All Episodes
Previous Next
July 6, 2005 - Rush Limbaugh Program
36:36
July 6, 2005, Wednesday, Hour #1
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Welcome to today's edition of the Rush 24-7 podcast.
Anybody know how to say Shadden Freud in French?
Shaden Freud's taking pleasure in the taking delight and pleasure in the suffering of others.
The Olympics, absolutely right.
Shaden Freud in French.
I know in Riolinga, Riolinda, they say le finger le jock.
But I don't know what it's just, it's just great news.
Chirock's approval rating down to 28% in France.
What the hell do they expect?
Here they were trying to take over the European Union, and they've lost out now three consecutive elections.
They've tried to get the Olympics.
Greetings, folks, and welcome.
Great to have you with us here on the one and only EIB network, the Limbaugh Institute for Advanced Conservative Studies.
The telephone number is 800-282-2882 and the email address, rush at EIBNet.com.
Did you see this?
McDonald's is going to hire some top designers to remake its uniforms.
Among the designers, Sean P. Diddy Combs.
Have you heard about this, Mr. Snurgly?
So Sean Combs, P. Diddy, is going to participate in redesigning the uniforms from McDonald's workers.
I wonder if P. Diddy's design will include nine millimeter handguns that they all get to carry around.
And maybe they'll all have a guy walking around with an umbrella over them named Farnsworth Bentley, designed to shield them from whatever spills or unfortunate accidents might occur inside McDonald's just to make sure you don't have to pull the nine meter handgun part of the uniform out of the out of the pocket.
And they found, folks, they found, get this.
We got global warming.
Global warming is to blame for everything.
We've had no tornado deaths this year in what, March, April, and May or May, June, July, whatever it is.
It has to be because of global warming.
We've got flooding in Japan.
That has to be because of global warming.
And of course, we've got species extinction.
We're losing species faster than we can count them.
Yet, Australian researchers said yesterday they've identified a new species of dolphin living in the coastal waters off northern Australia.
There's a picture of the thing here.
It looks kind of ugly.
It looks like a, well, it's just half submerged, but it looks ugly.
It doesn't look cute like these other porpoi do.
The Australian snubfin dolphin related to Irrawaddy dolphins found along the coast and major rivers of Asia and northern Australia, formerly identified, formally identified as a new species thanks to genetic research carried out in California.
I don't know how this is possible.
With global warming and pollution, environmental destruction, how in the world could new species come around?
How can there be a new species today?
There haven't been any new species ever.
All we're doing is wiping them out.
All right, folks, we have audio soundbites today.
Oh, I have to.
I'm not going to tell you where, but I was directed today to some places on the internet where, believe me, the madcap extreme kook left is beside itself over our Club Gitmo brochure and the Club Gitmo gift shop merchandise.
They are beside themselves.
They just, they cannot believe it.
They have found out that you have been asked to wear your Club Gitmo gear where liberals hang out and then take pictures of it.
And then send those pictures to us.
And we're going to post them on our new Club Gitmo photo gallery.
The email address, by the way, clubgetmo at rushlimbaugh.com.
Go get a picture of yourself in your Club Gitmo gear.
And the website, rather, the email address to send your picture is at rushlimbaugh.com.
If you can't write it down here, it's clubgitmo at rushlimbaugh.com.
Our first photos are going to be published late this afternoon.
But these liberals have found out that that's a game plan.
So liberals are talking among themselves what to do when you show up where they happen to be wearing your club gitmo gear.
Should they beat the pulp out of you?
Should they ignore you?
They're having all these discussions.
It's hilarious.
So they're even thinking about filing lawsuits.
They're thinking of making up their own t-shirts to counter the Club Gitmo t-shirts that say I should be in Club Gitmo or such things.
But whatever, folks, the agitation factor here is really high.
We're having more fun with this than we thought would be possible.
So if you've got your Club Gitmo gear, and it's still available at rushlimbaugh.com, simply put it on, go to where you think liberals are.
And a lot of people say, well, Rush, how do you know where liberals are?
Come on, folks.
It's very easy.
Back when I, you know, in the old days, when I'm young and everybody tried to meet women, and I was not a famous, fabulous media star back then, powerful, influential member of the media, where do you go to meet women?
Everybody said, oh, go to a bar.
I don't want to meet a woman in a bar.
So I came upon the idea.
I went out and got a bunch of women's magazines and books on where to go to meet men.
And I found out where I was supposed to be and went there.
I just, I turned the process around.
So if you want to find out where liberals are, go to where liberal websites are and look at where they say they're going to be.
The protest march, anything to do with the environment or animals or what have you.
It's not, I mean, I don't mean cities.
I mean locales in cities.
Starbucks is a number of places that liberals hang out.
Tattoo parlor is a good place to go.
Just hang around in front of Tattoo Parlor.
And you never know.
You can't miss them, folks.
They're all over the college campus.
Just put on your Club Gitmo gear and just walk through the quadrangle at the nearest college campus.
And I guarantee you, you'll be surrounded and engulfed by them.
The key is, is to get a picture of it all and then send that to us at clubgitmo at rushlimbaugh.com.
And you too could be part of the Club Gitmo photo gallery.
You really, if you want, go to Democratic Underground.
Go to DemocraticUnderground.com and read.
Somebody sent me the link to it today that you won't believe this.
So I went there.
I've just about 20 minutes ago and I looked at it.
And it's people are nuttier than I even thought.
But it's really getting under their skin.
All right.
Interesting, interesting story here about Chuck Schumer.
And actually, there are two different stories about Chuck Schumer and the upcoming fight over the Bush Supreme Court nominee.
Now, the first story I have here is from today's New York Sun.
And it's got a lot of interesting things in it that I want to comment on.
The headline of the story is, Schumer sees way to block Bush on court.
Citing a recent bipartisan compromise on the treatment of judicial nominees, Senator Chuck Schumer said yesterday that Democrats on the Senate Judiciary Committee are prepared to use judicial philosophy as justification for thwarting any of President Bush's nominees to replace Justice O'Connor.
In fact, Chuck Schumer said that he's going to ask these nominees point blank how they're going to vote on Roe versus Wade and other issues.
He says it's too important now.
It's too crucial.
We're not going to pussyfoot around.
Judicial philosophy will indeed be a justification for determining whether some nominee constitutes extraordinary circumstances or not.
Now, what's interesting about that is, is that John McCain III, Lindsey Graham, was on television over the weekend saying that the Gang of 14, he was a member of it, the Gang of 14 deal, there's no way judicial philosophy would be an extraordinary circumstance.
And yet Chuck Schumer says, oh, yes, it is.
The comments by Chuck Schumer raised the possibility that any nominee who is acceptable to most Republicans would be blocked by a filibuster in the Senate, the same situation that lawmakers had earlier avoided.
Ideological attacks are not an extraordinary circumstance, Mr. Graham said, Lindsey Graham on Fox News Sunday, yet Chuck Schumer, speaking to reporters at a press conference on another issue yesterday, said that a nominee's judicial philosophy could indeed constitute an extraordinary circumstance and warrant obstruction.
But we've only scratched the surface here on Chuck Schumer because this newspaper story in the New York Sun from which I'm reading doesn't even capture the half of it.
It's not their fault.
Drudge has an exclusive on his website, Chuck Schumer on the phone discussing all this, a cell phone while on a train from D.C. to New York or New Jersey or wherever.
But he was on a train, on the Amtrak train, and talking on the cell phone to an ally, and the whole conversation was overheard.
Well, Schumer's side of it, at any rate.
I'll get into all those details after this brief timeout, back in just a second, as we roll right on here at the Limbaugh Institute.
Views expressed by the host on this program are right.
Correct.
The views expressed by the host of this program are so because of our daily relentless, unstoppable pursuit of the truth.
Greetings and great to have you with us.
All right, now back to this Chuck Schumer business.
Again, the New York Sun today quotes him as saying that, hey, you know, judicial philosophy, that is a justification for thwarting any of President Bush's nominees, and we're going to filibuster them.
Lindsey Graham on Fox News Sunday said, no, no, no, no, ideological attacks are not an extraordinary circumstance.
Ideological attacks, meaning judicial philosophy, no, no, no, no, that does not constitute an extraordinary circumstance, and that will not break our deal.
We shall see.
Mr. Schumer said the bottom line is that the agreement said extraordinary circumstances, but it also said the extraordinary circumstances are at the discretion of each of the individual senators, which it did, which means that the whole deal is worthless.
So you'd have to ask each of them.
They signed it, but I've talked to some of them, Chuck said.
And of course, judicial philosophy could be within the realm of extraordinary circumstances.
For me, for sure.
And I think for the people who signed the agreement, most of them, judicial philosophy will constitute an extraordinary circumstance.
The bottom line is that I don't have any litmus test, Schumer said, period.
It'd be great if we could avoid a fight.
And the president, look, make no mistake about it, he's going to choose a conservative, but it could be a Sandra Day O'Connor type of conservative, thoughtful, mainstream, with the ability to see the other side.
Or it could be way off-the-chart ideologue, which would create a fight.
I don't like ideologues in the bench.
I've said I think a good court will have one Scuia and one Brennan, not five of either one.
But to simply look at the resume of the nominee and say, you're fine, I don't buy it, Schumer said.
I think that person's views on environmental rights, voting rights, civil rights, women's rights, this is key.
And now let's go to the Drudge exclusive.
Senate Judiciary Committee member Chuck Schumer got busy plotting away on the cell phone aboard a Washington, D.C. to New York Amtrak, plotting Democrat strategery for the upcoming Supreme Court battle.
Schumer promised a fight over whoever the president's nominee was.
Quote, it's not about an individual judge.
It's about how it affects the overall makeup of the court.
Schumer was overheard in a long cell phone conversation with an unknown political ally, and the Drudge Report was there.
Schumer, chairman of the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee, proudly said, we're contemplating how we're going to go to war over this.
Now, folks, don't misunderstand.
This doesn't surprise me.
The reason I read to you the New York Sun story first is because that's the public, Chuck Schumer.
That's the public, Chuck Schumer.
So, well, yeah, we don't, extraordinary circumstances can be judicial philosophy.
Well, we don't want to go to war.
We want a good pick.
We want to do whatever we can to advance process.
That's what he's saying publicly, privately, when he knows, doesn't know anyone's listening, they're going to go to war over whoever it is.
It doesn't matter.
They're plotting it now.
Schumer went on to say how hard it was to predict how a Supreme Court justice would turn out.
He later went on to mock the Gang of 14 judicial filibuster deal, said it wasn't relevant in the Supreme Court debate.
He said a Priscilla Owen or Janice Rogers Brown-style appointment may not have been extraordinary to the appellate court, but may be extraordinary to the Supreme Court.
Now, by the time the train hit New Jersey, Schumer shifted gears and called his friend and gang of 14 member Republican Senator Leslie Graham, or Lindsey Graham.
They talked in a very friendly manner about doing an event sometime this week together.
So just to get this on the record, the idea, folks, that the liberals, including the seven Democrats of the Gang of 14, ever agreed that judicial philosophy will not constitute an extraordinary circumstance is laughable.
They never agreed to that.
They all reserved the right to define it themselves individually.
The only thing they care about in this confirmation process is judicial philosophy.
Everybody has one, despite what some on our side are saying.
With lib judges, ideology matters because they will seek to implement it through activism.
The Democrats have never obstructed any of these nominations because of concerns over the nominee's qualifications or character.
It's only been about his propensity to buck the lib activist precedent, especially on the abortion issue.
So this is interesting to note that while Schumer is out there in public, he's sounding the war drums, but then holding back and saying, well, if the president nominates Sandra Day O'Connor type, then we're fine.
We're cool.
We'll be ready to go.
But it's not that case at all.
They're gearing up for a war.
They're going to filibuster and they're going to oppose whoever the nominee is.
And I know that's predictable.
This should not come as a surprise.
I just don't want any of you falling for the public pronouncement of all this.
Let's go to the audio soundbites.
We'll start here at the top.
This is the president.
He was in Copenhagen this morning.
Held a news conference with the Danish prime minister.
And I have a portion of the president describing his conversation with the prime minister about Club Gitmo.
The prisoners are well treated in Guantanamo.
There's total transparency.
International Red Cross can inspect any time, any day.
And you're welcome to go.
The press, of course, is welcome to go down to Guantanamo.
Remember, we are in a war against these terrorists.
My most solemn obligation is to protect the American people from further attack.
These people are being treated humanely.
There's very few prison systems around the world that have seen such scrutiny as this one.
And for those of you here in the continent of Europe who have doubt, I'd suggest buying an airplane ticket and going down and look.
Take a look for yourself.
What airport do you fly into?
Seriously, I mean, it's just not easy to get to Cuba.
You got to go through the, you got to get a visa.
You got to go to the State Department.
You can do it as a journalist.
You can get down there.
But I know they've got runways at Club Gitmo, but you don't need a ticket for those runways.
You need a military escort.
But nevertheless, what he was saying here, go to the prime minister of the Danish Prime Minister.
He said, go there.
I mean, if you have any problems, go there and take a look at it.
Buy a ticket and go down and see Club Gitmo.
So they're obviously welcoming any and all.
And of course, folks, as Ellen Tosher said, Congressperson from California, of course, Club Gitmo is clean now because they've moved all the torture out to ships at sea.
Ships sailing the seven seas are out there, and that's where the torture is going on.
So the administration feels totally confident in letting people go see Club Gitmo now.
This next comment, unidentified female reporter asked the president, what do you think of the criticism of Attorney General Gonzalez as a potential nominee?
Will there be a litmus test in abortion and gay marriage when you consider your choice to replace Justice O'Connor on the Supreme Court?
As I said during both of my campaigns, there'll be no litmus test.
I'll pick people who, one, can do the job, people who are honest, people who are bright, and people who will strictly interpret the Constitution and not use the bench to legislate from.
That's what I campaigned on, and that's what I'm going to do.
She's referring to the fact that my Attorney General, longtime friend, guy who came up to Washington with me as part of the movement of Texans South and North during the government.
He's been my lawyer in the White House.
He's now the Attorney General.
He's being criticized.
I don't like it when a friend gets criticized.
You know, I'm loyal to my friends.
And all of a sudden, this fella, who is a good public servant and a really fine person, is under fire.
And so yet, do I like it?
No, I don't like it.
There's a story of the New York Times today.
The White House and Senate Republican leadership are pushing back against pressure from some of their conservative allies, urging them to stop attacking Gonzalez as a potential nominee and to tone down their talk of a culture war.
In a series of conference calls yesterday and over the last several days, Republican Senate aides encouraged conservative groups to avoid emphasizing the cultural issues that social conservatives see at the heart of the court fight.
But instead, these participants who insisted on anonymity to avoid exclusion from future calls said that the aides, including Barbara Ledine of the Senate Republican Conference and Eric Uland, the chief of staff to Senator Frist, the majority leader, emphasized themes that had been tested in polls, including a need for a fair and dignified confirmation process.
And the president talks about that in his next soundbite that we have, which we'll get to after this break here at the bottom of the hour.
Sit tight, folks.
We've only just begun.
Carpenters 1969.
Stay with us.
Off and running, having more fun than a human being should be allowed to have.
Here's President Bush.
And this is the comment that he made this morning in Copenhagen about the process that he hopes unfolds during the confirmation of his next Supreme Court nominee.
The Senate needs to conduct themselves in a dignified way and have a good, honest debate about the credentials of the person I put forward, no matter who he or she is.
Dream on.
And then give the person an up or down vote.
That's how the process ought to work.
And so this is an opportunity for good public servants to exhibit a civil discourse on a very important matter and not let these groups, these money-raising groups, these special interest groups, these groups outside the process dictate the rhetoric, the tone.
And I'm confident the senators, most senators, want to conduct themselves this way.
Okay, so we learn now, at least from the New York Times, that that is a comment resulting from polls, that that is a poll-tested comment.
Let me explain this to you again.
The New York Times has this story today that a couple of people working with the Senate, Senate aides, have been calling conservative activists, say, hey, tone down all this culture war rhetoric.
We don't need that right now.
The two people are Barbara Ladine of the Senate Republican Conference and Eric Uland, chief of staff to Senator Bill Frist.
They emphasize themes that had been tested in polls, including a need for a fair and dignified confirmation process.
So the president uses those very words this morning in his press conference.
So clearly, the president's talking to the American people, not the members of the Senate.
And he's really not even speaking to the outside agitator groups.
He's talking to the American people.
So they've gone out, they've focus grouped this, and the American people apparently have said in large enough numbers, they don't want any arguing.
I don't want any fighting.
They want a dignified process.
So the president's saying, I've heard you.
We need a dignified process.
And the purpose of this is to, when there isn't a dignified process, and trust me, it's not going to be.
I mean, the only way that it could be a dignified process is if he nominated Ted Kennedy.
Short of that, the Democrats are not going to act dignified.
Chuck Schumer's admitted this.
It's all out war.
They're going to do anything they can.
And, you know, there are a whole bunch of theories as to why.
And if I were you, I wouldn't get caught up in the idea that the sole reason here is to defeat the president's nominee.
What do you think might else be on the agenda of the Democrats when it comes to stonewalling the next nominee, no matter who it is, short of Ted Kennedy, in addition to wanting to defeat the guy and keep him or her off the court, the more the Democrats can hold up any action on anything,
the sooner they think they will be able to establish second-term lame duck status on George W. Bush.
So I think they've got a two-pronged approach going here, two-pronged strategery, if you will, to keep whoever is nominated off the court and in so doing, make it look like Bush can't get anything done.
He can't get anything done on Social Security, can't think anything done here, can't get anything done over there, can't get anything done on War in Iraq, can't get anything done there, can't get anything to nominees.
He's just may as well not even be president.
And in this way, the Democrats will be able to, in their minds, assume even more power and control in terms of running the town because, hey, we've got a president here who can't get anything done.
He can't work with anybody.
He can't work with his own party.
This is why I've been telling you, folks, that the people that really concern me in all this are not the Democrats and the media because they're predictable.
The people that concern me are the Lindsey Grahams and the John McCain's and the Hagels and whoever else who are going to go out there and try to curry favor with their buddies on the left and the media and in culture in Washington and contribute to this note.
Well, like when Hegel went out and basically said that the war in Iraq was a dismal failure, the White House better admit it, and he ends up in a move on .org ad.
So You have this two-pronged strategery here to keep whoever Bush nominates off the court and also create the impression he can't get anything done.
He's not even president.
What he wants done can't get done.
He doesn't have the power.
Look at even members of his own party are crossing the line to join us on this, they will say, with the first comment from Hegel or McCain or any Republican in the Senate about the nominee or about any other issue.
And so the president out there has obviously gone out and pulled this, come up with the result that the American people hope for a dignified process.
White House knows full well the Senate's not going to act dignified.
The Democrats aren't.
So it's a battle here for the hearts and minds of the American people, as it always is.
As it always is.
You can make a bank on that.
And there are a lot of people on the right who are upset about this Gonzalez business, and they're mobilized out there.
And it no doubt has angered the president quite a bit.
So we're just, there's a whole lot in the hopper here is the point.
Whole lot in the hopper.
And we also learned today that former Senator Fred Thompson has been hired by the White House to guide whoever the new nominee is through the process.
Thompson's a good old boy.
When he was in the Senate, he was liked by members of both parties.
He is not considered an ideologue, but he is conservative.
He's more conservative than you would know.
He's a great guy, and he's very, very much interested in this.
And I think it's great that they've tabbed him or tapped him to help guide the nominee through the process here.
In most cases, these nominees are named and they sink or swim on their own.
They're just left alone out there to fend for themselves.
Bork was.
And it's always amazed me how there hasn't been a whole lot of support.
Clarence Thomas was a little bit different because we had learned from Bork.
Some of these appellate nominees have been out there and they just languished on their own.
And there weren't people out there helping to guide them and promote them through the process.
So Fred Thompson been hired to do that with the White House.
That's also good news.
Belleville, Illinois, this is John as we go to the phones.
Welcome, sir.
Nice to have you with us.
Well, thank you.
It's an honor to talk with you, Rush.
Thank you, sir.
My concern is everybody is up in arms over Roe versus Wade and the Ten Commandments in the courthouse and all those things that really don't affect a whole lot of people.
And everybody's ignoring the fact that the Supreme Court just said they can come in and take your house for a private developer.
And I think we need to really focus on property rights.
And I think that the president would be far more successful if he started to take attention away from some of these other issues and focused on things that are going to affect more people.
Well, you raise an interesting point, but let me just give you a jigger of reality here.
There is nothing that's going to sweep abortion away from this fight.
Nothing.
You have to understand, liberalism is a religion and abortion is the sacrament.
It is the only thing that matters.
It is, and it's not the only thing, but all this gobbledy-gook talk that they engage in about civil rights and personal, all this, it's all just code lingo for abortion.
There is a single witness test for the left, and that's it, because abortion and the whole concept of abortion encompasses all of what liberalism really is.
In abortion, in the whole process, and in every facet of it, from the financial gains made by it to the support from women and the feminist groups and so forth, it just encapsulates that one issue, encapsulates the whole, well, as well as one issue can, the whole specter of liberalism.
On the other side, you have just as much energy devoted to the issue, but from a different context or standpoint.
And nothing is going to erase this.
The property rights decision that came down last week was just one of three, and they were all abysmal, and they have irritated and agitated a lot of people.
I think these things all fall into place.
I've said to you a lot of times over the course of these almost 18 years that it takes a lot of dominoes falling to finally make an impression on this larger population.
And the property rights decision is just one of those building blocks, one of those dominoes that falls and wakes a lot of people up who normally don't even care about this.
And the reason it is one of those kinds of issues because it's easily understandable and it's going to affect more ordinary people than anything else, any other group of people.
And so you put those two things together and it is a rallying cry issue.
But in a war and in a battle, the aggressors set the rules.
And the aggressor here will be the Democrats and their issue is abortion.
And so that's what's going to be responded to and on the table.
And I look at, I think it's absolutely absurd too, but it's the reality that we deal with and the reality that we face.
So I think the bigger issue, bigger than property rights, bigger than abortion, the issue that makes all those things happen the way they do, is the court's out of control.
We have a court that features way too many people who use it as a means of implementing personal policy preferences rather than deciding the constitutionality of laws passed by the Congress.
They do not, way too many members do not look at the original intent of the Constitution.
They look at the Constitution as a breathing document, a living document, and they can bend and shape to accommodate whatever their personal policy preferences are.
And when you have a bunch of activists who believe in big government, Ergo, you get the property rights decision that we got two weeks ago from New London, Connecticut, and the one out of San Francisco, and there was one other.
And that's what's at stake here.
And it's going to take three nominations, three confirmations of originalists to turn this around.
That's what's really at stake here, folks.
Not just one nomination.
It's not just one judge, and it's not just one fight.
It's going to take three.
Whether you're talking about overturning Roe versus Wade or overturning the property rights decision or anything, to change the direction of this court, it's going to take at least three originalists being confirmed before George Bush leaves office.
And I'm assuming that this does not include replacing Scalia or Thomas.
You know, they're young by court standards.
We'll leave them there.
You need three more to go with them to make it 5-4 originalist.
You know, we're replacing Sandra Day O'Connor here.
If we replace her with a strict constructionist or an originalist, you've got three.
You've got Thomas Scalia, and whoever this new person is.
You've still got, pardon?
What?
Rehnquist is he's not as conservative as everybody thought he was going to be.
You throw him in.
He's, I guess, okay, you got four there.
But you have to assume that Rehnquist is going to be going as well.
That's why I'm only saying I leave Scalia and Thomas there on the original side.
They're going to be there for the foreseeable future.
Rehnquist isn't, and O'Connor is gone.
So Rehnquist and O'Connor need to be replaced with two originals.
And it's still 5-4 for the anti-originals, for the activists.
So there's a big thing really brewing here with a tremendous possibility.
And that's why, you know, all this talk of what Schumer's going to do, I really don't care about the left and the Democrats because we know what they're going to do.
What I am advocating, just go for it all.
The president has two and a half years left.
The last year of a presidential term, second term, nothing happens in this regard.
And that's traditional.
The president's on their way out.
Their court nominations and other things languish.
They're not moved forward because there's a new president coming in less than a year.
It happened to Clinton.
It happened to Reagan.
It happens to all of them.
So Bush doesn't have three and a half years.
He's got two and a half years to get three originalists on the court.
Okay, so somebody's got to retire after Rehnquist.
Before we even get a chance to go to the third, who's it going to be?
Well, you got John Paul Stevens, who's 85, and he's an activist.
You got Ruth Bader Ginsburg, who's said to be not in good health.
She's an activist.
So it's going to take three of them, folks.
And that's the larger issue that's at stake here, not a single issue.
Quick timeout back after this.
Don't go away.
You know, one thing that's interesting, folks, to look at this, follow me on this.
You can call this sleight of hand.
Right before your very eyes, the Democrats have demonstrated a battle-honed and 20-plus-year anti-conservative judicial appointment attack machine.
It started with Ted Kennedy and Robert Bork.
You got people for the American Way, their supreme leader, Ralph Nees.
You got the NAGS and the Alliance for Justice and all of these groups.
And they borked Bork.
They tried to bork Clarence Thomas.
They tried to bork every Bush appointment.
They even resorted to filibustering a bunch of his appellate appointments in the first and second term.
What's the template in the New York Times today?
The template in the New York Times today is conservatives attack Gonzalez.
You are watching it in real time.
Just check the media.
The template is conservatives on the attack.
And they're attacking a guy who hasn't even been nominated.
Now, here's the thing.
Conservatives are attacking Gonzalez.
There are a lot of conservatives who are afraid of Gonzalez because of some rulings he made down in Texas having to do with abortion.
And they're afraid that he's not an originalist.
And so they're making those fears known in the form of upraised voices to the White House, which is all fine and dandy.
But isn't it amazing how that makes news in the New York Times?
Conservatives attacking a nominee.
And yet for 20 years, all we've had is the left attacking every nominee that's come down the pike, not just attacking, but ruining them, trying to destroy them, from Bork to Clarence Thomas to Janice Rogers Brown, Priscilla Owen, Charles Pickering.
And there's never a word in the media about that.
No, what we get is the loyal opposition has serious problems with these nominees.
We never hear about the left-wing attack machine.
We never hear about it.
We never hear in the mainstream press about this 20-plus year strategy, this machine that has been put into place since Ted Kennedy and Robert Bork.
But let the conservatives come up and oppose Gonzalez.
And whoa, look at what we got here.
Why the conservatives are attacking a nominee?
Why, how dare they?
And it becomes big, big news.
And it shouldn't surprise you to the mainstream press.
Anything that reeks of disunity on the Republican side, that's huge news.
Big news.
That's why they love the Mavericks, John McCain, these guys that go against their own party.
But you never, ever see.
A story on the genuine, legitimate attack machine to destroy people.
Conservatives aren't trying to destroy Gonzalez, they're not borking Gonzalez, they're not doing anything of the kind, they're just telling the White House, hey, we remember what you said during the campaign and Gonzale does not typify what you said you'd do in the campaign.
And we got real problems and that's what makes news.
I'm just calling your attention to this because the genuine attack machine has been oiled and honed and perfected, continually ignored by the mainstream press, not here, they're not going to get away with anymore.
But I mean just want you to know.
Quick time out back after this.
The first hour is in the can, ladies and gentlemen, or soon will be, And then on its way via Armored Courier, same armored courier that brings in my paycheck, over to the future Limb Ball wing of the Museum OF Broadcasting.
Hour two, straight ahead.
It won't be long.
It will be right back and we will continue.
Sit tight.
Lots more.
▲
Export Selection