is an important point.
All these groups, all of these groups opposed to Janice Rogers Brown, all of them came together.
They lost.
All these groups lost.
All these groups were unable to keep Janice Rogers Brown off the bench.
All these groups bit the dust.
All these groups were humiliated because they were identified on the floor of the Senate yesterday as losers.
Their power was not sufficient enough to keep the woman off the bench.
Now, you wonder why I'm not afraid of Hillary Clinton.
There's a bunch of losers.
They don't have the power that they once thought they had.
Jeff in Hermiston, Oregon, welcome to the EIB Network.
Nice to have you with us, sir.
Yes, good afternoon, Rush.
Senator Sessions made a very disrespectful comment in his remarks there about the grand exalted ruler that Janice Rogers Brown supposedly wants to be.
The grand exalted ruler is the leader of the benevolent protective order of elks, not a Klansman.
Okay, well, let me ask you a question about this, Jeff.
Do you think that Charles Schumer was ripping her for being a leader of the elks?
I think he got his references mixed up.
Yeah, he did.
He did.
Charles just ought to tell you how in touch Democrats are.
They hear the term grand exalted ruler, and they ought to think elks.
If they were spending time in the state of New York with people like you who are elks, who are members of this organization, he would know that the grand exalted ruler is an ilk, but he thinks it's a member of the Klan.
What's Jeff Sessions supposed to do?
He knew what Schumer's implication was, and he wasn't going to let him get away with it.
I guess he could have made fun of him for not knowing what the elks are, but I mean, it's clear that if I were you, I wouldn't take any offense at this.
Other than if you're going to be offended at somebody, be offended at Schumer or be angry at Schumer for not knowing what the BPOE elks are.
Exactly, Rush.
And you're a big hit over here on this side of the state.
It's red over on this side big time.
Yeah, I know that.
I don't know.
I don't know what difference states make anymore, folks.
Whatever people in the states do, the Supreme Court's going to tell them they can't.
Really?
I mean, what good are states' rights from Prop 187 in California to what other prop in California now to the, again, leaving the issue aside, medical marijuana.
I had somebody send me a note yesterday.
Rush, you're missing a point on this.
This is just a bunch of potheads, and all it is is they want marijuana, and they know it's never going to be legalized, so they want to have it legalized as medicine that is prescribed.
You can go out and get marinol, and it is legal, and it's the same thing, but you don't smoke it.
It's a pill, and you take it.
And I happen to know about marinol.
My mother was given marinol when she was dying with cancer, and she was given marinol simply for her appetite, and it didn't work.
Not that it doesn't work.
I don't know any about it other than that, but she was prescribed marinol, and it took three weeks to get it.
I mean, you would not have believed the circuitous route that it had to be gotten from.
But she took it, and it didn't enhance her appetite.
And I don't know that it had any other effect on her at all.
Well, yeah, Mr. Sterdley just asked me, do I think it's damaging when the people say they're not going to obey the law anyway?
You know how this happened?
What happened was that this woman has never been charged with anything.
The woman about whom, where does that sound familiar?
The woman has never been charged with anything, and her case ends up at the Supreme Court.
And what happened was she was smoking marijuana, prescribed marijuana for, I guess she's got cancer.
I don't know what her malady is, but back pain or something, smoking it for pain relief related to some sickness that she had.
And the local prosecutor begged the federal government, don't go in there and charge this woman.
And they went in there anyway.
The local DA where she lives begged them not to, and they went in there and did it anyway.
So that was the origin of the case.
So the question is, all right, these people say, hell with the law.
We're going to keep trying to get medical marijuana.
We're going to try to smoke it and so forth.
I'm not for lawlessness.
I don't think that's the way to go about dealing with these things.
But this is, you know, these people are obviously going to run the risk of doing it.
And they're going to get caught.
I mean, the federal authorities are going to enforce this.
They're going to try to.
And she's going to get in some kind of trouble if she does get caught.
And wherever she gets it, whoever supplies it for her, given this ruling, is also going to be in some trouble, too, because they will enforce it.
The state has been taken out of the equation.
So, you know, the federal government's already getting involved in who can be prescribed what and how much in a whole number of different cases or medicines.
And this will be no different.
But they're not going to legalize marijuana and people that go violate the law, they're going to be pursued.
No question.
I wouldn't advocate this as a means of doing it, but there are people that do this.
Martin Luther King violated the law.
A number of civil rights advocates have violated the law because they didn't agree with the law.
They were praised and their efforts proved fruitful.
But I don't know if that's the best comparison breaking a law over the legality of marijuana compared to breaking laws in the civil rights era, which were clearly discriminating and overreaching and unconstitutional, as they were finally adjudged to be.
Let me take a quick time out.
We'll be back and continue after this.
Stay with us.
Let's go to the phones.
People have been patiently waiting.
Gillette, Wyoming.
Jason, hi.
Welcome to the EIB Network, sir.
Mega Oilfield Discord.
Nope.
Yeah, we're got a bad.
Let me handle it.
We got a bad cell connection.
We've dealt with this a couple of times before.
He wanted to make the point that Janice Rogers Brown was reconfirmed to the California Supreme Court by 76% of the vote.
Yeah, I think 82% statewide.
She got 76% in the Bay Area.
She got a larger percentage of the votes in the Bay Area than Barbara Boxer did.
Now, California Supreme Court judges are appointed, and I think every four to six years, I'm not sure the number, they face a reconfirmation vote.
Nobody else is on the ballot.
You just have an up or down yes or no on those Supreme Court justices that come up.
And she was reconfirmed by 76% of the vote.
And so his question was, how can it be said that so many people oppose her?
It can't be said.
The whole thing is being trumped up here, folks.
Once again, it's the Democrats and their media buddies echoing sentiments about her to try to indicate that there's renowned and universal opposition to her when such is not the case.
Now, look at this story in the Washington Post today.
Headline, post-ABC poll.
Bush ignoring public concerns.
Majority says president distracted by issues they care little about.
So once again, what has a poll become, folks?
A network news poll is nothing more than an editorial that they can put on the front page and call it news.
You go out with your polling unit, you phrase the questions to get the answers that you want, and then you run the story as though bamboo.
Look what we found.
Look what people are thinking out there.
When people didn't call the post, nobody originated this train of thought.
Somebody at the post or their polling unit got the idea.
I wonder if, you know, I wonder if we ask people if they think the president is listening to them what they would say.
They know what the answer would be.
How many of you think the president ever listens to you?
You know, you can write this question guaranteed to get the result you want.
Here are the details of the story.
A clear majority of Americans say President Bush is ignoring the public's concerns and instead has become distracted by issues that most people say they care little about.
The survey found that 58% of those interviewed said that Bush is concentrating mainly in his second term on problems and partisan squabbles that these respondents said were unimportant to them.
41% said the president was focused on important problems, a double-digit drop from three years ago.
Underlying that finding is a continuing deep and bitter partisan divide that has fueled increasingly bitter fights in Congress, most recently over some of Bush's nominees to the federal courts.
Relatively few Americans viewed that issue as particularly important.
According to the poll, nearly eight in 10 Democrats say Bush is not concentrating on issues they personally view as vital, while three out of four Republicans disagree.
Okay, so basically what the poll says is, we went out and we talked to a bunch of Democrats.
Democrats don't think the president's doing what they want him to do.
Ergo, Bush isn't listening.
75% of Republicans disagreed with the Democrats on this.
So we get a poll focusing on what the Democrats say.
What the hell is the point?
We know who the Democrats are.
They hate Bush, particularly the Democrats that read the Washington Post, New York Times.
They hate him.
It's a damn good thing that Bush isn't listening to them.
But let me raise a larger issue.
Do we want government by polls?
Or do we want presidents to do what they think is right?
Do we want presidents to have an agenda and lead?
I have yet to hear of a great poll reader also be called a leader.
As to this business about the judges and a bunch of people don't think it's important, too bad it is.
If a president went out and took a poll and said, you know what, I want to reform Social Security people, I don't think it's important.
What if he thinks it is?
What's he supposed to do?
A leader leads, attempts to persuade people why it's important.
We know that public education in this country is woefully bad.
We know that a lot of people do not understand the Constitution.
We know that a lot of people look at the Supreme Court as the unit that decides political disagreements in this country.
That's not what it was intended to be.
The Supreme Court and the federal bench has become primarily an instrument of the left where liberalism has become institutionalized, where it's insulated from the arena of public ideas and debate.
The more liberal judges you have inventing law with a liberal tint or deciding cases in favor of liberals or literally ignoring the meaning of the Constitution and the original intent, then you have liberalism made part of the institutional fabric and there's nothing people can do about it if they disagree with it because you can't re-elect or throw judges out and you can't say we don't like that law.
We think it needs to be defeated with a new law.
That's what happens in Congress and that's where the people have a voice, but they don't have a voice with the courts.
The president sees a problem as do a lot of people.
Now if the public, for whatever reason, is ignorant about the Constitution, the framework of this country, why it is great, why it has survived.
If the people of this country are ignorant, are they to be listened to?
Are we supposed to take a poll of ignorant people and do what they say as a majority should be done?
Not a responsible president will not do that.
A leader will not do that.
So all we have here is a story that's designed to make the readers of the Washington Post think that Bush is an arrogant snob, doesn't care about the concerns of average people, and is go ahead and cut taxes for the rich, raise taxes on the poor, and make sure nobody has a chance to get ahead in life.
This is all about creating depression, disgust, a sour attitude in people.
It's all about transferring the anger and the rage that those on the left and in the media have to the readers and viewers that comprise their audience.
This is nothing more than an editorial on the front page, poorly disguised as a news story.
Back after this, stay with us.
Sadly, my friends, not sufficient time remaining to take another call or even to get into another item here in great depth.
So we'll just save it all.
Lots of great stuff coming up in our final hour.
Again, the Ditto Cam is on at rushlimbaugh.com.
And while you're there, if you haven't signed up, you may as well become one of our podcasters.
It's free.
Just download the Rush 24-7 Media Center and magic happens.
Be back right after this.
▲
Export Selection