All Episodes
Previous Next
Aug. 2, 2005 - Rush Limbaugh Program
35:51
August 2, 2005, Tuesday, Hour #1
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Welcome to today's edition of the Rush 24-7 podcast.
Oh boy, you know how excited a libs are today, folks.
You know how happy.
Well then they're not yet happy, but you know how they're really so they're excited.
They really turned on because this special election in Ohio.
And I'll uh fill you in on that uh in due course.
Greetings, my friends, and welcome.
It's great to be back with you.
Uh the EIB Network and the Limbaugh Institute for Advanced Conservative Studies.
I'm Rush Limbaugh, America's anchor man, firmly ensconced here, the prestigious at Till of the Hun chair at the Limbaugh Institute for Advanced Conservative Studies.
And we're going to talk about some advanced conservatism today.
I've been doing a lot of thinking about this John Bolton business, and I it a couple of things just struck me today as I was going through some of the news or watching some of the the near hysteria from the left on this.
And what it what it boils down to is I think in all of this, even though accomplishments are occurring, a huge opportunity is being missed here.
And I'll I'm gonna I'm gonna spend some time on this.
Uh telephone number 800-282-2882.
If you want to be on the program today, the ditto cam's up and running as well, and it will be for the entire three hours of the program.
If you want to go the email route, it's rush at eIBNet.com.
Before I get to the Bolton business, though, and of course we have some um uh uh updates on John Roberts and like try this headline.
Try this headline, Toad Case may reveal Robert's philosophy.
This is an AP story.
Appeals court vote may show inclination towards states' rights.
And the opening sentence is a toad may offer insight into John Roberts' legal philosophy.
A toad for a frog for crying out.
Folks, they're going nuts out there on the left, and that there's such an opportunity here to capitalize on this.
I mean, for example, look at how easily Bush quieted the Democrat bullies on the left.
Simply by recess appointing Bolton, look how easily he put down these bullies and undermined them.
It's a good lesson for Senate Republicans and Republicans everywhere.
You don't have to be on defense with these guys.
You don't have to always be reacting.
Just do what you want to do and spread the message at the same time.
I'm gonna elaborate on this in due course in mere moments.
First you got to hear a couple funny sound bites.
Yesterday afternoon on speech uh C-SPAN at John Hopkins University during the U.S. Foreign Policy in Transition Forum.
Oh, doesn't that sound like something you wish you were in attendance at U.S. foreign policy in transition?
The uh the why did who cares about any of this?
Who's in charge of U.S. foreign policy?
Bush and Rice.
Were they there?
No.
So what does it matter what was said at this thing?
Well, I'll tell you who was there, senior fellow at the Schorenstein Center and former CBS correspondent and current Fox News commentator, Marvin Calb.
You you watch this snurly?
What a dull life you've got.
This was last yesterday afternoon.
So I send you out for some condoms yesterday, and that must have been the highlight of the day, because you go home and you watch this.
So an unidentified student stands up and asks this question of Marvin Calb.
Student says, 60 years ago, journalists would not comment that President Roosevelt was in a wheelchair.
Walter Cronkite refused to show American casualties in Korea.
But now Robert Novak is printing the name of a CIA operative, which is more than likely blatantly against federal law.
By the way, uh if I interrupt the question here, uh Cronkite refused to show American casualties in Korea.
Why didn't this stupid student happen to point out that today's media runs a body count and celebrates when it gets to certain numbers like 1,000 and then 1,500?
Not only does the media today show American casualties in Iraq, they eagerly anticipate them.
Anyway, back to this stupid student at Johns Hopkins University.
What's changed, Mr. Calb in journalism in the past 60 years?
Was good journalism not being practiced and it is now?
What's happened in that time span?
Al Calb answers the question with this story.
This is what he says.
I was covering President Kennedy in September of 1963, and he went up to New York to do a speech at the UN General Assembly.
He stayed at the Carlisle Hotel.
I was staying at the same hotel.
I'm in the lobby, I looked up, and I saw following me into the lobby a tall blonde with stunning legs.
She was going up to the president's suite.
And that's where we pick up the sound bite.
Supposing I had gone into Walter Cronkite, who was our anchor in those days, and said, Walter, this is what happened to me.
Let's do a story saying that the president's having an affair with a tall blonde with gorgeous legs.
He would kick me out of the office.
And he would have every right to kick me out of the office.
Because I didn't know anything.
Today that would go on the air.
Today it would go on the air, and you know how?
It would appear first in a blog somewhere.
It would then appear on the internet somewhere else.
And then somebody who didn't like Kennedy, say a right wing talk show type, Rush Limbaugh, for example, might choose to pick up something like that and run with it.
And then eventually it ends up in the Washington Post.
Yes.
Journalism has changed hugely.
And in this respect, not for the better.
What a bunch of pap.
But folks, have we found our way up their bodily orifices?
And are we not causing them great distress?
It is this is unbelievable.
We already we already know that what Marvin Calb says is untrue.
Gary Aldrich had such stories about Bill Clinton, remember, the former FBI agent, and the mainstream press set out to destroy him and his credibility and would not report any of the stories.
And they covered up as much as they could for Bill Clinton and the same kind of behavior as exhibited by former President Kennedy.
And then they marveled at it.
And they marveled how President Clinton got around and lied about it and maneuvered and manipulated them into believing his lies.
I don't think, you know, that it would not start on a blog.
It would start here and then find its way to a blog, and then find its way to it.
And it'd start with Drudge someplace, then here, and then uh uh the Washington Post would be forced to print it.
Folks, have you heard about this story involving the financial malfeasance at Air America and this boys and girls club in New York?
Have you heard about I'll tell you about it very briefly.
It's real simple, Mr. Snerdley.
The original head honcho of this of this network was on the board of a boys and girls club in New York, and he essentially embezzled $800,000 from this boys and girls club and transferred it to Air America.
Can you do you find anything about this in the mainstream press?
You don't because you're now hearing it for the first time.
Are you not, Snerdley?
You're hearing it for the first.
This story is all over the internet.
It's all over other forms of talk radio.
It's all over blogs.
It's not found its way to the Washington Post, and it won't.
It's not found its way to the CNN network, and it won't.
It's not found its way to the New York Times, and it won't.
There's an ongoing investigation now.
And the people at Air America are contradicting themselves as to when they knew about it and what they knew and whether the current ownership has to do with it or not.
But the fact is here's a little boys and girls club in New York, and it was being embezzled by a guy that was on their board.
He was also running air guest.
Guy's name was Evan Cohen.
They were so hard up for money they were embezzling an organization for little kids, a liberal radio talk network, which still nobody can hear.
Um but you my point is you don't find this news anywhere except where Marvin Calb says you'll find it.
But you don't find it transferring itself, and there are countless other examples of this.
You don't find this story or others like it in the mainstream media whatsoever.
There has been a huge change in journalism, Mr. Calvin.
You're one of the people that doesn't get it.
The primary change in journalism has taken place is that people no longer have to deal with only one monopoly giving them the news every day.
There are now countless other sources finding news that you and the mainstream press don't deem fit to broadcast or print because it doesn't fit your agenda, doesn't fit your mindset, or you know it'll harm your interests.
And there has exactly right there's been a huge change, but it is for the better.
It's totally for the better.
There is no way a monopoly in anything is Good for anybody, particularly news.
News is nothing more than a product that is packaged.
You've got editors and producers and people, reporters and anchors.
They have meetings every morning at nine o'clock, and they look at what's going on in the world, and then they decide what you are going to hear and what you're going to hear about that which they decide to tell you.
So they package it, they put it together.
And of course, their worldview as human beings is very influential in what they think is news and what they think isn't news.
But now they don't have the monopoly anymore, and that's what Mr. Calb is upset about.
You know, I've I've if Calb went to Walter Cronkite talking about a leggy blonde going up to visit Ted Kennedy.
Cronkite was saying, well, what the hell are you doing here?
Let's go over to Carlisle Hotel and say hello to the president.
That's what would have happened for crying out loud.
Anyway, one more bite here before we go to the break.
This was this morning.
On C-SPAN's Washington Journal, Steve Scully takes a call from Tampa, Florida.
Look at what Bush has gotten done the last week.
He's got the gun liability bill done.
He's got the energy bill done.
He's got the transportation bill done.
He's got the Robert nomination's gonna sail through.
He's beaten these filthy Democrats every step of the way.
There's nothing that the Democrats can do.
I mean, let's look at the UN.
800,000 dead in Wanda.
Oil for food.
There's nothing these Democrats can do.
Look at Iran's going to go nuclear.
John Bolton is the perfect person to put in that job.
What is wrong with the Democratic Party?
The standard.
The whole UN is a corrupt organization.
And look at how they try to stand in the way.
They got nothing to do.
They're a bunch of whiners and criers.
You know what?
What Russ Limpaugh said is right.
When you guys are out of power, you're funny.
But when you're in power, you're dangerous.
And that I'm going to use as the transition for the uh uh discussion into John Bolton and uh all things related to it, but he's right uh when he says that I'm right.
When the liberals are out of power, they are funny and hilarious.
When they're in power, they're dangerous.
Well, you got to take them differently at different times.
It's why people who always come up to me and say, Boy, I bet you I bet you love Clinton being in all No, I didn't love Clinton being in office.
Why had he gives you so much material?
You think that was fun?
I hated it because of what was happening to the country for crying out loud.
Care about issues here, not personalities, care about issues and so forth.
Anyway, I gotta go a little long here.
Quick timeout.
We will be back in all, folks.
My must let you hear something.
A new commercial.
It's a new spot for uh well, it's a it's a it's a it's the left again, and they're terribly upset about about John Rogers.
Do you have that?
Yeah.
Yeah, listen to this.
It's no joke.
George Bush picked John Roberts to sit on the highest court in the land.
Who does he think he's kidding?
As a lawyer, John Roberts worked closely with Ken Starr.
Yeah, that can star.
And as a federal judge.
John Roberts took away a 12-year-old girl's civil right to eat French fries on the D.C. subway.
Civil right.
And to top it all off, John Roberts is a Catholic.
Just like the Pope, who's from Germany.
Germany.
American values.
Stop kidding around, Mr. President.
And pick someone mainstream.
Like Judge Ginsburg.
Paid for by George Soros and Hollywood friends of Nazi Pelosi.
Welcome back.
Great to have you.
Rush Limboffin running the EIB network as America's truth detector and the Doctor of Democracy.
All right.
Uh John Bolton, the media all a Twitter today because Bolton is headed to meet with Kofi Annan.
Of course, the media pointing out, and this is not good because Bolton's been critical of Kofi Annan.
That's exactly why the meeting ought to take place.
Why you why should we be afraid of a corrupt leader of a corrupt organization?
You know, the very fact, folks, that the Democrats are calling this guy a bully.
The very fact they're calling hard to work with it.
They're sending him up there with the greatest Resume he could possibly get.
The Democrats are doing all kinds of great things unwittingly as they as they attempt to continue to try to smear Bolton and Bush.
And look at this headline.
This is uh the Associated Press.
Bolton must compromise with diplomats.
This is a news story.
Bolton must compromise with diplomats.
Many UN diplomats say that Bolton will be judged on his performance here, not in his past, which features sharp criticism of the world body and resistance to his appointment as U.S. ambassador.
What?
We're not supposed to criticize this place?
We're not supposed to send somebody up there who's been critical?
Notice how patronizing here the headline here is Bolton must compromise with diplomats.
Why should he?
Why should he compromise with anybody who's corrupt?
This is nothing but a corrupt organization.
I don't even think it's safe, it's it's salvageable.
I I don't know how you reform uh an organization that's made up uh at least half of it with thugs and dictators.
How do you reform that?
Why would you want to reform that?
You want to start your own organization with like-minded nations and screw these people.
To hell with it.
Well, why why should we go up?
Why should Bolton compromise if they're completely wrong and if they are anti-American in their interests?
And uh this this paragraph, uh, many UN diplomats say that Bolton will be judged on his performance here, not on his past, which features sharp criticism of the world body and resistance to his appointment as U.S. ambassador.
Yeah, they promise they're not going to be mad at him for criticizing the UN in the past.
Well, that's really big of the SOBs.
And this AP uh reporter, Edith Letterer, uh, acts like the critics are the ones in the right.
Yeah, he was correct in criticizing the U.N. He owes them no apology.
The burden of proof is on these corrupt anti-American third world thugs to prove that they're benevolent.
It's not it's not on us to prove we can get along with these clowns.
You know, folks, I something struck me, though, as I'm watching, I'm watching the Chris Dodd cannot stay off of television.
It's the August recess, but he still can't stay off television.
The Democrats are still talking, it's an abuse of power.
That's their new mantra about this.
Uh but look how easily Bush put down these liberal bullies and undermined them just with a simple recess appointment.
This is a good lesson for all of you, and particularly uh uh elected Republicans.
Republicans should do the same on the document requests that are coming from the Democrats on John Roberts and all these other transparent liberal efforts to smear him.
No, you don't get the documents.
We get to a point, you get to watch.
You win elections, you get to a point.
We're not going to give you the I don't understand giving up all these documents.
I don't understand trying to curry favor.
All we're doing is giving the Democrats more bones to pick at here.
It's silly.
You can just but the the fact that you can recess appoint Bolton and shut them up and undermine them is is an indication of what ought to be done in the rest of this.
I mean, look it.
If it weren't that the Democrats are out to destroy our people, it would be a different thing.
If they were genuinely interested in compromise, finding out somebody being good or not for the court, that's one thing, but that's not what's going on here.
The Democrats are out to destroy Roberts.
They tried to destroy Bolton.
They destroyed Bork.
They tried to destroy Clarent Comet Clarence Thomas, and they're going to try to do the same thing to John Roberts.
We know they are out to destroy these people.
Look at those old memos when they were conspiring with leftist groups to destroy judicial nominees.
The memos that were found in a Republican staffer's computer.
You know, I I think bad faith ought to be got the back of our hand to these people.
I don't know why we go out of the way and try to and try to compromise with these guys.
But you know, as far as the UN is concerned, folks, the best reform, as I said mere moments ago, would be to start an organization of freedom-loving nations where we share similar principles and goals.
There's no reason to participate in an organization where we have to reduce ourselves to dealing with mass murderers.
And if we're not willing to deal with them, then why be with them?
What's the point?
But the UN is an international body.
We're compromising diplomacy.
Yeah, and it's really working, isn't it?
All this compromise and diplomacy just last week.
One thing I noticed when I was out of the country.
There's another African nation where starving people who say Seems like every year a new African nation gets added to the list.
Now it's Niger.
It was Sudan, it was Somalia, uh Rwanda.
Now it's Ethiopia's been in the.
Now it's now it's uh Niger.
And yet we send all this money over there, and yet new countries keep popping up.
And here's the UN wanting four million here, four billion there.
When's somebody gonna realize the UN is not solving any of these problems whatsoever?
And the money we're giving is going to the thugs that run these countries.
We'll be right back.
And America's most dangerous man.
The excellence in broadcasting network, the EIB Southern Command.
Look, look at this.
Look at this story.
This is by Tom Rom of the Associated Press.
And this makes my point.
This is a news story, though.
President Bush's appointment of UN critic, John Bolton.
I can't tell you how I love, folks, I have such a mixture of emotions.
When I read stuff like this, I just there are times that this is just pointless.
I read this stuff and I I just get what's the what's the use?
What's the use in even dealing with these people?
And then, you know, that fades away, and I just start laughing.
I just laugh at their misery.
I laugh at the sh- I mean I'm having big-time shadenfreud here.
I will admit I'm taking great pleasure in these people's misery.
And you can see it all over this story.
President Bush's appointment of UN critic John Bolton to be U.S. ambassador was an in-your-face gesture to Congress and to the global community.
Damn right it was, and that's exactly what we needed to do.
Exactly right, and I'm glad, Mr. Ron, that you are upset about it.
The fact that we don't do enough in-your-face gestures is what leads to September 11th type events.
You know, how much are we supposed to put up with here, sir?
It comes at sensitive time on Capitol Hill, where Bush needs the support of senators for his nomination of John Roberts.
This is so much bowunk.
The simple fact of the matter is look how easy it was to disarm these bullies.
The recess appointment just shut them down, and all this blathering about he didn't have the support of the Senate.
He did.
He had two votes of over 50.
He didn't need 60.
That's a new filibuster technique.
Any other administration, Bolton would have been confirmed six months ago.
You know, but the great thing about this is that Bush is showing he wants his team.
He's got his guy there now, he's got Condoleezza Rice, and he cares about the UN, and he's going to do what he can to try to straighten out this worthless piece of garbage organization that's full of nothing but a corrupt bunch of thugs, folks, but he's taking it seriously.
It'd be easy to say, eh, UN, UN, what the hell?
But he's he's been, he's very serious about it, and uh, you know, you could you could look at that as a good sign.
We can talk about the success uh uh possibilities, that's another subject, but the fact that he's taking it seriously and putting his team in place, hey, he's still got three and a half years to go here.
You know, the Democrats are already talking about he's a lame duck.
No, he's not a lame duck, and he's not acting like a lame duck, and he's not gonna give you the privilege of of being one.
The new ambassador arrived in New York on Monday with built-in handicaps.
He lacks the stature that comes with Senate approved.
Let me tell you something.
Every time Chris Dodd or any other Democrat goes on television and starts talking about what a bully this guy is, they increase his stature.
If you're going up to an organization that's populated by a bunch of bully thugs, and all of a sudden we're gonna send one up there, he is arriving with stature.
This is a great illustration of the liberal Nambi Pambi view of conflict resolution, which is basically to go to these people and say, why why do you hate it so much?
What can you do uh can we do to make you love us?
The simple fact of the matter is that the UN is an organization opposed to Bush, just as the Democrats are, and so the UN is a friend of the Democrats, and poor old Tom Rom here is beside himself.
Because he knows the exact opposite of what he's writing is the case.
And all these people ringing their hands home, oh my God, why Bolton's gonna make him so mad up there?
Why they they they may they may blow us up.
Aha!
Uh 9-11, anybody.
At what point, do you know we stop turning the other cheek and acting like we're somehow guilty and responsible for what other people are doing to us?
And this is this is what all of this this hysteria, this unhinged cacophony of fear that uh the Democrats are reacting with as a result of this recess appointment, uh, slapped me up the side of the head and made me realize that a golden opportunity exists here.
We need to change all these paradigms.
We need to take on the left in this country across the board, where it's selling out to the UN or failing to confront them on their absurd demands of a Supreme Court nominee, the nominee endorse their left-wing political and social agenda as a condition for a Republican president getting his nominee confirmed.
Hell with that.
We don't need to be defensive with these people.
They're losing and they're losing big time.
And we need to capitalize on the fact that they're losing because in the process of their losing, you know what they're doing?
They're giving us the greatest opportunity we've ever had.
They're finally demonstrating for the whole country exactly who they really are.
No better time than now to contrast ourselves with them.
Bolton and Roberts both, my friends, present us with opportunities to transform the debate and transform the country.
If we just argue over tactics, which Republicans seem to do, we're not going to do nearly enough.
Tactics and process are not what's important here.
You know, what questions should be asked?
I mean, this is a tactical uh thing.
Well, should we ask about rovers its way or should we not?
What documents should be turned over?
And those are easy questions.
You can slap those away with a fly swatter.
We have a majority.
We do what we want.
We're going to give you the documents we want you to see, and that's it.
If you don't like it, take your lumps.
You don't like what questions are going to be asked.
If you don't want to be able to ask those questions, take it.
We run the show.
We're the ones with a majority.
But what we're not doing is debating substance.
We're not telling the country our view of the court versus the left's view of the court.
We're not telling the country of our opposition to the UN versus the left's embrace of it.
You know, future elections are not one debating over process.
They're one on big ideas.
They're one on leadership.
We have a Supreme Court nominee, which means we have a wonderful opportunity to explain to the people what our beliefs in government are, including the proper role of the judiciary.
And instead, we're responding to the stupid demands of the minority.
I say crush the minority, get on with our agenda, and use the bully pulpit to explain and educate why what we're doing.
Why do we have to always be on defense that, whoa, whoa, well, these guys are demanding documents?
What are we going to do?
Oh no, they want documents.
Should we ask this question role versus what?
Screw all of that.
We've got an opportunity here, particularly as I say, with the Democrats finally demonstrating who liberals really are, to blow them away.
We can explain that we support the Constitution, representative government, a proper role for the judiciary, that we support elections, not the tyranny of a handful of lawyers wearing black robes.
That we support property rights and gun rights and political speech rights.
We support a limited central government in order to protect our individual liberties.
We stand with Madison and Franklin at Washington.
The liberals do not.
And it's plain as day, but it needs to be articulated from the bully pulpit.
We don't believe terrorists ought to receive due process rights and have never before been conferred on an enemy during war.
We don't believe the courts ought to be conferring benefits on illegal immigrants.
We believe the cultural issues about marriage, sex, and religion ought to be decided by the people, not five or six lawyers in black robes on a court.
We're missing a major opportunity to explain ourselves and properly define the left.
And I it is sort of what happened after 1994.
We won in 1994.
We took the Congress back on ideas, contract with America, whatever you want to call it, but we explained who we were, and we went to the people and we explained what we believed, and it worked.
And then shortly after we assumed that that election meant the people were convinced, converted and convinced, and we stopped explaining all this stuff.
And we just started implementing, and the Dems did their usual attack politics and put us on the defensive again.
And it seems like it constantly happens, and I think it's probably because so many years the Republicans were in the minority, a slight psychological mindset sets in.
But it's time to broom that.
You know, Roberts may be limited on what he can say when he's up there answering questions, but there's no reason he should be limited in explaining his judicial philosophy.
And he it's okay if he's asked about that in detail, as far as I'm concerned, senators aren't in any way constrained.
And yet, where are the Republican senators?
Where are the White House on this?
You know, I get I get weary, folks listening to Republican after Republican claim to be like Reagan when they're not.
They don't have uh Reagan's commitment to the movement or his willingness to speak out.
No, they're always reacting.
They're always avoiding, always playing defense.
You know, and I and I think probab one of the reasons is that there's this fear of being partisan.
I don't know where this comes from, but it gives rise to people like McCain and so forth, the moderates.
Now, this fear of partisanship, if it's really genuine, they're in the wrong business.
This is a battle of ideas.
A partisan is somebody who is convinced his ideas are right, believes them in his or her core.
That's what makes one a partisan.
That's what elections are all about.
Elections are all about partisan politics.
And if you don't want to be partisan, pick another line of work.
But what's happened here, I think, is uh more and more politicians are starting to copy McCain, which is simply practicing the politics of the cult of personality.
And I prefer the politics of principle and big ideas.
We're not always going to win, but you always can make the case.
The more often you make the case, the greater your chances are of persuading more and more people to agree with you, especially now with the the opening the Democrats are giving us by showing everybody who they truly are.
In the case of McCain, what does he stand for?
Well, his his reputation is a big moderate, understanding, reasonable, uh uh, not a partisan and so forth.
Well, what does all that mean?
What does it mean when he stands for moderation?
Does it mean that we're to trust the man because he's McCain?
Yeah, it does, but that's completely opposite of Reagan.
We supported Reagan because of what he stood for.
The left just can to this day continues to smear Reagan.
And they were scared to death.
49 State Landslide, 1984.
Reagan, they said, well, he's just, you know, slick marketing and packaging people fell for that.
Nope, it was his ideas.
It was his ideas.
Now you can be a McCain if you want and try to develop a personality that says, I'm gonna do I'm gonna go with this because it's McCain.
But I'd rather go with something because of the idea, because of what a candidate stands for.
The liberals have always and purposely lied about Reagan's attraction.
First and foremost, it was his ideas are what attracted us, his leadership in promoting those those ideas attracted us.
And when to the extent that George Bush succeeds, it's also on the same basis.
His big ideas, his specific ideas in a campaign.
He gave people reasons to vote for him.
And when he got elected, gang oh, he starts implementing what he said he was going to do.
Democrats say this is a trick.
But you know, it's just it's such an opportunity here.
And what what what brought it all home was this recess appointment and looking at this hysteria, this unhinged hysteria from the left today and last night about how horrible this is.
Because all it means is they have been rendered impotent.
They didn't defeat Bolton.
They might want to say they did, but they didn't.
He's at the United Nations as the U.S. ambassador, and he's probably up there bullying Kofi Annan right now.
Back after this.
800-282-2882.
This is Joe in Silver Spring, Maryland.
Nice to have you on the program, sir.
Hey, Rush, welcome back.
Thank you.
Hey, so it's funny, the sore loser uh meme is going around.
The Washington Post had an article today, um, I'm sorry, an editorial about it.
And I think it's funny you mentioned conflict resolution.
The Democrats' conflict resolution in this area when they're losing is to run away, to not play the game because they're the sore losers.
It reminds me of what happened in Texas when the Republicans took over the state legislature.
They ran away, they ran to Oklahoma, so that they couldn't vote on the redistricting.
Yeah, exactly.
But the New York Times today has an editorial on Bolton, and it's just it's simply deranged.
The New York Times at a tour today says, well, it really doesn't matter because the UN's already started a bunch of reforms up there.
So it really doesn't, it really doesn't.
Well, if that's if it doesn't matter, then why all this effort to oppose the guy?
I'll tell you, I I don't know what's in the water or else in the in the air at the New York Times building, but it's it the some of the stuff they're writing is so convoluted, uh so obviously born of of just seething rage that it is incomprehensible.
Uh supposedly from the newspaper of a record.
And I got an interesting email note from a friend a moment ago.
Rush, as usual, you're right about Chris Dodd's comments on Bolton and a whole question of bullying Democrats.
But Dodd's comments make it clear that the challenge here is far greater than just uh just that.
Having established the principle that the Constitution means what it doesn't say.
And that's that's what he's talking about here is liberal judges find things that are not in the Constitution and claim that they're there like abortion or rights to racial quotas, sodomy, whatever it is.
The Libs are now pushing even further by telling us that the Constitution does not mean what it does say.
The Bolton nomination and sending him up to the UN is an abuse of power.
Well, it's specifically enumerated power of the president in the Constitution.
So the Libs went after the second amendment, and their argument there was if the founding fathers had any idea, what would have happened this time in our history, they would have never written that amendment.
So the amendment that was there, they shouldn't have been there.
Then they go find a right to privacy that gives us abortion, which is not there.
Now, and that's been their practice.
That's been what they've they don't like the Constitution, doesn't suit their needs, doesn't fit their lifestyles.
So now all of a sudden, they're gonna tell us that what is in the Constitution is not there.
Just as they tried to do with the second amendment, then the takings clause.
You know, the Constitution says that you cannot do what the Supreme Court said New London, Connecticut did, and gave them the right to do it.
So now we're rewriting the law to re-establish what the Fifth Amendment already says in it.
Now we're to recess appointments.
You know, the trying to say that this is an abuse of power.
Bill Clinton used the recess appointment one hundred and forty times.
And not once did they say that it was an abuse of power.
Glenn in Tampa, nice to have you on the program, sir.
Greetings, you beautiful human.
Mega, albeit disagreeable ditto, Rush.
What an honor to talk to you.
But I've got to shed I gotta shed some light uh into the truth factory here.
You have taught me over all these years.
I tried to call a billion times, but today's my day, ladies and gentlemen.
Never give up.
John McCain has been a good partisan time from time to time.
He rejected in a Republican partisan way, John Carey's uh reaching out to him to be his vice president.
He supported President Bush and continues to support President Bush on his war on terror.
John McCain is a man of principle, although as a good libertarian, I do not agree with a lot of his principles.
Ronald Reagan was a great communicator who articulated his principles and was a very likable man.
You're perplexed by the Republicans' problems.
True conservatism, or libertarianism, if you will, is laissez-faire by nature because we want people to be proactive.
Liberalism, socialism, if you will, is by its very nature proactive.
We know better than the people.
The six uh tyrants in black.
Wait a minute, wait a minute, wait a minute.
Wait, hold hold hold it just a second.
Conservatism, uh, I understand what you're trying to say when you say that it's laissez-faire, but we are in a battle right now, and it still never has to be explained.
Conservatism just can't sit around and be laissez-faire and hope people figure it out.
The Libs are proactive, and they're proactive in lying about what they believe and lying about the results that they're gonna get.
As to McCain, uh, you know, he flirted with Kerry for a long, long time.
He has opposed Bush on tax cuts.
He gave his campaign finance reform.
He's done a number of things to try to stymie Bush.
He's there at re-election time because he knows he wants the Republican vote during his own chance to run for president.
I gotta go.
I wish I had more time on your first successful entry to the program, but I just don't have any.
Back in uh mere moments.
Okay, folks, if you're on hold out there, uh stay there if you can.
Be patient.
We'll get to you as uh quickly as possible.
And we'll take a break here at the top of the hour.
The constraints of the format clock, in this case, dictate behavior, but be patient, won't be long.
▲
Export Selection