Rush Limbaugh Program - July 6, 2005, Wednesday, Hour #2

All Episodes

Previous Next

July 6, 2005 - Rush Limbaugh Program

36:27

July 6, 2005, Wednesday, Hour #2

Large

Audio Only |

Scroll

Time	Text
	Sitting here watching the forecast track of Hurricane Dennis, if they're right about this, after it creams Club Gitmo, it's going to go right, it's going to go between Havana and Piñar del Rio, which is the premier cigar tobacco growing region in Cuba.
	It's going to make a beeline for Pensacola.
	Those poor people, Mobile Pensacola region, they got pummeled last year.
	And this ain't going to be a category three.
	If they're right about this, by the time it gets there, greetings, welcome back.
	It's Rush Limbaugh, the one and only EIB network, soon to be starting our 18th year of broadcasting service.
	August 1st will be our 18th anniversary.
	We'll be starting our 18th year.
	Well, no, wait a minute.
	It'd be a 17th, 17th anniversary, starting the 18th year, 17th anniversary on August 1st.
	Here's the telephone number.
	If you want to be on the program, 800-282-2882, the email address, rush at EIBNet.com.
	And don't forget, we are asking those of you who have received your Club Gitmo t-shirts and golf shirts and caps and stuff to put them on and go out there and get some pictures taken.
	We want to start a Club Gitmo photo gallery of you, but not in the house, not with the kids, not in the backyard, not at the lake.
	We want you out there amongst your fellow citizens.
	Ideally, we would look for some of the most confused, perplexed faces on people in the camera shot looking at you and your t-shirt.
	And the best way to affect that, of course, is to hang around where there's a bunch of liberals.
	We've got a special email address for you to send in your photos once they're taken.
	And we'll publish the best of them.
	And we're going to start this afternoon at rushlimbaugh.com.
	The address to send the photos is ClubGitmo at rushlimbaugh.com.
	And of course, the Club Gitmo gear is still available.
	As I mentioned to you at the beginning of last hour, this is just a hoot, folks.
	The left out there has heard about this, and they're beside themselves.
	They're outraged.
	They can't believe anybody would be this low and scummy to make fun of torture in the United States.
	It just brings such disrespect and disrepute to our own country.
	It's just, it's hilarious to read these people.
	And it is all getting under their skin.
	So I just wanted to let you know of the overwhelming success of what started out here as some innocent, you know, spur-of-the-moment idea.
	Interesting story in The Hill, Capitol Hill newspaper that ran yesterday.
	Pre-vacancy polls back conservatives.
	It's a story by David Hill.
	And David Hill is director of Hill Research Consultants, a Texas-based firm that has polled for Republican candidates and causes since 1988.
	And he says this, in the days and weeks ahead, we're going to see public polls used by the media to gain leverage in the selection of a replacement for Sandra Day O'Connor.
	Because media organizations cannot openly campaign for a particular nominee or type of nominee, they will hide behind biased or leading polls to advance their agendas.
	Amen.
	Somebody finally saying it.
	That all these public opinion polls are editorials.
	It's the way the mainstream media gets their opinion of things out there and makes it look like a majority of Americans agree with them.
	It's become such a sham.
	This whole polling, all of this, what do the American people think on this?
	What do the American people think of that?
	You ask the question the right way, you get the answer the way you want it, and you run it as big news when, in fact, all it is is an editorial.
	And David Hill is pointing out here, the media is going to do the same thing in the Supreme Court nomination fight.
	Since they can't openly campaign for a particular nominee or type, they'll hide behind biased or leading polls to advance their agendas.
	Now, before we succumb to these prejudiced conclusions, he says, we should look at a plethora of polls that were taken just before O'Connor's announcement.
	These pre-vacancy polls may provide more useful insight on the public's real views of the court, its justices, and their decisions.
	One of these surveys released on June 20th by the legal website Find Law makes us wonder whether public opinion should play any role in replacing O'Connor.
	The National Survey, and I don't, frankly, if I may make a brief departure, I don't know how it can.
	Public opinion's not going to sway Chuck Schumer or Ted Kennedy.
	All these clown Schumers out there saying he's going to have a petition with 30,000 signatures by the end of the week.
	Hey, Chuck, I could do that in 30 minutes here.
	I could get 30,000 signatures on something in 30 minutes here.
	And then moveon.org is out there.
	They're getting a petition signed.
	Do they honestly think that delivering these, and Chuck Schumer, by the way, said that he's going to personally deliver his petition with 30,000 signatures to the front door of the White House?
	Well, it's just going to serve as kindling for fires when the winter comes in the White House.
	It's not going to have one bit of impact on the people in the White House.
	Does anybody really believe that a bunch of petitions brought to the White House by Chuck Schumer or a bunch of petitions generated by moveon.org are going to change anybody's mind about anything?
	Consequently, if I went out and did a petition and I had, let's say I got 2 million signatures on a petition and I sent a copy of the petition with all the signatures to Ted Kennedy or any other Democrat senators, are going to change their mind?
	Hell no.
	So my point here, what's the role of public opinion in this anyway?
	The president's going to do what he's going to do, and I will guarantee you his decision is not going to be based on petitions or polls or anything of the sort.
	And whether this nominee is opposed or supported is not going to have anything to do with public opinion on this.
	One of the big problems with public opinion is that it is not accurately represented by special interest groups anyway.
	MoveOn.org does not represent anywhere near a majority of Americans, no matter what they might think.
	Neither does Chuck Schumer.
	Neither do any petition that he's going to get signatures on or anybody else.
	Public opinion is determined when there is an election, not a poll.
	And unfortunately, there is not an election on judges, not Supreme Court judges or appellate court judges or federal district court judges.
	There are no elections.
	So public opinion poll here is irrelevant.
	And guess what?
	It's designed to be that way.
	It's designed.
	That's why there's the confirmation process.
	The elected officials of the representatives of the people get a chance to weigh in on it.
	But the president, who also won an election, that's what this is all about, folks.
	This is really all about whether or not elections matter.
	When you get right down to it, that's all this is about.
	The Democrats cannot believe they're losing elections, and they don't want to act like they've lost elections, and they don't want to believe that the Republicans are winning elections.
	And so they're trying to make it that elections don't matter.
	That's why they're filibustering nominees.
	That's why they're making all these efforts to plan a war, filibuster the Supreme Court nominee or whatever.
	They're trying to actually just wipe out an election and not just with this nomination or any of these other judges.
	Remember my theory, ladies and gentlemen, that I've so cleverly articulated in recent months.
	The Democrats still can't get over two things.
	A, they lost the House in 94.
	They still haven't gotten over that.
	And they really haven't gotten over Bush versus Gore 2000, the aftermath in Florida.
	And as far as they're concerned, the Republicans as leaders in the Congress are illegitimate, and Bush is double illegitimate because he was selected, not elected.
	So Bush is not legitimate.
	Therefore, he doesn't get to do anything that presidents get to do.
	He doesn't get his nominees.
	He doesn't get Social Security reform.
	He doesn't get tax cuts.
	They have fight him on everything.
	And their purpose is to see to it that after these eight years of Bush, they never happened.
	The eight years of Bush may as never well have happened because whatever Bush wanted, they're going to stand in the way of everything.
	That's how upset and angry and perverted they have become.
	And so when you get to the Supreme Court nomination fight, all of this talk about stopping the nominee, twofold.
	They're trying to make sure that Bush gets nothing else done.
	It's part of the lame duck angle.
	But it's also part of making sure that Bush never happened.
	In practical reality terms, Bush never happened.
	His presidency never happened.
	And so in order to make this possible, elections have to be rendered irrelevant.
	You win elections, you get to pick the nominations to the Supreme Court and the other federal courts.
	You lose elections and you don't.
	That's why yesterday I was saying, you Democrats, just shut up.
	When you win elections, you can go pick your Ruth Bader Ginsburgs and you can pick your John Paul Stevens's and whoever else you want.
	But until such time as you win elections, shut up.
	We don't care.
	We really don't care what you think.
	You didn't win elections.
	This is not your right at this point to determine the structure of the federal bench.
	Got to win elections to be able to do that.
	But the Democrats are trying to make sure that nobody who voted for Bush counts, that this election didn't matter because they're so peeved and so perturbed.
	And that's why they're trying to bring public opinion into it.
	They're trying to reverse the results of an election by making it appear that the public regrets voting for Bush, that the public didn't know what they were doing, but now does know what they're doing.
	They regret that they voted for Bush and they want the Democrats to take over.
	That's what the Democrats are trying to do with their mainstream allies in the media, create the impression that you, the American people, realize your mistake in voting for Bush and putting the Republicans in charge, and you want the Democrats to run this show.
	That's what this is all about.
	That's why this story in The Hill is interesting.
	Forget the public opinion polls that you hear from now on out.
	Go back and look at the ones prior to O'Connor's retirement.
	And I take a break here.
	Some of the data in these pre-vacancy polls, I don't know if it'll surprise you, but some of you it will, I'll guarantee you.
	Back right after this with more detail.
	Don't go away.
	I know a lot of people have been patiently waiting on the phone.
	Just sit tight.
	I'll get to you as quickly as I can.
	We are here serving humanity with half my brain tied behind my back just to make it fair.
	All right.
	So David Hill, who has a polling company, says, before we succumb to these prejudiced conclusions that we're going to see in polls from now on out, let's look at a plethora of polls that were taken before Justice O'Connor's announcement.
	Now, these pre-vacancy polls may provide more useful insight on the public's real views of the court.
	One of these surveys, released on June 20th by the legal website, FindLaw, makes us wonder whether public opinion should play any role in replacing O'Connor.
	The National Survey of 1,000 Adults found that nearly two-thirds of Americans could not name a single current U.S. Supreme Court justice.
	Departing Sandra Day O'Connor was the best-known justice, named by 25% of Americans.
	Close behind her was Clarence Thomas, mentioned by 21%.
	No other justice was mentioned by more than 10% of the public.
	Liberal Democrats are going to rant and rave that Bush plans to appoint another Scalia.
	But how threatening will that be when just 9% of American adults recalled Antonin Scalia's name as a justice?
	And when Americans are so unfamiliar with the current court, what justifies popular involvement in the selection of a new justice?
	Nothing anyway.
	The public doesn't get to vote on these people.
	The way the public works on this is they elect presidents.
	And then presidents take care of this.
	And one of the things presidents this one did anyway was campaign on the kind of justices he would nominate.
	And the public voted.
	So the public is in on this.
	The idea that we, look, I don't want to repeat myself, but all this is is trying to roll back the results of an election, trying to pretend the election never happened or trying to just disqualify them.
	That's all it is.
	And I don't know whether I agree and understand this poll, but I mean, it was taken before Sandra Day O'Connor retired.
	Make sense to you, Mr. Snerdley, that the number one name justice was Sandra Day O'Connor by only 25% of the people.
	Two-thirds couldn't even name one.
	That does make sense to you.
	Seems a little low to me, but we'll accept it here.
	Because this is the point that the guy who wrote this piece is trying to make anyway.
	Let's look at another poll.
	This one conducted in mid-May for the Associated Press appears to redeem the public a little bit.
	That poll asked 1,028 adults nationwide whether judges base their decisions mostly on interpretations of the law or mostly on their personal beliefs and political opinions.
	51% said the law prevails, but a strong 43% said that judges let their own views prevail.
	Now, this is a sizable minority, this 43%, and they shouldn't object to Bush's trying to appoint a justice whose views are consistent with his own.
	If justices rely on their own views more than they rely on the law, then Bush must appoint a conservative.
	Because media polls will also press for moderation because they know they can't win the war for outright liberalism.
	And this is key.
	Liberalism does not win at the ballot box, which is another reason why this battle is so crucial to the left.
	They cannot get liberalism inculcated into the fabric of our society or woven there via the legislative process.
	It'll go down to defeat every time it's tried.
	So liberal judges become moderates now.
	Liberal judges become pragmatists.
	This is designed to fool the public.
	And these media polls are now going to say we need a moderate judge or a pragmatist because they can't win the war for outright liberalism.
	A nationwide Gallup poll of 1,006 adults that was taken in the middle of June before O'Connor's decision asked Americans whether they would like to see Bush appoint a new justice who would make the court more liberal or more conservative than it is now or whether they'd keep the court as it is now.
	41% chose a justice who'd make the court more conservative.
	Only 30% wanted a more liberal court and just 24% championed the status quo.
	So they may not know the justices' names, but they know what the outcomes of these decisions mean to them.
	So 41% chose a justice who'd make the court more conservative.
	This is, again, a poll in the middle of June, and it is a Gallup poll.
	So, you know, this is why the left is not going to go out and say, we need liberals on the court, and it's why they're not saying it now, because they've got the same poll.
	And they believe these polls, by the way, especially a Gallup poll.
	They live and die by them.
	And they see the dire straits that they're in, which is only going to gin them up even more to try to force something on people that they don't want.
	This is going to make the elites of the left say, you're even stupider than we thought you were.
	You're even less qualified to be a citizen here than we thought you were.
	You don't know what's good for you.
	41% of you want a more conservative court.
	All right.
	If 41% of you are a bunch of Hitler-like Nazis, we have to take over.
	And we have to get our people on the court to save this country from the likes of these 41% who want conservatives.
	And that's what's going to animate them.
	And it's what's going to motivate them.
	But you're never going to hear the word liberal.
	You're going to hear the word moderate.
	You're going to hear the word pragmatist.
	You're going to hear, we can't have extremists.
	We can't have extreme right-wingers.
	can't have conservatives.
	But the polling data pre-vacancy polls is clear on what the plurality of Americans want here.
	Now, the media will also argue that Bush should name a non-controversial justice because their polls show that the Supreme Court is losing favor with the American public.
	This is a finding of Gallup and Pew Research Center polls reported last month.
	Some crosstabs from the Pew Poll reveal that this is really an argument for a more conservative justice.
	So they're also going to be talking about non-controversial because the polls show the Supreme Court is losing favor with the American public as it is.
	And the left is going to look at these polls and say, oh, geez, people, stupid Americans.
	No wonder we're losing elections.
	What do we got to do to get our ideas past these idiots, meaning you?
	And so they're going to come up.
	They'll probably go talk to George Lackoff, Rhymes With, and they'll come up with all kinds of words to describe the justice they want.
	And it's going to be words that will dovetail with what these polls are, short of using the term conservative.
	Liberal Democrat approval of the court is virtually unchanged from the past Pew polls.
	The most significant declines in approval of the court were recorded among white Protestant evangelicals and self-described conservative Republicans.
	So if the media truly want to boost the Supreme Court's sagging poll ratings, they should urge Bush to name a certifiable conservative to replace O'Connor.
	But that's not what the media wants.
	The media doesn't want to boost the Supreme Court's poll ratings.
	They want, not in this way.
	Because they were being honest is the point.
	They're really being honest about worried about the public opinion, the low opinion that public has for the court.
	Why, appoint a conservative, Mr. President?
	That's what the people of America are saying.
	Of course, the media is not going to say that, nor will Ted Kennedy or any other Democrats out there.
	So the media and their polls will try to make religion an issue in the naming of the new justice.
	But even here, pre-vacancy polls suggested Bush is on firm ground in naming a conservative.
	Rasmussen survey, 2,000 adults taken in early June, showed that a near majority of 46% of Americans said the Supreme Court has been too hostile toward religion.
	Half that number, only 23%, feels the court has been too friendly toward religion.
	So David Hill of Hill Research Consultants concludes here that Bush would be justified in appointing someone who is not hostile to America's religious heritage, beliefs, and values, and is therefore a conservative.
	That would please the vast majority of the American people.
	And it makes sense because Bush won the election.
	So that's, again, this is from the Hill, and we will link to this.
	I don't know if there's a subscription site or not, but if not, we will link to it at rushlinbaugh.com later this afternoon so you can read this and digest it yourself.
	But it's really, really, really good news.
	Okay, and now back to the phones.
	As promised, Dayton, Ohio, Jeff, nice to have you on the program, sir.
	Hello.
	Hey, thanks for having me.
	Hey, could not Schumer's threat on a litmus test on judicial philosophy also be interpreted as a threatened religious test based on convictions, i.e., evangelicals and devout Catholics need not apply.
	It's already happened.
	It just doesn't use the language that you used.
	Schumer has already opposed William Pryor on the basis of his deeply, quote, deeply held personal beliefs, unquote.
	That's his religion.
	But you're not supposed to do that, though.
	Well, no, but he's not really saying religion.
	So when you accuse Schumer of, oh, you're opposing him because of religion, then Schumer stands up with mock outrage.
	How dare you insult me?
	I was not even referring to religion.
	How dare you think the Democrats have any bias against any religion in this country, particularly the Koran?
	We don't.
	And so they're not going to say it specifically.
	But yeah, we know full well it can be interpreted that.
	Jeff, because this, as far as the religion component is concerned, it's all about Roe versus Wade.
	Yeah, in fact, didn't ⁇ I remember during the campaign, I remember getting a Republican email supporting whoever it was who opposed Schumer this last time around, trying to encourage this opponent to hit on that issue.
	Do you remember how that campaign was?
	I don't.
	I don't.
	I don't remember who Schumer's opponent was.
	I'm having a – do you, Mr. Sturtley?
	A metal block.
	Look, let's move beyond Schumer's campaign because you've brought up an interesting point, and I'm going to take you right back to this story on pre-vacancy polls that I just shared with you.
	And let me get to the relevant paragraph here.
	The media and their polls will also try to make religion an issue in the naming of a new justice.
	But here, too, pre-vacancy polls suggest that Bush is on firm ground in naming a conservative.
	Nationwide Rasmussen survey of 2,000 adults that was taken in early June showed that a near majority of 46% of Americans said the Supreme Court had been too hostile toward religion.
	So the Democrats have a fine line to walk here.
	The polling data, pre-vacancy polling data, is stacked against them.
	And the reason it's pre-vacancy, again, is because this before the atmosphere became highly charged.
	Howard Mills, I guess, was one of Schumer's opponents.
	But regardless, these polls are relevant because they are the polls taken without a highly charged atmosphere.
	No justice had retired as Sandra Dale Connor has.
	So the left is going to try to make religion an issue, but they'll not do it by attacking a nominee's religion.
	They will do it in a very surreptitious way, pointing out the separation of church and state or what have you.
	But make no bones about it, folks.
	They've got, in terms of public opinion, they have their work cut out for them.
	Now, the thing about them is public opinion really doesn't matter to them when it goes against them because they just look at it as a bunch of dorks, uninformed idiots that aren't smart enough to see what's going on and how bright and competent Democrats are.
	But this is, look at, all this is why I remain optimistic and confident these people are nailing their own coffin to themselves.
	They're nailing themselves in their own coffin as a movement, as a party.
	And I said yesterday, I think they're getting close here to their last stand because these polls are going to make them even more hysterical.
	They're going to become even more unhinged.
	And if Bush, you know, if Bush nominates people that are just pedaled a metal conservative, it's going to send them into conniption fits.
	But remember, it's going to take three of them to change the basic structure of the Supreme Court as currently constituted.
	Patrick in New Glaris, Wisconsin, nice to have you on the program, sir.
	Thanks a lot, Rush.
	You bet.
	I've supported abortion rights my whole life, but I would be prepared to support a principled anti-rogue conservative so long as they had a consistent view on the limited role of federal power.
	And if I could tell you what changed my mind about it, I'd be glad to show you.
	Yeah, I'd love to hear that.
	It was the two recent decisions of involving eminent domain and the medical marijuana case, where it was the liberals that found on behalf of expanding government power and limiting individual rights.
	And I've just realized at this point that even if you agree with the decision of the court, you're making a mistake to allow for any expansion of federal power because that leads to the limiting of individual rights in other areas, which may be equally dear to you.
	Amen, bro.
	Thank you.
	Amen.
	Welcome.
	Welcome home.
	Welcome home.
	No, seriously.
	You know, that's one of the points that I made after the eminent domain case.
	I thought, how many people understand what just happened here is that the Democrats that party had a little guy just screwed the little guy as property owner and just allowed a state government.
	I had so many people, Rush, you're wrong about this position.
	This sends power back to the states.
	No, it sends power back to the government.
	And this government was given the right to choose which citizen it wants to own property, and it wants the higher tax-paying citizen.
	So the little guy got screwed in New London, Connecticut.
	New little guy gets screwed out in San Francisco.
	And yet the Democrats maintain that it's their party that stands for the little guy.
	Well, congratulations, Patrick.
	Let me ask you this before you go.
	Why, because I know how powerful abortion is as a, to be your pro-life or pro-choice, I know how powerful that is in defining political allegiance.
	These two decisions that you cite had to be pretty powerful to overcome that.
	Am I right?
	Yeah, that's right.
	Well, number one, I own a house on a very nice piece of property next to a very lovely piece of land.
	So my local government can certainly try to make an argument there's greater economic benefit to use my land another way, and that concerns me deeply.
	The medical marijuana issue, of course, I'd just like to control feelings.
	And I think we all just have to be pro-I mean, the thing is, regardless of what your political stance is, if you're anything but pro-liberty, then you don't understand what America's about.
	Well, let me ask you this question about abortion.
	Let's go forward.
	Let's assume, just for the sake of discussion, that at some point Roe versus Wade is overturned.
	Now, as a pro-choice person, what's your reaction to that?
	My reaction to that is to fight it out at the state level.
	And if people don't like the state law, then they should move.
	America's about the free exchange of currency and the free exchange of citizens.
	All right.
	So you recognize that abortion will still be legal even after Roe versus Wade is overturned.
	Absolutely.
	California, New York, you know, Red State, Blue State.
	You know what I'm saying?
	And it would also move this discussion back to the states with the federal government out of it.
	You could have an honest discussion in the States about what is the proper role for the state government in this.
	And of course, I would argue for a limited role of the state government as well.
	Well, but when the people decide, the people decide.
	See, when the elected representatives of people decide a controversial issue, the controversy is greatly reduced.
	I mean, abortion is a huge, huge issue in Great Britain, but it doesn't roil their culture and society there the way it does here.
	And there's a reason.
	The people in Great Britain voted the way they did.
	They voted to legalize it.
	But it's always subject change.
	But here, back in 1973, nine lawyers wearing black robes decreed a constitutional right to privacy allowing abortion, and the people had no say about it.
	And so it was something forced on the culture and society, and it's royal this ever since.
	And if that could change, you could take a lot of the controversy out of it and just turn it into a usual political issue that gets debated here and there.
	That's the dirty little secret.
	And I think if you understand that the left doesn't want to trust that to the people, the left doesn't want to trust abortion or any other issue to the people.
	That's why they're trying to institutionalize as much of their ideology via the court system as they can.
	David, in Youngstown, Ohio, you're next on the EIB network.
	Hello.
	Hello, Golf Blaying Dittos Rush from Youngstown, Ohio.
	Do you actually believe President Bush will nominate a pro turning over of Roe v. Swade judge because that will actually be his legacy.
	You know, if this does happen in the next 10 years, it's not going to be the judge that overturned it.
	It's going to be the president who actually nominated the judge who overturned it.
	And also, the other guy kind of stole my thunder.
	This would actually bring it back to the states.
	And do you think the state representatives will actually want to publicly state their point of view now?
	Now, it's no longer a judge or it's no longer a Supreme Court decision now.
	It's a state decision now.
	Let me tell you something.
	If you've got enough state legislators out there that are willing to legalize gay marriage, legalizing abortion would be no problem for them.
	And I don't think you'll have any problem finding a bunch of states in this country where the legislators will go on record as legalizing abortion in their states.
	Some won't, but some will.
	But I don't think that'll be a problem.
	The first question you asked, do I think Bush will really appoint an anti-rogue judge?
	All I can do, folks, is rely on what President Bush has said that he would do in the campaign.
	I don't know.
	I don't have a pipeline.
	I don't know what they're thinking.
	I don't know what their list is.
	I'm not one of these people on television that can tell you it's going to be X, and then the second judge is going to be Y, and then the third judge is going to be Z.
	I haven't slightest idea.
	I don't hang around in the clubs and the cloakrooms and listen to all the gossip back and forth about this.
	I don't know.
	I don't even pretend to know.
	I don't have one name at the top of the list that I think would, I mean, I like Janice Rogers Brown, but in terms of who I think the president will appoint, couldn't tell you.
	So all I can rely on is what he said during the campaign.
	And he said it during two campaigns, the kind of justice that he would appoint, original intent, would not interpret law, but rather would interpret the Constitution, would not make law.
	And he's been honest.
	The one thing about George W. Bush is he does what he says he's going to do.
	So I'll just wait and see.
	I'm not going to prejudge it until it happens.
	And I'm not in a position to know.
	But my faith is such that, yes, he's going to appoint a kind of judge who's going to make us all happy.
	And he's going to do it two or three times.
	Take a break.
	Be back after this.
	Don't go away.
	I'm getting lots of email here today, folks, about the French and their loss in the effort to get the Olympics in 2012.
	But hey, you know, New York City lost too.
	We can sit here, we can have all the Shatten Freud we want over the French taking it on the chin in this.
	But New York lost, and they were going to build a new stadium, and they were going to have Mayor Bloomberg there.
	And guess who went over there to make a personal appeal and was said to be the arriving rock star of all the contingents?
	It was Mrs. Hillary Rodham.
	Hillary Rodham went over and personally lobbied the committee, International Olympic Committee, and New York got the thumb.
	New York did not get it.
	Folks, this does not look good for Mrs. Clinton.
	It doesn't look good for anybody named Clinton because they supposedly own this part of the world.
	They own Europe and the International Olympic Committee is made up of a bunch of these types.
	And they should have just been bowing down and kissing Mrs. Clinton's feet.
	Oh, Mrs. Clinton, you came to see us.
	You want the Olympics here.
	Can we come and see you when we do the Olympics in New York?
	Nope, they will go to Great Britain.
	They went to the United Kingdom.
	This is after Jacques Chirac was making fun of the food in the United Kingdom.
	He was telling some horrible jokes about how rotten the food is there.
	And it really steamed old Tony Blair.
	But the Brits get their revenge.
	Mrs. Clinton, a non-factor.
	Now, I suspect that what's going to happen here is that once this is all realized, somebody will make a call to the IOC.
	It's okay, we understand you gave it to Great Britain, but you've got to tell everybody how impressed you were with Mrs. Clinton's performance and with her presentation.
	Why do we have to do that?
	Just trust me.
	Ask Bob Torricelli or Andrew Cuomo, and you'll just trust us.
	You want to put out a statement regaling Mrs. Clinton how brilliant she was, how competent she was, that there were other factors and that her brilliant presentation, notwithstanding, it just wasn't the U.S.'s turn.
	In fact, her presentation had nothing to do with the turndown.
	You better do, you know, I'll make book on it, Mr. Snerdley.
	I will make book on it before the end of the week.
	Somebody at the IOC talks about how massively impressive Hillary Rodham was.
	You watch.
	But the bottom line is she wasn't able to get it for her state.
	She wasn't able to get it for New York City.
	And that's the bottom line.
	Curtis in my adopted hometown of Sacramento.
	Hello and welcome to the program, sir.
	Bonjour.
	Yes.
	I want to preface this by saying that I get kind of down and depressed when I hear all the liberal media and wonder how effective they are.
	And I was really surprised that Anthony Scalia was not the number one recognized Supreme Court justice, considering he's the one who personally put Bush in office.
	And that's all we heard for the last five years.
	And I just wanted to know what you thought about that.
	Well, I'm a little stunned by the poll.
	I'm surprised that two-thirds of the American people can't even name one justice and that the most well-known is Sandra Dale Connor.
	But, you know, the poll is what it is.
	But he raises, I mean, you raise an interesting point here, Curtis.
	I mean, the media was so outraged over Bush v. Gore 2000, and they personally dumped on Kennedy and they dumped on Scalia.
	I think it's one of the reasons Kennedy has sort of moderated.
	I think all these judges want legacies, too.
	And they saw the mainstream press writing all these horrible things about them.
	And so, okay, we'll go the other way, just to get them back on our side and show them that we're not, you know, above whatever they were afraid that their image was with the mainstream press.
	But the fact that I'm surprised O'Connor's the most well-known, 25%.
	And I'm not surprised Clarence Thomas, you would think that with the attention on his confirmation hearings, everybody would know who he is.
	You'd think that certainly more than 21% would, even though it was back in the 90s, you would still think this.
	But, you know, the court's not in the news that much individually.
	And when court news is reported, it's always Supreme Court said today, no.
	Supreme Court said today, yes.
	Supreme Court said today, your property is worthless.
	Supreme Court said today, you can't toke up even if you're dying with pain from cancer.
	Supreme Court said today, blah, blah.
	But they never say Antonin Scalia, writing for the majority of the Supreme Court, said today that you can't toke up when you're dying from cancer.
	You have a lot of pain.
	They don't do it that way.
	So it may make sense this way.
	The court is seen as this giant institution of super special human beings.
	And they've got a, according to all these polls, the overall approval or respect the court has been has been plummeting.
	A brief timeout, my friends.
	We will be back.
	Dick Durbin on WLS in Chicago today.
	I haven't heard it.
	I've got the bite.
	Apparently still blaming me.
	We'll do this, WLS, our 50,000-watt flamethrower, in Chicago.
	We'll do that the opening monologue of the next segment.
	Be right back.
	Don't go anywhere.
	We also have in the audio soundbite files coming up.
	If you want to hear, we got some Ralph Nees, people from the American Way, Bob Shrum, who has never yet won a campaign for a Democrat candidate for president, who's now a, I guess he's an official contributor for MS NBC.
	George Clooney, praising George Bush at the G8 summit.
	And we got other stuff in the stacks too.
	The global warming and astrologist in Russia has sued NASA for crashing into the comet.
	It's hilarious.
	Lots of stuff still ahead, folks.
	So just be cool.
	And your phone call, too.
	I've got Brian Diddo Cam here top of the R2.

▲