All Episodes
Previous Next
July 6, 2005 - Rush Limbaugh Program
36:27
July 6, 2005, Wednesday, Hour #2
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Sitting here watching the forecast track of Hurricane Dennis.
If they're right about this, after it creams Club Gitmo, it's gonna go right.
It's gonna go between Havana and Pinar del Rio, which is the premier cigar growing tobacco growing region in Cuba.
It's gonna make a beeline for Pensacola.
Those poor people, uh Mobile Pensacola region, they got they get pummeled last year.
And this thing gonna 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.
Um, no, wait a minute, it'd be a 17th, 17th anniversary, starting the 18th year, 17th anniversary on um 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 uh put them on or 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.
Well, 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 are a bunch of liberals.
Uh we've got a special email address for you to send in your photos once they're taken.
And uh we'll publish the best of them, and we're gonna start this afternoon at Rush Limbaugh.com.
The address to send the photos is uh Club Gitmo at Rush Limbaugh.com.
Uh 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.
They the 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 uh in the United States.
It just brings such disrespuke disrespect and disrepute to our own country.
It's just it's hilarious to read these people.
Um and it is all getting under their skin.
So I just I wanted to uh 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 uh uh 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 gonna 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 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, and the American people think of that?
Um you ask the question the right way, you get the answer the way you want it, and then 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 gonna do the same thing in the Supreme Court nomination fight.
Since they can't openly campaign for a particular nominee or type, they will 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 gonna sway Chuck Schumer or Ted Kennedy.
I mean, I I the the all these clown Schumers out there saying he's gonna have a petition with 30,000 signatures by the end of the week.
Hey, Chuck, I could do that in 30 minutes here.
I can get 30,000 signatures on something in 30 minutes here.
And then move on.org is out there.
They're getting a petition signed.
What do they honestly think that delivering these petitions 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.
Anybody really believe that a bunch of petitions brought to the White House by Chuck Schumer or a bunch of petitions generated by move on.org 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 two 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.
Move on.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 on 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 uh representatives of the people get a chance to weigh in on it.
But the president, who also won an election, well, 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, and I've so uh 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 house 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 gonna 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 two-fold.
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.
When you win elections, you can go pick your Ruth Bader Ginsburg's and you can pick your John Paul Stevenses 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.
You Gotta 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 prying 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 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 the 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.
I take a break here.
Some of the some of the data in these pre-vacancy uh polls.
I don't know if it'll surprise you, but uh 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 prejudice 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 of these pre-vacancy polls may provide more useful insight on the public's real views of the court.
One of these surveys uh 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 of a thousand 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 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 now it's look at 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 uh uh 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.
Uh makes sense to you, Mr. Snerdley, that uh the number one named 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 but we'll accept it here.
It's it's uh the because this is the point that the guy who wrote this piece um uh 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 a thousand twenty-eight adults nationwide whether judges base their decisions mostly on interpretations of the law or mostly on their personal beliefs and political opinions.
Fifty-one percent 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 uh these these media polls are now gonna say we need a moderate judge or a pragmatist, because they can't win the war for outright liberalism.
A nationwide gallop poll of a thousand six 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 uh whether they'd keep the court as it is now.
Forty-one percent chose a justice who'd make the court more conservative.
Only 30% wanted a more liberal court, and just 24% champion 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 a again, a poll in the middle of June, and it is a Gallup poll.
So, you know, that 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 can get 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.
Forty-one percent 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 these 41% who aren't conservatives, and that's what's going to animate them, and that'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, we can't have conservatives.
Um, 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 Pugh Research Center polls reported last month.
Some cross tabs 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 as, oh, Jesus, people, stupid Americas.
No wonder we're losing elections.
Okay, what do we got to do to get our ideas past these these idiots?
Meaning you.
And so they're going to come up, they're probably going to 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.
They were being honest is the point.
They're really being honest about, worried about the public opinion, the low opinion the 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, and nor will uh 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-vaccy 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 uh again, this is from the Hill, and we will uh link to this.
Uh 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.
Uh as promised, Dayton, Ohio, uh Jeff, nice to have you on the program, sir.
Hello.
Hey, thanks for having me.
Hey, could not Schumer's uh 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.
Uh Schumer has already opposed to will you already oppose 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 Quran?
We don't.
And uh so he they're not gonna say it specifically.
They're not there, but yeah, we you we know full well it can be interpreted that.
Um uh Jeff, because this as far as the the religion component is concerned, it's it's all about Roe vs.
Wade.
Mm-hmm.
Yeah, in fact, didn't uh I remember during the campaign, I remember getting a 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 uh I don't remember who Schumer's opponent was.
I'm having a do you, Mr. Sturdley?
Uh a metal block.
Look, let's let's move beyond Schumer's campaign because you've brought up an interesting point, and I'm gonna take you right back to this story on pre-vacancy polls that I just uh shared with you.
Uh and let me let me get to the uh 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 two thousand adults that was taken in early June showed that a near majority of forty-six percent 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 the uh uh one of Schumer's opponents.
But regardless, these polls are relevant because they are the uh polls taken without a highly charged atmosphere.
No no no justice had retired, as uh Sandra Day O'Connor has.
So the the the the left is gonna 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, by pointing out the separation of church and state or what have you.
But make no bones about it, uh, folks.
They've got, in terms of public opinion, they have their work cut out for them.
Now, the the thing about them is public opinion really doesn't matter to them when it goes against them, uh, 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 and and competent Democrats are.
So, but this is this is look it.
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 I've I said yesterday I think I think they're getting close here to their their last stand because this these these polls are going to make them even more uh hysterical.
They're going to become even more unhinged.
And if Bush, you know, if Bush nominates people that are just peddled to the metal conservative, it's going to send them in a 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 uh Nu Glaris, Wisconsin.
Nice to have you on the program, sir.
Thanks a lot, Rush.
You bet.
I would be 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 these recent 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, welcome.
No, seriously, you know that that that 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, the party of the little guy, just screwed the little guy as property owner and just allowed a state government.
I had so many people, Russ, you you're wrong about this position.
This sends power back to the states.
Now 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.
Uh, and yet the Democrats maintain that it's the uh their party that stands for the little guy.
Well, congratulations, Patrick.
I'm let me ask you this before you go, why uh because I know how powerful abortion is is uh be your pro-life or pro choice.
I know how powerful that is in uh defining political allegiance.
Uh this 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.
Very 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.
Okay.
Mm-hmm.
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 let's just for the sake of uh discussion that uh uh at some point Roe vs.
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 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 uh 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, that's that's when the elected uh representatives of people decide a controversial issue, the controversy's greatly reduced.
I mean abortion is a huge huge issue in Great Britain, but it doesn't royal 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.
Uh 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 it's royalty 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.
Uh uh it's uh it it it that that's the the dirty little secret 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 uh their ideology via the court system as they can David in Youngstown Ohio you're next on the EIB network hello.
Hello golf playing dittoes Rush from Youngstown Ohio.
Do you actually believe President Bush will nominate a pro you know turning over of Roe v.
Suede judge because that will actually be his legacy you know if it just does happen in the next ten years it's not going to be the judge that overturned it's going to be the president who actually nominated the judge who overturned it.
And also that 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 it's no longer a um 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 I don't 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 uh as legalizing abortion in their states.
Some won't but some will uh but you I don't I don't think that'll be a problem the first the first uh question you asked do I think Bush will really appoint uh an anti-Row judge all I can do folks is rely on what President Bush has said that he would do in the campaign because I don't know I don't have a pipeline I I don't you know I don't know what they're thinking I don't know what 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 in the third judge is going to be Z. I haven't slightest idea I don't hang around uh you know 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 I don't have one name at the top of the list that I think would I mean I've liked 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's 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 that'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 schadenfreude 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.
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 it really steamed old Tony Blair.
But uh 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, uh somebody will make a call to the IOC.
So, okay, we understand you gave it to Great Britain, but you gotta tell everybody how impressed you were with Mrs. Clinton's uh performance and and with her presentation.
Why do we have to do that?
Just trust me.
Uh asked Bob Torreselli or Andrew Cuomo.
Uh uh and and you'll just trust us, you want to put out a statement regaling Mrs. Clinton, how brilliant she was, how competent she was, uh, that there were other factors and that her her brilliant presentation notwithstanding.
Uh it just wasn't the U.S.'s turn.
In fact, her presentation had nothing to do with the turndow.
You better do.
You know, this this this you yeah, 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.
Um I want to preface this by saying that I get uh kind of down and depressed when I hear all the liberal um 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 I'm a little stunned by the poll.
I I'm surprised that uh two-thirds of the American people can't even name one justice, and that the most well known is Sandra Day O'Connor.
Uh but you know, the poll is uh 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 uh 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 uh yeah, I I'm I'm surprised O'Connor's the most well known.
I'm uh 25%.
And 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.
Uh you would still think this.
Uh, but you know, the court's not in the news that much individually.
And when the when court news is reported, it's always Supreme Court said today, no.
Supreme Court said today, yes.
Supreme Court said today, your property's 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 Anton Scalia, writing for the majority of the Supreme Court, said today that you can't toke up when you're dying for camp 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 uh according to the all these polls, the uh overall approval or respect the court has been uh has been plummeting.
A brief time out, 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.
Uh 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 Schrum, uh, who has never yet won a campaign for a Democrat candidate for president, who's now a uh uh, I guess he's uh official contributor for MS uh NBC, George Clooney praising George Bush uh at the uh at the G8 summit.
And they got other stuff in the stacks too uh that uh 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.
Brian Dinocam here, top of the R2.
▲
Export Selection