All Episodes
Previous Next
Sept. 14, 2005 - Rush Limbaugh Program
36:38
September 14, 2005, Wednesday, Hour #3
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
This is unbelievable.
This is literally unbelievable, folks.
I'm still waiting on the details of this, but here we are in the middle of the confirmation hearings for Judge Roberts.
What have I always said?
If you put a bag of excrement out there in front of the Democrats, they will step in it.
A federal judge has just ruled that reciting the Pledge of Allegiance in schools is unconstitutional.
I don't know which judge, and I don't know which court yet.
I'm still waiting for the details to be handed down, as it were.
But if it wasn't over now, it is over now.
Can you see the Democrats?
Judge, they just said that the Constitution's unconstitutional.
What are your thoughts on that, Judge?
You know who's going to be the first people to run to the microphones to disavow this?
It'll be the Democrats.
The Democrats will be in a race to get out there, just like they were when that Ninth Circus said that Under God was unconstitutional in the Pledge of Allegiance or decided that they would take the case, whatever they decided.
Anyway, when we get details on that, we'll pass it on to you.
Greetings and welcome back.
Rush Limbaugh here at the EIB Network, the Limbaugh Institute for Advanced Conservative Studies.
It's great to have you with us.
The telephone number is 800-282-2882, and the email address is rush at EIBnet.com.
Look at this Washington Post story from two days ago.
It's by Richard Morin, who is their pollster.
And the headline of the story, Bush approval rating at all-time low.
Now, as you print this story out, it's about three pages if you print it out.
I got it from the website of the Washington Post.
If you go to the very end of the story, get this.
But Americans were even more suspicious of Democrats' motives.
Six in 10 said that Democrats critical of Bush for his handling of the hurricane were just trying to use the disaster for political advantage, while a third said the Democrats were genuinely interested in finding out what went wrong.
A third of all Democrats were suspicious of their own leaders' motives, as well as eight in 10 Republicans and six in 10 Independents.
So the headline, Bush approval number at an all-time low, but yet the real story is that people are even more suspicious of the Democrats' motives in this than they are critical of whatever Bush has or hasn't done.
A classic illustration of how the lead is buried in a story.
This is the ABC News Washington Post poll, and this is the Washington Post's text version of the story.
Let me clear something up.
I've been getting a lot of email about this.
Last week, I shared with you an email I got from friends who live just north of New Orleans, and they had a shocking story to tell, and that was about one of the members of the New Orleans Police Department, Paul Ocardo.
And in their email to me, they said that after hours and hours and hours of being on the job, engaged in rescue efforts, he had committed suicide.
They said what hadn't been reported is that he returned home to find his wife and children had been murdered.
And that was what sent him over the edge.
Well, apparently that's not what happened.
He did commit suicide, but his wife has been interviewed since that time, along with his brother.
Apparently, It was simply he couldn't deal with the devastation of the city and that he just wasn't able to do anything about it.
And it just cracked because he had lost hope that order would ever be restored in the city.
I can't find any independent confirmation of the story.
There are a lot of stories going around there, and I wanted to correct this as quickly as I could find out what the actual facts of this story were.
But apparently his wife is alive.
I have not found any reference to his kids whatsoever.
He was 36 years old when he committed suicide.
He was a spokesman for the police department as well as a police officer.
So to those of you who have been asking via email questions about the truth of the story, I'm like you.
I can only find reference to his wife.
No kids.
Not that he didn't have any.
I just can't find any news stories in reference to any kids.
But apparently his wife was commenting on his suicide.
So she obviously was not killed during the aftermath of the hurricane.
We also have some news today about the 9-11 panel.
The 9-11 political hacks are back here.
You know, there's a portion of this report, the 9-11 Commission report, that was not released.
A number of entities, including the White House, asked for it not to be released.
But the sum total or the essence of what was not reported or released in the report is that as far back as 1995 and 1998, aviation officials had been warned that al-Qaeda was alive and well and that one of the tactics might be to hijack airliners and fly them into American targets domestically in this country.
The aviation officials discounted this as a likelihood.
They said that the hijacking of airliners was more likely to occur in other countries, not in the United States.
And they said it's possible we're not putting a lot of credit in this intelligence or in this report.
But the point is that it was reported and the aviation industry was told about it along with the government, of course, as far back as 1995 and 98.
This is in the 9-11 report that was part of it that was suppressed or not released.
And of course, this takes us back into a period of time long prior to the Bush administration assuming office in January of 2001.
So it's more will be happening with this.
Ben Venist, Richard Ben Veneze, one of the 9-11 Commission members, quoted in the article saying, well, you know, this just proves there's no reason to hold this information.
I don't understand why they've held this for nearly a year.
They could have released us at any time.
There was no reason not to.
I guess that's probably true.
I don't know why it wasn't released along with everything else.
But nevertheless, the actual thing that did occur on 9-11 was warned against or warned of as recently as 1995 and 1998.
But again, officials back then said, yeah, it's possible.
We don't put a lot of credence in this, particularly the domestic aspect of hijacking.
Folks, the L.A. Times has a fascinating story today.
And it literally is fascinating.
It is about Harry Blackman, who wrote the majority opinion in the Roe versus Wade decision in 1973.
The headline of the L.A. Times story is Roe ruling more than its author intended.
The upshot of the story is that Harry Blackman never considered Roe versus Wade to be an absolute right to abortion.
Blackmun proposed to issue a news release to accompany the decision, which was issued January 22nd, 1973.
He said, I fear what the headlines may be.
His statement, his press release was never issued, but it emphasized that the court was not giving women an absolute right to abortion, nor was it saying that the Constitution compels abortion on demand.
But in reality, the court did just that.
In mid-1971, the Supreme Court agreed for the first time to hear this challenge to the long-standing state laws limiting abortion.
At that time, Texas and 30 other states had laws dating from the 19th century that made an abortion a crime unless it was performed to save the mother's life.
The newest member of the Supreme Court, Justice Harry Blackman, saw much to like in the revised abortion laws.
A lawyer who greatly admired doctors, he had been general counsel for the Mayo Clinic in his home state of Minnesota before becoming a federal appellate judge.
He believed that doctors needed to have leeway to do medically necessary abortions.
In the court's first private conference on the issue, he described Georgia's law as a fine statute that strikes a balance that is fair.
But what did Georgia do?
Georgia had revised its laws in the late 60s to permit abortion in specific circumstances, if the mother's health was endangered and if the pregnancy was caused by rape or if the fetus had a severe defect.
A year later, Blackmun wrote an opinion for the Supreme Court that struck down all of the nation's abortion laws.
Equally important, his opinion made virtually all abortions legal as a matter of a constitutional right.
That opinion, the case of Roe versus Wade, remains the court's most disputed decision of recent decades.
By abruptly voiding all laws against abortion, it galvanized a powerful anti-abortion movement that has transformed American politics.
It also dominates public debate over the court and its future.
Last year, on the fifth anniversary of the death of Harry Blackmun, the Library of Congress opened his papers to the public.
His thick files on the abortion cases tell the little-known story of how Roe versus Wade came to be.
It is the story of a rookie justice, unsure of himself and his abilities, who set out to write a narrow ruling that would reform abortion law, not repeal them.
It is also the story of a sometimes rudderless court led by Chief Justice Warren Berger.
On the day the ruling was announced, Berger said plainly, the court today rejects any claim that the Constitution requires abortion on demand.
Well, Blackmun wanted to issue a news release to accompany the decision.
He said, I fear what the headlines may be in a memo that he wrote.
The statement was never issued, but what Blackmun wrote emphasized that the court was not giving women an absolute right to abortion, nor was it saying that the Constitution compels abortion on demand.
Blackmun had said that abortion must be left to the medical judgment of the pregnant woman's attending physician.
That's in quotes.
So long as doctors were willing to perform abortions, the court's ruling said they couldn't be restricted from doing so at least through the first six months of pregnancy.
But the most important sentence appears not in the Texas case of Roe versus Wade, but in the Georgia case of Doe v. Bolton, decided the same day.
In deciding whether an abortion is necessary, Blackmun wrote, doctors may consider all factors, physical, emotional, psychological, familial, and the woman's age, relevant to the well-being of the patient.
It soon became clear that if a patient's emotional well-being was reason enough to justify an abortion, then any abortion could be justified.
It was a catch-all phrase.
Legal scholars have long pointed to the shaky constitutional basis for a right to abortion.
In early opinions, the court had said that liberty included the concept of personal privacy.
Blackmun said the right to privacy is broad enough to encompass a woman's decision whether or not to terminate her pregnancy.
But as his own personal papers now indicate, he never intended this to be an absolute right.
He thought he was reforming abortion law, not abolishing them.
And these papers also indicate that the justices of a burger court back in 1973 did not foresee the full impact of the ruling or the backlash that it would set off.
This, according to Georgetown University Law professor Mark Tushnett, who was a clerk for Justice Thurgood Marshall when Roe was decided.
They focused on striking down the Texas-type laws that outlawed all abortions.
All they wanted was to get those laws off the books.
They were not thinking long-term with an overall vision.
We will link to this story at rushlimbaugh.com today so you'll be able to see it.
By the way, this judge is actually the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, the U.S. Ninth Circus, is a judge who says that he is bound by the Ninth Circuit law that declared the pledge unconstitutional.
It's the Michael Neudow case all over again.
So in the middle of the Judge Roberts hearings, what we have is a judge saying he's bound by the Ninth Circuit in claiming that the Pledge of Allegiance is unconstitutional in public schools.
A quick timeout.
We'll be back and continue in just a moment.
This is absolutely amazing.
Here we are in the middle of the confirmation hearings for Judge Roberts, and we're listening to these windbags talk about civil rights and freedom and expanding liberty and all of this rotgut from these people.
And what we have, the Pledge of Allegiance, was ruled unconstitutional today by a federal judge who granted legal standing to two families represented by an atheist.
This is Michael Newdow, whose previous attempt to get the pledge out of public schools was rejected by the U.S. Supreme Court.
Now, what happened in that case, I think if my memory is correct, they tried to get the pledge thrown out by virtue of the words under God, and the Supreme Court rejected it.
Now the federal judge in this case, now I still don't know who it is.
We still have just the basic shell of a report now.
But this federal judge has granted legal standing to two families represented by an atheist.
And the judge is apparently saying he's bound by what the Ninth Circuit did.
Well, he's not.
I don't understand that.
The Ninth Circuit was overturned.
Ninth Circuit was overruled.
So we'll have to still sort this out.
But anyway, the fact that this is happening right in the middle of these confirmation hearings of Judge Roberts, I mean, it is.
It's another bag of excrement put out there.
And the Democrats and liberals have just stepped right in it all over again.
In other news, Senate Republicans today have scuttled an attempt by Senator Hillary Rodham to establish an independent bipartisan panel patterned after the 9-11 Commission to investigate what went wrong with federal, state, and local governments' response to Hurricane Katrina.
Hillary's bid to establish the panel failed to win the two-thirds majority needed to overcome procedural hurdles.
Just as with 9-11, we didn't get to the point where we believe we understood what happened until an independent investigation was conducted, Clinton said.
Now, the Senate vote may not be the last word on whether to create an independent commission, but at least Hillary's attempt to create one has been rebuffed.
Sophia in Perry Hall, Maryland.
I'm glad you waited.
Welcome to the EIB Network.
Hi.
Oh, it's a pleasure to talk with you.
And just the fact that I'm speaking with you is a Christmas present to my parents who listen to you all the time.
Well, thank you very much.
You're welcome.
I guess William Jefferson, Democrat William Jefferson, may need to relocate to another affluent neighborhood in Rio Linda.
I was calling because I find that Governor Blanco isn't exactly holding hands singing kumbaya with Mayor Nagan.
I read today where he endorsed her Republican rival, and I was calling to find out if there might be any political backlash in that, especially during the slow response during the evacuation.
Yes, it appears there is a very strained relationship between Mayor Ray Nagan and the governor, Kathleen Blanco.
Bobby Jindahl was the Republican opponent for governor, faced and defeated by Governor Blanco.
And it's true that Mayor Nagan broke from the party to endorse him.
And this has caused all kinds of strain in their relationship since.
And they've been unable to put it aside, even in this aftermath.
So, no, you've noticed it correctly.
I'm going to use your call out there, Sophia, to run to a transition to a story here about Kathleen Blanco.
Apparently, and this is audio soundbite number four, Mike.
Apparently, I don't know how to read this.
The headline that is basically associated with the story is this, Blanco, body recovery taking too long.
Or you could say, Blanco, find those bodies.
Now, in the context of, hey, the death toll is way below what everybody said it was going to be.
Is she saying, find those bodies, get that death poll up, or is she saying, find those bodies and remove them and get them out of here?
We have a, and there's another argument with FEMA over this.
We have a little montage of Governor Blanco.
Last night, she held a press conference.
We have a montage of her comments about who's responsible for the slow removal and recovery of bodies.
No one, it seems, even those at the highest level, seems to be able to break through the bureaucracy to get this important mission done.
While the recovery of bodies is a FEMA responsibility, I cannot stand by while this vital operation is not being handled appropriately.
In death, as in life, our people deserve more respect than they have received.
Yeah, this is blatantly, she's even politicizing bodies now.
So look this up.
And I have here a story from, of all places, the Minnesota-Minneapolis Star Tribune.
Blanco-FEMA clash on recovery.
And the story talks about what you've just heard her say.
But the money paragraph here is this.
However, FEMA spokesman David Passy said the state asked to take over body recovery last week.
Passy said he didn't understand the governor's remarks at all.
We'll be back with more in just a second.
It's Rush Limbaugh, the EIB Network.
Yeah.
All right.
Put together some things quickly on this whole Pledge of Allegiance case.
The judge we now know, U.S. District Judge Lawrence Carlton, who has said that the pledges referenced to One Nation Under God violate school children's rights to be free from a coercive requirement to affirm God.
The judge, Lawrence Carlton, said he was bound by precedent of the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, which in 2002 ruled in favor of the Sacramento atheist Michael Newdow, that the pledge is unconstitutional when recited in public schools.
The Supreme Court threw this case out because Newdow did not have custody of his child and thus had no standing to bring the suit.
So they didn't deal with, and we told you at the time, it's all coming back to me now.
We told you at the time they haven't dealt with this.
They just threw his suit out because he didn't have standing.
So what New Dow did was come back with two other families who have custody of their kids, who say their kids are offended when under God is mentioned in the pledge in school.
And under the decision first handed down by the Ninth Circuit, since standing has now apparently been granted, this judge feels that he is bound to follow the precedent of the Ninth Circuit.
So the Washington Post in June of 2004 reported the story this way.
The Supreme Court ruled today that a California atheist didn't have the legal standing to challenge the constitutionality of the words under God in the Pledge of Allegiance, dismissing on procedural grounds a lower court's ruling in his favor, but sidestepping the broader question of whether the pledge itself is constitutional.
The ruling effectively preserved the phrase one nation under God that is recited daily as part of the pledge of millions of school children across the country.
So now the case will have to go back to the Supreme Court.
If they determine that these two new parents, sets of parents that New Dow dragged out of the woodwork and wherever they're from, have standing, then the case comes back to life again.
The great thing about here we are, I keep emphasizing this, we are right in the middle of the Roberts confirmation hearings, and there's going to be another name nominated to replace Sandra Day O'Connor.
And I remember what happened in 2002.
Remember, that's a mid-year, midterm election year.
The Democrats ran to the microphone faster than the Republicans did to denounce the Ninth Circus on this.
You know, they were trying to say, oh, no, we're going to get beat on values again.
Oh, no.
So it'll be interesting to see what they do now in this case because, you know, the people for the American Way, the ACLU, those are some of these special interest groups that will appreciate this ruling and demand the Democrats take a position on it that these groups think favorable.
So this is going to be fascinating to watch here, folks.
Fascinating to watch this.
And of course, Roberts is, what do you think about this, Judge?
A case may come before the court.
What about the constitution?
Well, I can't comment on this case.
May well indeed come before the court.
If I'm confirmed, I cannot go on the court with an affirmed position already stated, or I would have to recuse myself.
So this may be two bags of excrement that they've stepped in here, folks, thanks to this atheist and the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals.
It just had to love this.
Now, I want to go back to Kathleen Blanco.
I want to close the loop on this whole business because here you again, you have this hapless governor who is worthless, once again trying to pass the buck on more local inefficiency and incompetence, this time in the nature and the area of the removal of dead bodies.
Again, here's a montage from a press conference that she gave last night where she's complaining about this.
No one, it seems, even those at the highest level, seems to be able to break through the bureaucracy to get this important mission done.
While the recovery of bodies is a FEMA responsibility, I cannot stand by while this vital operation is not being handled appropriately.
In death as in life, our people deserve more respect than they have received.
So, see, it's again about nobody cares about these people.
They're poor or they're black.
All that is implied, not stated.
The spokesman for FEMA, David Passy, said the state of Louisiana asked to take over body recovery last week.
Passy said he didn't understand the governor's remarks at all because the collection of bodies is not normally a FEMA responsibility.
Now, we have the Shreveport Times, a newspaper here, and it has more details on who's recovering the bodies.
Unwilling to wait on federal officials, state officials will contract directly with the company in charge of removing bodies from Hurricane Ravage Southeast Louisiana, said Governor Blanco yesterday.
She said she recently spoke with FEMA and administration officials to convey her frustration regarding lack of urgency and the lack of respect involving the recovery of our people whose lives were lost as a result of Hurricane Katrina.
State officials initially said they would oversee recovering the bodies of people killed by Hurricane Katrina, the subsequent flooding, but last week the state asked FEMA to help.
FEMA then entered into a verbal agreement with Kenyon International Emergency Services based in Houston.
But talks have stalled between FEMA and Kenyon over terms for a written contract.
It wasn't clear yesterday why contract talks between Kenyon and FEMA broke down.
Officials at Kenyon did not return phone calls.
Again, David Passie, the FEMA spokesman in Baton Rouge, said that Kenyon officials, for their own reasons, which I don't know, chose not to sign a contract with FEMA.
So the firm didn't sign the contract with FEMA.
So Blanco apparently does, blames the administration, said they'd run the operation first, but it doesn't appear to be that that is the case at all in this.
So once again, this is apparently clear here that the state said, we're taking this over last week.
And the state of collection of bodies is not normally a FEMA responsibility.
So once again, I think you have this hapless mayor trying to pass the buck using the same old heartstrings and tugging the same old heartstrings that have been tugged throughout the aftermath.
Mr. Snerdley told me about this story, this next story, before the program started today.
And he was just shaking his head in sort of mock outrage.
A group that won a Supreme Court victory allowing it to seize property for private development is telling some residents to vacate their homes.
That's the latest flashpoint in a controversy that spread across the country.
Representatives of the homeowners accused the quasi-public New London Development Corporation yesterday of reneging on a promise not to seize the properties while lawmakers considered changing the state's eminent domain laws.
The notices order the property owners and the tenants to vacate within 30 to 90 days and start paying rent to the development corporation during that period, according to the Institute for Justice.
If residents do not comply, the agency has the option of pursuing an eviction in court.
So these homeowners already lost in court, now the new powers that be have come in and basically say, either you're paying us rent for the next 30 to 90 days or you're getting out.
And we want you out.
And, you know, the developers essentially, if you want to boil this down, the big money developers are telling the little guys, just get out.
Just get out of this worthless rat trap you live in so we can bulldoze it and put up something of value here now.
Of course, none of this would be possible were it not for the Supreme Court ruling KILO Versus NEW London.
And of course, the Supreme Court ruling featured five of the court's liberals siding not with a developer, they sided with a government, they sided with any aspect of the case that make government bigger.
Government now gets to choose which property owner it wants to own various properties based on tax revenues and so forth.
Snurtley came in.
I can't believe this.
I said, what do you expect?
I mean, the case is over.
What do these people won the case?
What are you expecting to do?
Uh, I know it appears heartless, it appeals cold, it appears cold-hearted, it appears cruel, but all they're doing is simply acting out uh, or implementing the law as handed down by the U.S Supreme Court.
What are they supposed to do?
Sit there and wait forever for these people to leave?
Now folks, you don't misunderstand me.
I think it's.
I think this is.
The whole thing is an absolute abomination.
It is a joke.
But the courts ruled and we have so many people in this country.
Supreme Court is the Final Authority, Supreme Court's the law of the land.
We have precedent.
Once they rule, you can't overturn it.
One of the big arguments in the in the Roberts hearings, oh, can't overturn it.
Eh well, Congress is working on doing just that.
In fact you did.
You hear Robert's answer on this they he was asked about this this morning by senator Brownback and he didn't take.
He didn't take the uh the bait on this question of passing judgment on the ruling.
He just reviewed it for the senators and he told them why the the majority came to the the um uh decision.
They did, but what he said was just brilliant and it was so right on the money.
He said, look senator, i'm gonna do it in my voice.
He did.
He wasn't talking this way.
He said, look, the Supreme Court's not the last law of the land.
Here you are.
If you don't like a ruling, you can overturn it yourself by rewriting laws, and this is he's right on the money.
These legislators and congressmen act like they're innocent bystanders, act like they have no role in anything.
So he told them, look, if you don't like what the court did and the court gave you leeway here if you if this, you know we're interpreting the law as it exists.
You got to change the law.
Well, I I disagree with that, but because I think the fifth amendment is very clear the takings clause, the fifth amendment, is very clear.
I think one of the problems with an activist court is we've already got the law and it's perfectly clear, and it's been perfectly clear up until this ruling.
So now we have to come up with a new law that basically rewrites the fifth amendment, which will make it redundant, which is going to take a lot of time and a lot of money and, in the meantime, a lot of people are going to lose their homes, when it shouldn't have happened in the first place.
The the.
The document says what it says, but you got the.
So the.
This question boils down to who do you want to be ruled by nine lawyers, or do you want to be ruled by your president, who you elect, and your members of Congress and the Senate, who you elect?
So I mean, Robert's answer was, uh, it was a great answer.
Hey, you guys don't have to sit here on your hands.
You can change the law.
It's silly that the law has to be changed.
So I guess what?
Yeah, what we've got to do now is come up with a super duper takings clause in the fifth amendment.
Have to come up with a super duper fifth amendment to use our inspector lingo uh, to uh help define what the document already says.
I mean, this is, this is heap, big trouble.
We have the constitution and now we're going to have to pass laws that basically rewrite it so that we can all understand it, or restate it, just so everybody gets it.
I mean, this is, this is cockeyed.
But uh, Roberts was not.
He's, he's not going to give his uh decision on this or any other case.
Uh, prior to himself getting on the court.
He's going to have to rule on this again at some point.
And he also said something very clever.
Uh, they asked him about this in regard to justice Souter yesterday.
He said, i'm not going to comment on justice Souter because one of two things is going to happen when this is all over, senator, i'm either going to be one of his colleagues or he's still going to be my boss, so i'm not going to comment on justice Souter.
Well, this guy's sharp as attack, sharp as attack.
And he's illustrating that the Democrats are using a 30-year-old playbook that you know well, the Bork playbook, and it's just, it's um, you know it.
Just it's, it's this it's, it's, it's absolutely crazy, in fact uh uh, it's so outdated, it's obvious.
These guys look like dinosaurs.
They look like Jurassic Park has come to life here on the on the Senate Judiciary Committee, quick timeout.
We'll be back and continue in just a second.
You're listening to Rush Limbaugh on the Excellence IN Podcasting Network.
Hubba, Hubba back.
We are El Rushbo Serving Humanity here on the EIB Network.
Great to um, great to have you with us.
Uh folks the uh, one of the funniest things that happened yesterday, and I I, I just found this stunning Diane Feinstein cannot be on the same planet as we are.
Diane Feinstein was I, it was almost, it was.
It was clear to me that what senator Feinstein was doing was simply asking questions and reciting talking points to please the special interest groups that harass these Democrats.
And she actually asked Roberts about this memo we we, we talked about this months ago, in which he said, uh oh no, we're gonna take homemakers out of the home and make them lawyers.
That's, that's what we need best.
We keep them in the home.
And she actually thought he was serious about opposing women's liberation of women's rights, and he said exactly what I thought was the case senator, it's a joke that goes back to Shakespeare, the last thing we need is more lawyers.
And then he said, look at my life and look at my wife and look at you.
You can't find any evidence of this.
He didn't say it the way I'm saying it.
He was never on the defensive.
He's totally dominating these people.
As Dana Milbank writes, he was sharp-tongued.
When Leahy made a skeptical query about one of Roberts' Reagan administration memos, Roberts said, Senator, you're vastly overreading the memorandum.
When Biden fired off a series of questions without allowing Roberts to answer, Roberts said, well, I was about to lay that out, but you said you didn't want to hear about it.
Room filled with laughter.
Biden did not smile.
And Roberts showed flashes of wit.
Asked about an old memo he wrote supporting judicial term limits.
He admitted, you know, that would be one of those memos that I no longer agree with, Senator.
I didn't fully appreciate what was involved in the confirmation process when I wrote that.
Everybody laughed.
He just totally disarmed him.
They even, you know, I told you the other day that some of these liberal groups are trying to find evidence that this guy's gay, and they're pointing to his bald spot.
And they're looking at his bald spot.
And I kid you not.
If you read the right things on the web, you'll find that some people say, nah, he can't be gay because if he was gay, he covered up the bald spot.
He'd have enough vanity to cover up the bald spot.
Gay guys don't want to go out with bald spots.
It's tough enough out there as it is.
Well, lo and behold, here in the Washington Post, Dana Milbank sitting at a folding table dressed with red felt Roberts, his bald spot exposed under the studio lights.
How many times have you heard a nominee's physical characteristics described this way?
John Bolton, his evil mustache twitching with the remnants of his morning coffee.
Just even in a piece that attempts to be complimentary of Roberts, they have to, the bald spot?
I told you, you think that bald spot just came out from Dana Milbank's observation?
I will guarantee you, folks, that there is a source on that bald spot remark.
Jeez.
Oh, man, we'll be back in just a second.
All right, folks.
Sadly, we are out of busy broadcast time here at the EIB Network, the fastest three hours in media and the fastest week in media.
Three of the five days already gone.
But as you know, we'll be eagle-eyeing all that happens between now and the next program, and we will be raring and ready to go to tell you what actually has happened with the only expert analysis you need.
See you in about 21 hours.
▲
Export Selection