All Episodes
Previous Next
July 12, 2005 - Rush Limbaugh Program
35:24
July 12, 2005, Tuesday, Hour #3
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
All righty, we are back.
We have only have an hour to go, folks.
I have I have to share with some of my frustration.
I have I have a stack of stuff here that's just full of funny and and and just interesting stuff.
And this whole Rove thing uh is so baseless, have to spend two hours on this.
Uh it is very frustrating to me.
It it it just is, because it's such it is genuinely a non-story other than the lesson that can be learned of watching this press frenzy as it uh as it's coordinated with the Democratic Party and what it means to their overall uh decline in in uh in in power and relevancy.
It's just but I don't know.
I just wanted to share with you, I'm frustrated.
I'm going through the stacks here and I'm finding all these- I mean, I was really looking forward to the show today, and this stupid stuff popped up.
And I get sick and tired every day having to carry this administration's water or people in this administration because they're not out there doing it themselves.
And and that that sort of leads me into this whole Supreme Court business that we have here today.
But before I get into that, I want to uh I want to uh just give you two more bits of information about this thing to back up the contentions that I have made today on this rove business.
The first is the New York Times story itself by Richard W. Stevenson.
The headline, um I that my copy here did not copy the all the way to the left, so I'm having to guess.
Uh not White House a Day of Silence.
I don't know what this says.
Or at White House, a day of silence.
Anyway, they quote Bruce Sanford.
And this is the very end of a very long story.
Bruce Sanford, a Washington lawyer who helped write the law that everybody says Rove broke here.
And uh and I uh I'm sorry, folks, I just I can't read this whole story, but I can give I give you his quote here.
He said, it is clear that Carl Rove's conversation with Matt Cooper does not fall into the category of breaking the law here as it was written.
Uh it does not fall into the category of criminal conduct, Mr. Sanford said.
Uh that's not knowing, I don't know what this says, but he says it doesn't even come close.
Uh so Carl Rove's conversation with Matt Cooper does not fall into the category of criminal conduct, according to Bruce Sanford, a Washington lawyer who helped write the law.
Uh and uh did something to a brief on behalf of several news organizations.
Uh I'm sorry, I'm I can't make sense of this.
Anyway, Victoria Tenzing is also another person who helped write the law.
And uh uh she said the Novak column and the surrounding facts do not support evidence of criminal conduct.
For Plaim's outing to have been illegal.
Her status as undercover must be classified.
Also, Plame must have been assigned to duty outside the United States currently or in the past five years.
Since in neither case does Plame meet those criteria, there is a serious legal question as to whether she qualifies as covert.
The law also requires that the celebrated non-spies outing take place by someone who knew the government had taken affirmative measures to conceal the agent's relationship to the U.S. Victoria Tenzing says that that's unlikely.
In fact, the myth that the Intelligence Identities Protection Act was violated in the Plaim case began to unravel in October 2003 when New York Times writer Nicholas Christoph revealed that she abandoned her covert role a full nine years before the Novak column.
She wasn't even a covert agent at the time this happened.
She was a covert agent nine years prior to all of this.
The CIA suspected that Aldrich Aim, uh Aldrich Ames had given Plame's name along with those of other spies to the Russians before his espionage arrest in 1994.
This is from uh from uh from from Christoph in the New York Times.
So her undercover security was undermined at that time, and she was brought back to Washington for safety reasons and spent nine years in Washington, not as a covert agent.
So there's no law that has been broken here.
And this is from to two people who helped write the law.
Nicholas Christoph of the New York Times also noted that Plame had begun making the transition to CIA management, not being an agent, in other words, even before she was outed by Novak, explaining that she was moving away from non-official cover to a new cover as a State Department official, affording her diplomatic protection without having CIA stamped on her forehead.
And of course, it's while there that she assigns her husband the job of going down to Niger to give him something to do, and he comes back from that and starts telling lies all over the place about what he found and what he reported and so forth.
Mr. Christoph in the New York Times concluded, all in all, I think the Democrats are engaging in a hyperbole when they describe the White House as having put Plame's life in danger and destroyed her career.
Her days skulking along the back alleys of cities like Beirut and Algiers were all more already mostly over.
So this is nothing.
This is about absolutely nothing.
And that's why it's funny to watch the Democrats here just have a conniption fit over it.
They are so eager.
They can't win at the ballot box, folks, and they're not going to win at the ballot box in 2006, and they know it.
They're not going to win.
They can't win what they stand for, they can't be honest and admit what they stand for, they can't admit and say this is what we believe we're going to run on this.
So all they can do is look at life through the template of Watergate and try to rid the world of their enemies via scandal.
Because they can't beat them.
The liberals can no longer beat us in the arena of ideas.
The liberals can no longer beat us in legitimate debates.
The liberals can only win when they control the debate room like a classroom at a major institution of higher learning or in a high school.
When they control what goes on in the room, they can win it because they can stifle and suppress any other opinion.
But when they're in the arena of ideas, the public arena of ideas, these people cannot hold a candle to us anymore.
Because they cannot intellectually go to any Democrat website, look at the arguments, you won't see any.
All you'll see is never-ending seething, raging hatred attacks against the president and any other Republican or conservative.
These liberals happen to hate and consider an enemy and an obstacle.
And the reason they're in this mood is because they owned this town.
They owned Washington.
They owned this country for 50 years.
They lost it in 1994, effectively have not gotten it back despite the eight years of Clinton.
They see no way of getting it back legitimately.
That's why the court's so important to them.
If they can't win elections, they'll get judges on the court that will go ahead and institutionalize what they believe outside of the arena of ideas, so that it can never be questioned, never be debated, and never be gotten rid of.
Because you know how hard it is to overcurn uh overturned court decisions.
So they're in full-fledged panic mode.
They're standing in quicksand.
It's their last stand, and the evidence of this is the fact that there's absolutely no law that's been broken here.
Valerie Plame is not even the agent they claim.
She is not even a covert agent.
She was never at risk.
Her life was never threatened.
She's no longer in the back alleys.
She hadn't been doing so for nine years.
She's just an average run-of-the-mill citizen, like everybody else, who's got some husband, and they pose for pictures in Vanity Fair, all the while complaining about their privacy having been violated.
They're phony baloney, plastic banana, good time rock and rollers, they are tools of an increasingly dishonest, disreputable, and untrustworthy left in this country.
And they'll go along with that because they know they've outed themselves as far as having any companionship or friends on the right.
And of course, Washington is the seat of elitism.
It's the seat of uh of liberal power.
They still do run that town.
And if you're gonna be, if you're gonna be uh uh uh well, let's just say it kissing ass with anybody in that town, you're gonna kiss the ass of the liberals so that you'll be in and invited to the cocktail parties and get your picture in Vanity Fair and so forth.
But in truth, you're despicable.
You're allowing a lie to be continued.
You're allowing in your name, Valerie Plame and Joe Wilson, a whole bunch of falsehoods and lies to be to be carried out in your name just so you'll become famous and just so you'll have sympathy and just so you'll have friends in Washington, D.C. Well, this country is not Washington, D.C. Washington, D.C. D.C. does not represent most of the people in this country in terms of the culture and the power structure, and the people of this country are seeing it clearly and more clearly each and every day, and with this ridiculous feeding frenzy over absolutely nothing.
It's no more than the latest forged documents to get Bush.
It's no more than visiting that story on the National Guard four to five times.
It's no more than Abu Grab.
It's no more than Ab the Club Gitmo.
It is no more than every other attempt they can come up with to force Bush to fire somebody or get him out of office.
And believe me, if Bush were to ever fire Rove, they would say, okay, you got to go to Bush, because you hired Rove.
You're no better than Rove is.
That's why Rove isn't gonna go anywhere.
Rove hasn't broken any laws.
I want to know who was a New York Times source.
Who are they protecting?
This is all bogus.
It's all just it's it's just a uh a concoction of dreams and fantasies made up by a lot of people who haven't had their feet planted in reality for about 20 years.
We'll be back after this.
Stay with us.
And we are back.
Great to have you with us, Rush Limbaugh, the excellence in broadcasting network, a little programming note.
For the second time in two weeks, we have lost all of our internet and email connections, which is affecting the ditto cam.
Uh we simply are not connected uh in any way.
No, that's not going to be the case tomorrow.
Because tomorrow we're through with MCI.
Our problem is MCI, fed up with these people.
Uh so we're getting a backup in here tomorrow that is probably going to become our primary.
And uh MCI can be our backup.
You know, redundancy, redundancy, but we've got it on all the lines, we've got it on all the equipment.
We don't have it on the line.
We're gonna have redundancy on the line tomorrow with another line coming in, one that we can depend on.
If it's any better than MCI, who the hell knows?
Probably not, but we're gonna give it a shot.
All right.
Now, before we go to the audio tapes of this cockamamy stupid meeting at the White House today, here's this.
This is a Rasmussen poll.
It's uh from yesterday.
If President Bush nominates a qualified conservative to serve on the Supreme Court, 58% of likely voters say that the Senate Democrats should vote to confirm that nominee.
A Rasmussen report survey found that just 24% of registered voters, likely voters, believe that Harry Reed's party should oppose such a nominee.
Republicans and unaffiliated voters strongly support confirmation.
Democrats are even evenly divided.
Forty-three percent say that their senators should vote to confirm, while 38% take the opposite view.
You know why this?
Because people of this country understand when you win elections, you get to do this.
When you lose elections, you don't.
You don't get to name the nominees when you lose elections.
You name the nominees, you pick them when you win elections.
Now, and there's there's uh probably there's there's other polling data out there, the uh pre-vacancy, prior to Sandra Day O'Connor's uh retirement, uh that indicated pretty much the same thing.
But this is a post-vacancy poll.
And again, 58% of likely voters said that Senate Democrats, this question was specifically worded, and it was not asked of uh all Republicans.
Say that Senate Democrats should vote to confirm that nominee if the nominee is a qualified conservative.
Only 24% thought that Harry Reid's party should oppose such a nominee.
So this is exactly what I'm saying about the arena of ideas, these people have lost it.
They no longer have their area of dominant influence out there, but the court is so important to them, and their elitism is such that what you think doesn't matter to them anyway.
They're gonna obstruct even McCain, McCain was in a fundraiser in Arizona last night, said there will be no filibusters.
This is an up or down vote situation.
President gets to nominate who he gets.
I'm paraphrasing here, but uh Drudge had a little blurb on his website uh today, and I didn't bother to print it out because with this little paragraph, but McCain was out there sounding like you know, fire and brimstone conservative.
And he's one of the gang of 14.
Let's go to the audio tape.
Here's the president this morning after he had uh uh the breakfast with uh it was it was Leahy and Dingy Harry, Bill Frist, and Arlan Spector, a uh a reporterette, said, uh, Mr. President, you had a meeting this morning with four leading senators.
How much more input do you need before you'll be able to make a decision on a Supreme Court nominee?
I did have a good breakfast uh with uh uh four United States senators, uh, the leaders of the Senate plus the heads of the Judiciary Committee.
I asked their advice uh on a couple of matters.
One, I asked their advice on the timing of a nominee.
In other words, how fast could they get to the uh to the uh to the hearings necessary for a nominee to name to move forward.
Uh, secondly, uh, we talked in general about a potential nominee.
They've got strong opinions, and I wanted to hear them.
And uh uh they've shared some opinions with me, and of course they're sharing uh many senators are sharing their opinions with others on my staff.
We're we're actively seeking recommendations.
Uh then the president uh added this, added the campaign twice for president of the United States.
And I said, if I have a chance to name somebody to the Supreme Court, or of course in general, I pick people who will use the bench will interpret the Constitution while on the bench, but not use the bench to legislate.
We've got a legislative body called uh U.S. House of Representatives and the Senate.
They do the legislation.
And the courts will then interpret the Constitution as to whether or not the laws are constitutional or not.
And so that's where we are in the process.
Okay.
So uh Frist inspector go up there.
I can understand that Dingy Harry and Pat Lahey.
These are people that are actively attempting to undermine the man's very presidency.
He brings them up.
You know the old adage, keep your enemies closer, keep your friends close, your enemies closer, I guess is operative here.
Bring them up there.
I I I have speculate.
I don't know if the president thinks this is going to make the confirmation process any easier.
Uh if this is going to change the combative nature of Harry Reed, it's not, if he thinks that.
I can't believe he does think it.
I think uh that they've got these polls out there, and I think the president's showing the country he's being cooperative.
He's being co when Dingy Harry and Leahy and Schumer and the rest of these guys do what we know they're gonna do.
Guess who's gonna look uncooperative?
Guess who's gonna look like they have no appreciation for the president making them part of the process?
And I hope that's the gambit here.
I hope that's what's going on.
And I trust that it is.
Uh it's it's hope it's not something else.
Let's listen to Dingy Harry.
He was asked after the meeting uh what was said in the meeting, what he thought of the meeting.
And here's what Dingy Harry said.
I was impressed with the fact the president said it would, that we'll there will be more uh meetings, consultation.
The president has thousands of names that I'm sure uh at least hundreds of names to that he will go through.
Uh he didn't give us any names.
There were a lot of names discussed in the meeting, of which we're not going to talk about any of those names.
I think that's an agreement that we have, and we'll stick by that.
Uh Dingy Harry uh then uh said this, another portion of his remarks.
Let me say this.
I think that we're in a at a time in the history of this country where we've had enough discussion, debate, and uh contention on judges.
Stop the tape.
I think he's seen the polls.
I think he has seen the polls.
That's how you translate that.
All right, we're at a time in this history of the country we've had enough discussion, debate, and contention on the judges.
He said, Senator Frist and I. I want to avoid that as the two leaders of the Senate.
I think it says volumes to talk about the relationship of the ranking member and the chairman of this committee.
They are friends.
They have been for a long time.
And for Senator Frist and I, they have set an example of how you need to get along as uh people who run a committee.
This just makes me want to throw up to listen to this gobbledygook.
Here is a guy who's out there calling the president a loser in front of school kids.
Here is a guy who is filibustering judges, who's tarring and feathering and literally trying to destroy the reputations of fine people in the appellate court nominations the president sent up there.
Janice Rogers Brown, Charles Pickering, uh uh Priscilla Owen, the whole list of them.
Harry Reid led the charge in trying to destroy, even citing what he's not even allowed to see in raw FBI files about one judge, Henry Saud, out of Michigan.
And uh these guys don't get to pick the nominee.
They they are not the winners of the elections, and it galls me that they have the audacity to think that they now have a serious constitutional role in the nomination process.
They don't.
There is nothing about it.
In the next issue of the Limbaugh letter, we are gonna do a whole feature on what the founders wrote and said about the confirmation process.
And you will see in the next issue of the Limbaugh letter that it was not the way the Democrats in the Senate are defining it today.
It was the way they ran the Senate when Clinton was naming judges.
He'd name a liberal judge 50 days later, they're confirmed 98 to zip.
It's just it's it's the two different sides of the coin here.
I got to take a break, we'll be back, we'll continue in mere moments.
Do not go away.
Having more fun than a human being should be allowed to have.
All right, so we had a breakfast today with uh Harry Reed, uh Pat Lahey, Arlen Spector, Bill Frist, and the president.
And Harry Reed came out, oh, this is wonderful.
We're glad we're being consulting.
No names are mentioned, but we're gonna get this done together.
We're working together.
We love each other.
Blah, blah, blah, blah.
Just made you want to throw up.
Let's listen to Chuck Schumer's reaction.
Let us hope that this is not the end of the consultation process, but the beginning.
Arrogance.
Let us hope that there will be the kind of dialogue.
I'd reiterate my call to the president to have a summit.
To call a good number of Democrats and Republicans together for a day at Camp David for an evening or a dinner at the White House.
And have a real back and forth where we roll up our sleeves and really get into a serious, detailed discussion of how we all feel.
This is arrogance like I have never seen it.
This is this is a guy who's only got one arm sticking out of the quicksand, saying, if uh if if if you don't get me out of here, I'm not going to save you.
This guy is beyond the pale.
Wants a summit, breakfast is not enough.
Wants a summit at Camp David.
Get all these Democrats together.
Let's really have a real consultation process.
Only one problem, Senator Schumer, you are a loser.
You didn't win the election.
You don't get to do this.
And the arrogance that you seem to have that the Democrats run this country, it's only legitimate when the Democrats are running this country.
I hope you can hear how you sound to people, Senator, because you're becoming a laughing stock.
I mean, people that have not even been taught the Constitution understand how wrong you are, Senator Schumer.
And we we couldn't complete this process without listening to Senator uh Leahy.
He was on Inside Politics uh yesterday with uh Candy Crowley on CNN, and she says, you know, we we we we've heard that a lot.
And I'm I'm wondering here, if you take a conservative judge, when is a conservative judge simply that, and when is a conservative judge divisive?
When they're divisive because they've taken uh positions that show that they're almost monolithically in favor of just one group like just the only rule in favor of business, the only rule in favor of a certain class of people or those those things, and there are some judges who are like that, they usually end up being reversed, but you don't want them on the Supreme Court, where there's nobody there to uh reverse them.
I worry.
I worry when they're an activist judge who uh almost reflectively vote down laws passed by the Congress or by the states and create laws of their own substitute.
The two most activist judges we have right now are Justice Thomas and uh Justice Scalia.
The two least activist judges are Thomas and Scalia.
What you just heard Senator Leahy do here, uh remember words mean things.
Senator Leahy is twisting the word activist around and uh applying it to originalists like Scalia and Thomas.
This other gibberish about, well, they're divisive uh because they've taken positions that show they're almost monolithically in favor of just one group, uh, like they'll just rule only rule in favor of business.
They'll only ru it's it everything with with these people apparently is class envy, and the court is there to um uh balance the economic scale, guarantee a quality of outcomes or sameness of outcomes or what have you.
Uh but but regardless, I just think this is pathetic.
I think these people uh would they don't have the ability to be embarrassed.
If they were embarrassed with themselves or could be embarrassed, they wouldn't have stopped letting Ted Kennedy go out and speak for them a long time ago.
Uh but it is it's it's amazing to watch.
This is this is some might say so once great party, the Democratic Party is literally now just crumbling, door jam by door jam, the mansion uh that was the Democratic Party is being torn down.
Door jam by door jam, but it's happening.
Well, I know it it's it's frustrating.
It's it's it's it's frustrating to a lot of people.
But you know what's frustrating about it?
It's not so much I I've always thought, just in in interactions with people.
We all have uh various personality types that rub us the wrong way.
Whether it's these guys in politics or whether it's the neighbor, uh, whether it's a co-worker, and speaking for me, because I can only speak for me, the personality traits that Have rubbed me wrong the most are arrogance, condescension, and lying.
Lying and insulting my intelligence.
People telling me things I know are untrue, as though they think I'm an idiot and will believe it.
And that's all wrapped up into one bundle when you get these Senate Democrats.
They are all arrogant, they are all condescending, and they think that all of us are absolute blithering idiots, and a country can't run without them in charge.
And their birthright as Democrats is to run this country, and we have gotten in the way.
And they think very little of us for that, and they're going to get even one way or the other.
If they if they can't persuade us to vote for them, uh then they will do their best to get the people we vote for thrown out of office or thrown in jail.
If they uh if we don't vote for them, then they will see to it that what they believe should happen to the country will be implemented by a bunch of activist judges where we can say nothing about it.
Uh but here when they have gone down to humiliating defeat in the House and Senate over the last uh, well, since 94, since 10 years, 10, 11 years, when they're losing their percentages in both bodies, and the margin of victory for the Republicans in the presidential race continues to expand.
These guys act like they win.
They act like they're the winners and should have won, and so since we should have won, we're gonna act like we did win.
And this the whole arrogance here of Schumer demanding a summit, Camp David dinner at the White House, Leahy lying through his teeth about who activist judges are, always defending just one group of people.
Yes, it's frustrating, but it's also indicative, folks, of a party in the midst of its last gasp.
One more bite from Candy Crowley, she said, I know you know that Republicans have a different definition of what an activist judge is, Senator.
Well, this is that same definition they've always used for uh Democrats.
They said Democrats who would strike down a law, pass by the people, and substitute something of their own.
I'm just using their by their own definition, the two most activist judges there right now are Anton and Scalia and Clarence Thomas.
What he's basing this on is a recent poll that showed the Scalia and Thomas have voted most office often lately to say that a law passed by Congress is unconstitutional.
Uh the that's not what we mean by activist, and he knows that.
Activist judges are judges that don't interpret the Constitution.
Activist judges are judges that actually don't want there to be a constitution.
If we're gonna have activist judges, folks, we don't need a constitution.
It's just like if we're gonna let anybody in the country that wants in, we don't have a country.
We may as well not have a border.
If we're not going to enforce the border, we don't have a country.
Well, if we're gonna have judges that will not look to the Constitution, we don't have a constitution.
And that's what we get with activist judges.
We get activist judges who take their personal policy preferences to the bench, and then they decide cases on the basis of those personal policy preferences, and they call that law.
So their personal profit policy preferences become constitutional.
Well, they're not.
You can say something's constitutional all you want, but it is only constitutional if it is.
If it's not constitutional, it's not.
And these are, you know, not matters of debate.
That's why originalist is a key word.
You go back, you look at the original intent.
You can find it.
It's there, federalist papers, numerous discussions, the document itself.
But look at this takings case in New London, Connecticut.
The Fifth Amendment to the Constitution is clear, but the U.S. Supreme Court three weeks ago said, no, we think it says something else.
So now we have a bunch of states and the U.S. Congress thinking of writing a law that basically says what the Constitution already says.
So we're having to rewrite the Constitution because we've got a bunch of judges who are ignoring it.
Plain and simple.
That's the definition of an activist judge.
And in this case, Thomas and Scalia are not activists.
Basically, to make it as simple as I can, a an activist judge is a liberal who believes liberalism should become institutionalized in the courts.
You want a great definite to show you how out of whack Leahy and his comments you look at this this eminent domain decision out of New London, Connecticut.
That was a bunch of liberals.
Liberals are said to stand for the little guy.
That's what Lahey just said.
They stand for the little guy against the big guy.
What did the Supreme Court just do?
Just stood for a local government over a little guy, and said the local government can say to the little guy, you don't own that property that you actually own.
We're taking it away from you.
We're gonna give it to this other private citizen because he's gonna generate more tax revenue for us.
And so a lot of people uh uh have to get it through their heads now.
The U.S. Supreme Court, the liberals of this country do not stand for the little guy.
They'll sweep the little guy out of the way as soon as he gets in the way, they have to.
What's paramount is big government, be it local government, state government, federal government, it's got to be big.
It's got to be big and all powerful.
And let me just share this AP story with you from Hartford.
Democratic state lawmakers on Monday urged municipal leaders not to use their eminent domain powers until the legislature has time to consider changing Connecticut's laws on seizing property.
So all of a sudden now Democrats are feeling the heat.
The Democrats in Connecticut are feeling that, hey, wait a minute, don't do this.
We got to rewrite these laws.
Do not, in other words, do not go go down the road the Supreme Court said you can go down.
We're gonna lose big time if you do this.
Now that the Supreme Court has spoken, it makes sense to take a full comprehensive look of where we want to go as a state on eminent domain, said Democratic House Speaker James Ammon.
Two legislative committees plan to hold a public hearing as early as this month.
Lawmakers would then decide whether to hold a special session or wait to address the issue during next year's General Assembly.
Republican House Minority Leader Robert Ward is pushing for a special session this summer to consider a one-year moratorium on the use of eminent domain powers.
He said it's a very simple issue.
You're either with the big developer and big government against the little guy, or you're for the little guy.
Well, I'm for the little guy.
And that's why we need to change our law now.
So this law did law was fine until the Supreme Court came along and changed the Constitution.
So now these states are having to run around and redo their laws to trump the Supreme Court decision to deal with it.
The Constitution's clear.
We shouldn't have to write it twice.
We shouldn't have to have a law backing up the Fifth Amendment.
Well, we do because the Fifth Amendment's just been watered down, just as the First Amendment was with McCain Feingold.
Now you can have a law.
Congress can pass a law that abridges free speech.
Constitution says can't do that.
Plain as day, it's right there.
But they did it.
And a lot of people said, well, well, uh we'll not oppose this.
Well it's Supreme Court, uh Supreme Court will never uh never never authorize it.
Supreme Court did.
So that's activism.
Uh but as you note, it is being dealt with.
But I find it interesting in Connecticut, it's the Democrats, the Democrats, because I told you, I've been telling you since this Supreme Court decision on New London.
Uh this is easily understandable by people out there.
They're outraged by it.
Something that's elementary and simple in a free society.
You own what you own.
And if somebody wants it, they have to offer you a fair price for it.
And the government cannot come in and just take it and give it to somebody else.
Well, they can now, but people understand, no, no, no, that's not right.
Not in this country.
That may happen in other countries, but not here.
And the Democrats know full well that they've been put on the defensive on this one too, because they didn't stand up for the little guy here.
The little guy is getting dumped on big time in a blue state.
The little guy in a blue state getting dumped on big time, and the Democrats, whoa, we need to rethink our laws here, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah.
So uh all this is trending in the right direction.
It's just frustrating to watch it play out along the way, but have confidence that it's it's all tracking in the right way.
Quick timeout, back with more your phone calls after this.
Okay, let's grab some phone calls here.
Atlanta.
Jim, hello, sir.
Welcome to the EIB network.
Nice to have you with us.
Well, thank you, Rush.
Well, listen, I like what I hear from Bush's uh little uh press conference today.
The first thing he says is he asks them, how fast can they get this uh next justice in?
Now that sounds aggressive.
I think he's probably got his mind made up, but as always, he's gonna be polite to Congress and listen to them.
Uh I even wonder if maybe Schumer isn't hearing the same thing when he says, Oh, let's uh let's have a little summit here.
Come on.
So uh I'm not gonna be upset if he didn't come out with both guns blazing real quick here.
Well, we'll see.
I I'm I'm I don't I don't have any quarrel with what the president said uh coming out of the meeting.
I as I say, I I think, well, I hope, I hope and think that what's going on here is that that everybody in the country is aware of the polls that indicate that the majority of Americans don't want any any big fights over this, that the you know 58% of the people say if he nominates a qualified conservative, he should be confirmed.
That judge should be confirmed.
And I think the president is trying to, you know, bring these guys up.
They're demanding to have a roll of the process.
President's showing the American people he is open-armed about this and letting them come in.
And when he nominates on, I think he knows who he's going to pick to.
This is all smoke and mirrors.
He knows who he's going to first pick is.
He knows who the second pick's going to be, and he knows who the third one's going to be.
They already know this.
They've known this for probably a year.
They know who these picks are going to be.
We don't, but he does.
And so he's going to name one, and then all these guys are going to have a conniption fit and are going to go bonkers and they're going to have they're going to look rabid once again.
And the president's going to come out looking like the good guy.
He brought him in, consultations.
He was very nice, spoke very positively of them, and there they go again, out there talking dirt about him and acting like he's uh, you know, subhuman and this sort of thing, and then filibustering the nominee, and it's all part of their demise, folks.
It's just it's they're we're we're as I say, uh these people are deteriorating right in front of our eyes, and they're the last ones to know it, which is why they are so arrogant.
Tricia in uh Trumbull, Connecticut.
Nice to have you on the program.
Welcome.
Hi, Rush.
I just wanted to clarify that uh our legislature already had a special session this summer, and the Republicans tried to um get a bill to circumvent uh the taking of property that the Supreme Court has authorized in the new London case, and I guess well, nationwide now.
But of course, there's a Democratic majority, two to one, and so they quashed it.
Um so the Republicans were on the case there, but not politically able to do it yet.
And just while I have the chance, I've just wanted to express how frustrated I've been with our Rhino Republican Governor Rail.
I don't know if you followed anything, but she is not acting much like a Republican.
Well, uh Republican in Connecticut, uh we've had a lot of them like that.
Lowell Wiker uh is is one that comes to name it.
But the Buckleys are about the staunchest Republicans in Connecticut that you can uh you can rely on.
I mean, a lot of I have a lot of friends, but they're not in public office.
I have a lot of staunch conservative friends, but boy, they are depressed.
I went up to see them a couple weeks ago.
That's amazing.
They sit around and depressed all over dinner talking about Harvard and Yale and the New York Times and so forth, and they just don't see what's going on out in the rest of the country.
But as to your as to your uh your message in the call, all I can do is tell you what the AP story is today.
Uh or actually yesterday, Democratic state lawmakers on Monday urged municipal leaders not to use their eminent domain powers until the legislature has time to consider changing Connecticut's laws on seizing property.
Republicans may have tried and failed once, but the uh but the Democrats are urging uh uh state lawmakers or municipal leaders.
Uh, hey, hey, hold on a minute.
There the in other words, there may not be a law, but the Democrats still want it known that they don't want any more new Londons in this state until they have a chance to deal with it.
They're still feeling the heat.
Make no mistake about that, Tricia.
Time to go here, folks.
Back here in just a second.
Okay, that's it.
Sadly, folks, we are uh out of time.
I apologize for the internet connection here being down and uh interrupted the uh ditto cam coverage of the program today, but the podcasts unaffected.
Podcasts will go out on schedule, uh starting in less than one hour.
And we keep adding to our Club Gitmo photo gallery.
People wearing club.
Well sorry, folks, out of time.
▲
Export Selection