All Episodes
Previous Next
June 9, 2005 - Rush Limbaugh Program
36:20
June 9, 2005, Thursday, Hour #1
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
And you are tuned to the nation's most listened to radio talk show a nation, a program rather that leads in virtually every category of measure measured listenership, ladies and gentlemen.
A program that meets and surpasses all audience expectations on a daily basis.
This is the Rush Limbaugh program and the EIB network.
And since this is the uh the final day that I'm going to be here this week, we've got um Dr. Walter Williams will be here tomorrow with more stories of his wife.
Uh and and who knows whatever else.
Uh we're ditto camming all three hours today for those of you at RushlinBoy.com.
And we will have uh even some special podcasts for you tomorrow.
It will not be a uh a podcast of the program tomorrow.
We're not gonna podcast the guest host, but we we are preparing a uh uh a podcast package that will include some of the morning updates from this week uh for you uh tomorrow.
So there will not be a day that goes by that you don't get a podcast, those of you who are subscribers at Rushlinball.com.
Great to have you with us, folks.
The uh telephone number 800-282-2882, the email address is rush at eIBNet.com.
We're gonna do open line Friday on Thursday today, uh since we'll not be here tomorrow.
The uh and it's a it's a vacation day, folks.
It's I'm just vacation day.
I'm I can't I can't tell you what I'm gonna do or where I'm gonna go because a whole bunch of people will show up there.
And and so I'll I'll tell you after I get back where I was.
That's that's the new rule here, with rules been in place for years.
Uh, but nevertheless, uh the program will go on tomorrow with Dr. Williams.
Now uh we're gonna, as I say, sort of incorporate open line Friday rules today, uh Monday through Thursday, this program is devoted exclusively to things that interest me, things that I care about.
Because I don't talk about things I don't care about, because if I did that, you'd you could tell I don't care.
And you'd you'd hear I'm bored and you'd be bored.
But on Friday, or today, we open it up to maybe things I'm not interested in.
I mean, it's possible that that could happen if you think that something needs to be discussed that hasn't been.
If you have a question or comment, this is the day of the week to do it.
800 282-2882 is the telephone number.
All right, folks, I want to start off here with the uh with the judge deal.
I'm I'm I'm starting to see some giddiness out there from people on our side that these judges are being confirmed this week.
Janice Rogers Brown yesterday, Bill Pryor will be will be confirmed today, and uh the uh uh uh Priscilla Owen last week, well, uh was it last week or before the break?
It was before the Memorial Day break.
Uh so the three that were uh agreed to by virtue of that gang of 14 deal uh by the end of today will have been uh confirmed.
And the like yesterday, for example, Janice Rogers Brown confirmed by uh uh 56 to 42 there was one Democrat that crossed over and voted for was Ben Nelson of Nebraska, who, by the way, is one of the Democrats gang of seven.
But we had a call yesterday from somebody saying, I'm I'm glad to see the rush that you may be uh admitting you were wrong here in criticizing the deal when it happened.
I said, Whoa, well, what makes you think I'm changing my tune on the deal?
I'm not I'm not changing my tune on the deal at all.
I still think it's a bad deal because the judicial or the filibuster's still there.
I mean, it's still and it's gonna happen.
But here's uh what troubles me.
Um there's all kinds of giddiness out there now from hey, look, Rush!
Hey, look, we're getting the judges.
We're getting the judges.
Uh you know why you're giddy?
You're giddy because expectations have been lowered.
The liberals have successfully lowered expectations, and uh people on our side are buying it.
These judges, under traditional and normal circumstances, should have been confirmed years ago.
The same with the rest of them.
They're not giving us anything here.
Now you might say, well, yeah, but we're winning.
We're winning because they were filibustering.
Yeah, we're winning, but I mean, this is the way it always used to happen.
You always had judges confirmed by votes of 52, 51, 56.
This this should have happened years ago.
This is really nothing to celebrate in terms of a big victory.
I mean, it's it's because this is the normal way that judicial nominees who come out of the judiciary committee get confirmed.
Uh you know, what what's what this is what's always happened in the past after you win elections.
And this really is nothing to uh to to gaga over.
Uh, And I'll tell you what, the Democrats are getting angrier and angrier about this.
Now I can see why some people think it's time to be happy because the Democrats are mad, and I can grant you that.
I mean, I can understand it's great to see the Democrats mad and uh and PO'd and all that.
But because they're mad, after they let a few of these judges go through, there may be a little bit of a rebellion in their ranks, but they're going to stonewall again, and we're going to have to do what we needed to do in the first place, and that is break the unconstitutional filibuster.
That day is still ahead of us.
That day is still coming.
Now, a lot of people are saying that uh that that Bill Frist won on the filibuster deal.
Uh others are saying the deal was good, that we're getting the judges look at this.
Uh and uh this is not a criticism of Senator Frist.
I I'm I'm merely addressing the attitudes of uh of those of you on our side in this.
You know, it it it if if you're all excited, wow, man, Nitz is cool, all right.
We are kicking butt.
Folks, this is what should have been happening all along.
This is what always used to happen.
Uh it has taken years to get to what always used to happen.
Uh we were always supposed to get judges.
That's why you win elections.
That's what happens.
But mark my words, this deal is not gonna last.
The liberals will filibuster at some point down the road, and the Republicans will then kill it.
They'd better because conservatives reacted so strongly against this deal.
If that when that f when that first filibuster of uh of a judicial nominee comes up, Republicans better kill it because conservatives reacted so strongly to it, efforts to negotiate away another part of the Constitution.
Um we're gonna be the ones who force the issue.
Uh if we'd applauded this sellout, the Republican majority would not have the stomach to beat back the obstruction uh when it comes up again, which it will.
So I I think I just think it's important here to understand the dynamics and and not play the inside the beltway game of which politician won and which politician lost.
This is about we the people.
And uh, you know, we worked hard, a lot of you did, to get certain people elected, and there are reasons that people get elected, and this is one of them.
You get to shape the judiciary after you win elections.
And we are the ones who are driving this agenda as as we should be.
And I think it's a little defensive and almost a little bit like minority thinking.
Wow, man, okay, we got our judges in there.
Yeah, we did, but it uh we didn't and I'm not downplaying the importance of that in the in the real world.
I'm just saying that for the future, you know, the you don't don't don't start changing your mind about about about this deal being a good thing, because you're gonna find out down the road that we still have to deal with this filibuster business.
Um and now it's it's just it's hilarious.
Harry Reed, dingy Harry's out there saying that we've spent way too much time on these judges anyway.
He can't believe that we've shut down the government, basically, over five judges, he's saying.
And he's blaming the Bush administration for this.
We're not dealing with gas prices, we're not dealing with health care, we're not dealing with the issues of the people, and it's the president's fault.
This is loser lingo, folks.
I know Dingy Harry's loves to describe President Bush as a loser, but this is loser lingo.
He's now trying once again to redefine the terms.
He's trying to make it look like they had nothing to do with this four-year delay on Priscilla Owen.
With this three-year delay on Janice Rogers Brown.
Yeah, that was all Bush's fault.
Why Bush nominated these judges three and four years ago, and if Bush had been serious about it, they'd have been confirmed three or four.
This is absurd.
It's absurd.
The Democrat, their policy committee also had a uh a meeting yesterday to come up with new ideas.
The uh new Democrat coalition huddled for three hours to plot strategy to determine which issues it'll champion and try to generate new ideas for the Democratic Party.
Three hours.
After three hours, they they, for all intents and purposes admitted, they don't have any ideas.
Oh, I take it back.
I I take I take it back.
They have one.
Uh they had one.
They they discussed the desire to weigh in soon on predatory lending.
Uh it's all it says here.
Predatory lending.
So you've got portability of pensions now, predatory lending, election day is a national holiday, and voting machines must have a paper trail.
Those are the issues that the Democrat leadership has come up with.
Combined leadership has come up with as uh as their ticket to ride uh back to uh power in the country.
Gotta take a quick time out.
We got some audio sound bites, lots of stuff in the stacks today, plus your phone calls.
Remember, it's open line Friday on Thursday today, 800 282-2882.
If you'd like to take a stab at it all, we'll be back and continue just after this.
Ha, how are you?
Welcome back.
Great to be with you, folks.
It's L. Rushbo, firmly ensconced here behind this a golden EIB microphone.
I'm in the prestigious and distinguished Attila the Hun chair at our institute here.
Telephone numbers 800-282-2882.
Yes, so the dingy hairy, it's become a talking point.
Durbin's out there saying it, and uh, of course, uh the smartest man in the Senate now, Barack Obama.
Have you caught that?
This this guy's being touted as the smartest guy in the Senate.
He can't be said to be the smartest person in the Senate because that's Hillary.
The smartest guy in the Senate is Barack Obama.
And I have to tell you, I don't get it.
I don't see it.
I hear Barack Obama speak, and I I think it's all spin.
He says nothing different anybody else is saying, and he's picked up on this talking point that uh that the that Bush and the Republicans have shut down the country, folks.
They have shut down the country over the judges.
We're not doing the work of the people.
Uh because we've shut down the country over the judges.
And they're all picking it up, and this, of course, is to simply mask their defeat.
This is done simply to redefine terms and to mask their defeat.
And so they while a Republicans are out there acting all giddy because they got these three judges through.
Uh the Democrats know they look like losers, and so they're trying to take their loser platform, turn it around as far as the media is concerned, and make it look like this is a no big deal.
No big deal anyway.
Who cares about five judges, dingy hair?
Five judges.
We've shut down the whole country over five judges.
It was just two weeks ago these guys are I mean, I thought Bob Bird thought said that we saved a country, didn't he?
After the gang of 14 did their little uh dance, Bob Byrd was saved a republic.
We saved the Senate.
All this, I mean, I I I can't, I can't keep track of these people.
Either the country was not moving and we shut it down, or they saved it, one way or the other.
It's just it's it's an exercise, folks, in just how uh uh some people might say good they are.
Uh others might say how just hopeless they are.
They just they they will not admit that they lose.
They will not admit to defeat.
Uh and of course, they will not allow anybody to blame them.
All right, now this story about new Democrats searching for new ideas is in the Hill newspaper, the New Democrat Coalition.
Now, this is not to be confused with this uh gang of mutts that met uh last week in a Take Back America.
Uh was that this week?
I can't keep track.
I guess it was early because last week was the week after Memorial Day and nobody was doing anything then.
I guess it was this week.
No, because they met on a Wednesday though.
It was last Wednesday and Thursday, because last Thursday when Dean went up there and spoke and you know made his uh his conversation.
So it's a week ago that the gang of mutts called the Take Back America Conference met.
This is a different group, the New Democrat Coalition.
They got together for three hours yesterday, uh, or actually Tuesday, to plot strategy to determine which issues they will champion and try to generate new ideas for the Democratic Party.
The gathering was billed as a retreat for the group of 42 centrist House Democrats.
So 42 centrist House Democrats get together, calling themselves a new Democrat coalition, part of an ongoing effort launched earlier this year to increase New Democrats clout in Congress and help them become a source of ideas for the party as a whole.
Until this year, the new Democrats' influence had been waning.
They had struggled to find their voice and relevancy after the like-minded Clinton administration ended.
Uh there's this little paragraph.
A large part of this process is about framing ideas.
So when Democrats do take power, we're ready for prime time, said uh Congressman Arter Davis, uh Democrat Alabama, one of the group's three co-chairs.
When Republicans were out of power, they sat around thinking of ideas.
When we're out of power, we engage in endless hand-wringing.
Part of this process is about having ideas we can implement once we have power.
The the these are the no, the these are well, these are the these are no, this is uh this is a new group of new Democrats, not to be confused with the Clinton New Democrats, because these these guys are trying to act in the image of the Clinton New Democrats.
But this is the new Democrat coalition, I guess what yeah, New Democrat coalition.
It's it's y so it's not the old Clinton Democrat coalition.
It's the new new uh Democrat co- Yeah, it's it's a new group of guys.
But they think they're they're people.
They think they're they're working in the image of the new Democrats of the Clinton years.
So, anyway, a large part of this process is about framing ideas so when Democrats do take power, we are ready for prime time.
Is that not a little pathetic?
Isn't that sort of putting the uh the the cart before the horse?
Well, tell you what we're gonna do when we'll get power back.
This is what we're gonna do.
Yeah, well, how are you gonna get power back?
Uh oh, yeah.
Well, we're working on that.
The new Democrats' agenda represents an expansion of their focus during the Clinton administration when they limited themselves to economic issues.
The previous agenda, they say, was uh focused on growth.
I think we'll continue to work on those issues and talk more broadly about security and values.
I think there's a general sense that Democrats need to be better on those issues.
This from Adam Smith, a Democrat from Washington, also a co-chairman.
Now, wait a minute, this doesn't, this doesn't this d this does not jibe with Howard Dean out there ripping Christians.
Because he says here, does Adam Smith, uh uh, we gotta talk more broadly about security and values.
That's that's code lingo.
We gotta reach out to the people in the red states.
But how are you gonna reach out to the people in the red states when Howard Dean's out there offending them?
Although the group, after three hours of meeting, although the group did not come to any conclusion about what its positions will be.
They said the process will take three months.
Many members said that they did enjoy an engaging discussion.
Folks, can I put this in perspective?
If I convened a meeting of conservatives, it would take us about 10 minutes to express our beliefs.
We wouldn't have to think about it, we wouldn't have to talk about it, we wouldn't have to negotiate it, we wouldn't have to ask each other questions, and it would be the same beliefs that we've had for 30 and 40 years.
It would be that the values that are in our guts, it would be the values that are in part of our core.
There wouldn't even be a meeting needed like this for conservatives to get together.
Whenever conservatives got together, it was to plot strategy on how to win.
We knew what we wanted to do, but we knew we couldn't do it till we won.
And by the way, I've never been part of those strategy sessions, so don't misunderstand the word we here.
But I'm I'm this this is absurd here.
They didn't come to any conclusions about what their positions will be.
Where was George Lakhoff?
Lakkoff could have come in and told them what to say anyway, uh if they don't have positions.
How can these centrists?
This is my point about moderates, is a bunch of moderates they don't know what they believe.
Can I translate this for you?
It's not that they don't know what they believe, it's they're not sure that what they believe will sell, and so they've got to wait for some sign that what they believe is actually acceptable to a lot of people, and then they'll tell everybody what it is.
It's it's pathetic.
They didn't come to any conclusion about what the positions will be.
How long would it take you?
If you sat down with a liberal, how long would it take you?
You could start instantly telling a liberal what you believe.
Wouldn't take ten minutes.
Instantly you could tell a liberal what you believe.
A moderate obviously can't do this.
In three hours, a bunch of moderates can't come to an agreement on what their positions are.
And these are the people are gonna leave, and these are the people going to lead the party back to power, and they're getting ready for prime time so that when they get their power back, they can come forward and tell everybody what their positions are.
You gotta do that before you get power.
Uh Brian Baird, a Democrat from Washington said, I think good things are going to come of this.
Clearly, this is a group that has refound its energy, and it'll be exerting influence in the caucus and in the public image of the party.
By this point in my life, I've attended thousands of these meetings, and many times I walk away and say it was a waste of time.
Well, this was not at all the case this time.
Really?
Three hours?
You don't know what you are?
Three hours you don't know what your positions are?
Three hours you don't know what your beliefs are.
Three hours you have no clue what you believe.
Oh, I'm sorry.
There is one folks, I keep forgetting.
They did come to an agreement about one thing.
Uh and that is uh let me find it.
What did I do with it?
Maybe I threw it away because it's so irrelevant.
Yeah, but I got yeah, but yeah, it's predatory lending, but I didn't throw it away.
Aside from this is Stan Collander, uh budget guru.
Aside from considering their broader message, new Democrats also discussed a desire to weigh in soon on predatory lending.
Well, I don't know whether it could be for it or against it.
I mean, they just they just they just decided to address it.
But for it or again, who knows?
I don't even know what they're talking about.
That's exactly what we do.
We make the complex understandable.
We have the Harry Reed soundbite.
This was at a press conference yesterday, uh, saying that the judge battle has shut down the nation.
We have squandered legislative time in the Senate with these judges.
No question about it.
I can't imagine the president's going to allow this the country to be brought to a standstill.
And that's what's happened for the last two months.
And for these five judges, that's what's happened.
You would have thought that he never cared.
You would think that he never opposed them.
These five judges.
These five judges, these five judges, five irrelevant people.
Why, these five judges were gonna destroy the country.
They were gonna tear up the Constitution.
They were gonna rip it to shreds, and they were gonna flush it down Harry Reed's toilet.
These people were so out of the mainstream, they were so extreme, folks.
These judges had to be stopped at all costs, and now I can't imagine the president's gonna allow the country to be brought to a standstill.
We've squandered legislative time in the Senate with these judges.
Let me tell you what's happened.
They've got some focus group data polling out there, folks.
They've got some internal polling, and it doesn't look good for them.
That's exactly what this means.
That plus trying to change the subject.
That plus trying to redefine the terms here.
But they have to have some polling data that shows them really taking it in the shorts on this.
And so they're trying to turn this around.
We don't, we never cared about judges.
What is this?
We had we were just president caused this to happen.
Why nominated these people three, four years ago?
And uh why I can't believe we spent three or four years on five people, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah.
This is by the way, it's exactly what I mean when I tell you that liberals look at you and see a bunch of dunces, folks.
This is how stupid they think you are.
This is how condescending they can be.
You are so stupid.
Maybe it's also in reaction to the fact that a lot of people aren't paying a lot of attention to this.
Maybe they've got internal polling data that says, you know, a whole lot of people aren't even paying attention to this.
And Dingy Harry saying, you know, we're wasting a lot of time on this because nobody cares.
We're not scoring points here because nobody cares.
Who knows whatever, but they've got internal polling data, and it doesn't look good for them.
Ergo, dingy Harry's statement.
And the Washington Post story about Janice Rogers Brown being approved for the DC circuit.
Dingy Harry has the following quote.
She is the epitome of an activist judge.
She is a judge.
She's not a legislator.
She has no right to do the things that she does.
This was yesterday.
The same day he said, I can't believe we're holding everything up for five people.
I can't believe the president would do this, would shut down the legislation and the agenda of the people.
I can't believe that Bush would do this.
And then he says the same day, she has no right to do the things that she does.
That's that's incredible.
She has no right to do the things that she does.
Well, she's an American citizen, Dingy Harry.
All right, it's it's it's back now to confusion for the Democrats.
I have two stories here, folks.
I want to share the headlines.
One's from the San Francisco Chronicle, local chronicle reporter, and one's the Boston Globe, Nina Easton, and Rick Klein, Globe staff writer.
Well, Nina Easton, I think is their bureau chief in Washington.
At recent Fox News contributor, you know, that That conservative TV network uh uh Nina Easton uh has just been named a commentator.
She's on the round table with Britt Hume.
Uh, and she's uh she's uh Bureau Chief of the Boston Globe and Washington.
She's working on a conservative news network.
Fox News Channel.
At any rate.
Headline, the Boston Globe.
Democratic leaders stand up for Dean.
San Francisco Chronicle.
Dean uh Dems distance themselves from Dean.
Two stories.
Right there, folks.
Those of you watching on the middle cam see him, I'm showing them to you.
What are we to make of this?
Democratic leaders stand up for Dean.
Let's look at this one first.
This is Nina Easton and Rick Klein.
A round of criticism from fellow Democrats and major donors about Howard Dean's four-month tenure as DNC chairman has prompted Senate leaders to rise to his defense at a public event planned for today.
Told you, I told you the Democrat leadership in the Senate is going to embrace him.
They don't want any anything at all to happen to him.
He's saying exactly what they all want to say themselves.
Originally scheduled as a private meeting between Dean and the leadership team of Senate minority leader Dingy Harry Reed of Nevada.
Today's session instead will now include a news conference and photo op as a public embrace of Dean.
Has that happened?
Did that happen this morning?
It's happening now.
All right, well, we'll try to get some tape of this.
Uh so they have a public embrace of Dean.
A Senate leadership will have a public embrace.
What did I tell you yesterday?
Do I know these people?
Yes.
I do not agree with those comments, said Stenny Hoyer, Congressman from uh Maryland.
Party chairman's job is to organize the party to support policy makers.
Time will tell whether Dean has undercut his standing, said Harold Ickees, a longtime Clinton advisor, who supported Dean's bid for DNC chairman.
There are people who are unhappy about it and think his comments are less than helpful.
Some of his comments will reinforce the view that he sometimes talks before really I'm I'm stunned by the way that the mainstream press is analyzing this.
I want you to pretend that George Bush was saying this on the stump.
But George Bush was saying the exact things that Dean's saying, only about Democrats.
I want you to imagine, I want you to realize it would be front-page headlines for a week.
It would be the constant lead editorial of the Washington Post and the and the uh New York Times about how the public discourse is being coarsened and brought to a new low, and the politics of personal destruction is on the march and all of this.
But yet, when Dean says this, the left-wing media gets in gear and they start analyzing it.
And they get points of view from both sides.
Some say it's bad, some say it's okay.
But the bottom line is for the for the Boston Globe, hey, hey, he's gonna be embraced by the Senate leadership, so who are we to criticize him?
Then there's a columnist, this Joan Vinoke, and I I hope she pronounces her name that way.
I have no clue, and I'm not trying to mispronounce it's V-E-N-N-O-C-H-I.
I'm assuming it's Vinocchia could be Venacci.
I don't know.
But her headline is Dean isn't the problem.
So she's defending Howard Dean here.
Democrats are running against Howard Dean instead of George W. Bush of the GOP, or better yet, running for principles that matter to the country.
It makes little sense unless the intent is to destroy what's left of their shell of a party.
Dean is under attack by fellow Democrats who are allegedly upset.
He's not under attack.
Is this an attack?
Virtually every Democrat say, Well, I wouldn't say it that way, but I think he's got a right to say it.
Well, I wouldn't say exactly what he said.
But you know, he's an American, and uh I think I would tone my language that boy, he's doing a great job out there as party chairman.
Oh, I don't support those views, but he's doing a great job.
What this is an attack.
There haven't been any attacks on Howard Dean.
That's the whole point.
Zip Zero Nada.
But this constitutes an attack, according to Ms. Venacci Vinocchi.
How shocking.
Dean said I hate the Republicans and everything they stand for.
He defined the political landscape as a struggle between good and evil.
Is that any worse than a comment by Harry Reid, the Democrat Senate leader who said, I think this guy's a loser?
About Bush?
Is it worse than Senator Clinton of New York saying there's never been an administration I don't believe in our history more intent upon consolidating and abusing power to further their own agenda?
During the 2004 presidential campaign, uh Dean's professor or predecessor, the punk, Tori McCulliff, was famous for personal attacks against President Bush.
He described Bush as being a wall, absent without leave during his stent in the National Guard, declared that George Bush continually lies.
But Democrats never cared what McAuliffe said.
All that mattered was the money he raised, compliments of his vaunted schmoozing skills.
Now a few hot shot donors are upset that Dean isn't stroking them as constantly as McCaula, and suddenly he's a failure.
So for Democrats, she writes, running for president in 08 apparently means running against Dean in 05.
It is so much easier to run against Dean than to fight for real principles.
Bush meets with Britain's Prime Minister Tony Blair.
The two are finally forced to address a 2002 memo written by a British official of fixed intelligence.
Blah blah blah.
Both leaders deny the memo accurately reflects events.
Case closed.
Uh well, hey, Dean's not talking about it either, uh Joan.
Dean's not because it's bogus.
It it's it's it's it's purely bogus.
Let's move on to San Francisco Chronicle.
Dems distance themselves from Dean.
Leading Democrats distanced themselves Wednesday from Howard Dean's characterization of the GOP as a white Christian party, while suggesting Republicans have seized on the Democratic Party chief's controversial remark to divert attention from the Bush administration's failures at home and abroad.
Right.
Right, right, right.
That's exactly what's going on.
We're focusing on Dean to divert it.
Nancy Pelosi told reporters Wednesday, I don't agree with the statement that was made.
Uh uh uh but but she didn't ask for him to go anywhere.
In a later telephone interview, Pelosi firmly rejected any talk that Dean should resign uh from his post, calling that ridiculous and unthinkable.
Wouldn't they just love that, she said of Republicans.
Howard Dean's doing a great job.
He energizes the grassroots.
Dai Fi, Diane Feinstein tougher than Pelosi in her reaction to Dean's statements.
She said that the Democratic Party chairman should concentrate on raising funds and supporting Democrats and not on making outrageous statements.
Delyn Tosher, Democrat Walnut Creek.
I don't agree with what Howard Dean is saying, and I don't agree that you have to resort to pejorative personal attacks to make your point, especially when we have the high ground.
But Tosher also said Dean should stay on in the job.
Well, so I don't really see any criticism of Dean here.
I I just don't I think I think you have a lot of Democrats, you know, wanting it both ways.
They want it on the record that they don't approve of this stuff, but as far as doing anything about stopping Dean from saying it, oh no, no, no, no.
We shouldn't do that.
I'm just telling they want him to say this stuff.
They like him saying it.
Democrat leadership in the Senate's gonna have this big pow out a day embracing him in public as a show of support.
And if if I just want you to pretend again, if all this are reversed and some Republican power broker were saying the kind of things about Democrats that Dean's saying about Republicans.
You think they hate Bolton.
It's possible that if a Republican had done that, he would have already been run out of town.
He would have been run out of town.
That that it would be the end of his career.
Clearly, the double standard lives on, and we're not surprised that it does.
Quick timeout, we'll be back.
Resume right after this.
Hold your head up, folks.
This is Argent.
Know what year this is, Mr. Snerdley.
72, 73, somewhere around there.
72 is the year.
We are back.
Let's go to the phones.
It's open line Friday on Thursday.
Jennifer in Indianapolis.
I'm glad you waited.
Uh welcome to the program.
Hi, Rush.
Thanks for taking my call.
Anytime.
I had a question.
Um, the president I saw in the news is in Columbus.
I assume that's Ohio today, um, trying to get support for beefing up the Patriot Act.
And I'm a conservative, but when I complain about the Patriot Act, people say I'm a liberal.
Um, I just wondered what you thought about that, because I just read Judge Napolitano's book, Ca Constitutional Chaos, which uh points out a lot of unconstitutional parts of the Patriot Act.
Yeah, some things about it concern me.
I must be honest.
The ability to go out and uh storm into somebody's house without a warrant is something that they want.
Or um the thing that gets me is a definition of an enemy combatant.
I mean, that's so vague that any any of us, depending on who's in power, could be an enemy combatant.
I think, you know, this is a toughie.
I think one of the things, Jennifer, that's driving the Patriot Act...
Look at we just found out that in a low-yeah, California.
Right.
Stuck in Lodi.
Credence Clearwater Revival.
I'd be by 1968, I think.
Uh but I mean you never know the apparently we've got we've got open borders.
We've got people in this country all over the place that could be part of cells.
After 9-11 happened, you have to understand uh uh leadership and uh and law enforcement after 9-11.
They really got reamed for doing a horrible job of preventing it when it was uh in many people's minds it was preventable.
At least if the dots had been connected, we'd have known more before it than we did after it.
And I think that there's a there's a reaction here among people that we're not gonna let this happen again, no matter what.
And uh it's it's uh it's tough call.
You know, the the loose de what is the loose definition of an enemy combatant?
Do you have it handy?
Um no, but I just remember in sp in particular section E, which says that any person can be interned for their own protection.
Mm-hmm.
And to me, that's like r you know, round them up.
Round them up and put them in the constant, you know, some site of and and some kind of internment camp.
Well, let me ask you this.
Do you do you have a fear or a suspicion that at some point your government will use the features of the Patriot Act to round up people who have nothing to do with any suspicion whatsoever of terrorism?
Uh it's my feeling that if they can generate enough public hostility towards a group, i.e.
smokers, redheads, uh anybody, that they can get enough public sympathy to to round people up.
I truly believe that.
I know a lot of people have your fear.
A lot of people share your concern about it.
I'm sorry to interrupt.
Do you think that it's not being talked about enough, though, in conservative circles and maybe uh intellectually analyzed?
No, it is being it's hardly.
It's all over the place.
If you go to the if you go to the right uh uh conservative places, you'll find there's a huge argument about this among conservatives, particularly the the uh conservative elites and the conservative intellectuals.
Uh there's always an argument among our people over who's the smartest person in the room, and they're always trying to outsmart each other with the fanciest, smartest, most obscure argument.
The fact is that these uh these arguments taking place uh uh within the conservative movement, I think quite quite quite a lot.
Um it's you have to you have to look though at the success rate.
Look at has there been another attack on this country from within since the Patriot Act was authorized.
No, there hasn't.
There has not been.
But there is evidence that that act has been used to uh do things that weren't related to terror, you know, that they've been used in other cases, those powers have been used.
Well, yeah, you know, there's there's let me tell you something.
There's hypocrisy on both sides of this, because I'm gonna tell you something.
And I d I th you have plenty of liberals out there who are all for the cops raiding their political enemies.
They are all for the cops doing whatever they have to do to get whatever goods they want on their political enemies.
And yet the Patriot Act comes, oh, you can't do it, it's an invasion of privacy.
And yet in some cases they don't care about other people's privacy.
Privacy is irrelevant to them depending on who the target is.
You know, so you've got both sides of this.
I I wouldn't suggest that there's one side to this that's pure and one side that's uh uh that's not.
At any rate, it's it's a tough call for a lot of people.
Uh, but you you really can't argue with the uh success rate.
And I frankly in this country don't know too many people.
If I don't know of anybody who's been rounded up that is not under genuine suspicion and uh and uh uh about whom there is not a sufficient uh body of evidence to uh to justify that suspicion.
I don't know of a rampant number of innocent people have been rounded up uh under whatever auspices under the Patriot Act.
Quick timeout, we'll be back after this.
Stay with us.
I just got the subite roster for President Bush's uh uh talk today about uh the Patriot Act.
Well, listen to what he says uh when we come back from the break here at the top of the hour, as well as response from uh Russ Feingold, who is uh very much opposed to the uh Patriot Act.
So as I say, what's going on here to folks, we have barely scratched the surface, and that's why we have two hours remaining.
▲
Export Selection