All Episodes
Previous Next
Sept. 15, 2005 - Rush Limbaugh Program
36:28
September 15, 2005, Thursday, Hour #2
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
So Senator Diane Feinstein on the ABC News at the top of the hour said WABC in our New York 50,000 watt blowtorch uh in regard to the Roberts nomination.
I I don't know what I'm really gonna do regarding the vote.
Which means after the hearing, she's waiting for one of three things.
A marching orders, B, a message from God, or C, a Daisy to pull.
Greetings, my friends, and welcome back.
It's Rushlin bought the Excellence in Broadcasting Network.
I America's Anchorman, a harmless, lovable little fuzzball.
We are at 800-282-288-2, the email address rush at EIBNet.com.
As I said, we have uh an update on the story of William Jefferson, Democrat Louisiana congressman from Louisiana from Marengo Street, in fact, in the uptown affluent section of New Orleans.
Uh controversy erupted after ABC News reported that uh two trucks and a helicopter were sent in there to help him retrieve the contents of his home uh while the rescue operation was still going on.
Uh the uh congressman, the Democrat from Louisiana, William Jefferson appeared last night on CNN's uh Paul Azan show.
We have the some audio sound bites from that and all that's coming up from Columbia, Tennessee.
A malfunctioning light bulb in a scrual gym exposed more than 100 people to shortwave radiation for an hour.
It ended up sending 18 people to the hospital with severe sunburns and swollen eyes.
The incident occurred during a September the 11th memorial event.
Fred Young, 73, said, Well, I was sitting in the auditorium, my forehead started itching real bad.
When I got home, I looked in the mirror, my face looked real red.
Most of the victims were older adults who were sitting together under the broken lamp.
No children were admitted to the uh to the hospital.
Dr. Michael Richardson, an emergency room doctor said the symptoms similar to overexposure from a tanning bed were produced by a radiation leak from a from a light bulb.
The bulbs commonly used in gyms are designed with a special membrane that blocks the UV rays, but occasionally those membranes break.
Happened at a 9-11 memorial in uh in Tennessee.
And I'll bet you, I'll bet you these light bulbs were approved by Bush in consultation with Halliburton.
And uh they knew that a bunch of uh people aren't going to be voting much longer are going to be in there, and they wanted to test how well these light bulbs malfunction this way could be used in the battlefield.
You know, Bush just had to have something to do with this.
Speaking of the Supreme Court nomination of John Roberts, we got some more great soundbites coming up.
But I also like seeing this.
This is by Alexander Bolton today from The Hill, the newspaper for and about the U.S. Congress.
Conservative strategists are drafting a letter to Democratic members of the Senate Judiciary Committee demanding the release of hundreds of internal memos detailing contacts between the Democrat lawmakers and liberal interest groups opposing John Roberts' nomination to the Supreme Court.
By planning to press the Democrats on this sensitive subject, conservatives seem to be pulling a page from the Democrats' own political playbook.
In the weeks leading up to the confirmation hearings, the Senate Democrats have repeatedly called on the White House to give them memos that Roberts wrote while he was Deputy Solicitor General in President George H.W. Bush's administration.
Senator Pat Leakey Leahy, Senator DePenz, the ranking member on the Judiciary Committee means he's the Democrat, raised the issue again yesterday by releasing a letter dated September 9th from William Muschella, an assistant attorney general.
In the letter, Muskella declined to disclose legal memos from Roberts' tenure in the office of the Solicitor General.
Now what's being sought here, conservatives want access to what they estimate may be as many as 4,000 Democratic memos that are in Senate Sergeant at Arms William Pickle's possession.
Last year, Pickle sees Senate Judiciary Committee computers during an investigation.
Democrats on the committee called for the probe after internal memos written by AIDS to Senator Kennedy and Senator Turbin were made available to the press without Kennedy or Turbin's consent.
In their letter to Democrats, conservatives plan to argue that the memos are not protected by attorney-client privilege, giving them a stronger claims to the documents, they assert, than the Democrats have to the Solicitor General's documents.
Robbers defenders have argued that a solicitor general's relationship to a president is akin to an attorney-client relationship and deserves special privilege.
The solicitor general, by the way, that's the person that actually represents the United States in cases before the U.S. Supreme Court.
Hence the designation of attorney-client privilege.
But I think this is fabulous.
Let's not see these memos.
I mean, Democrats run around all over the place demanding this document and that document and these documents.
Let's see the documents they're using.
Let's see what Ralph Nees and the boys are threatening him with.
Let's see what the ACLU's threatening him with.
Let's see what Nayrol and Nan Aaron and all these other wacko groups on the left are threatening them with.
I tell I know these groups' memos have been used.
I mean, through much of Senator Kennedy's questioning, he was reading talking points, no doubt provided by these groups, or asking questions, no doubt provided by these groups.
In fact, I've got a soundbite here that'll illustrate for you how they screwed their own friend, how they screwed Senator Kennedy.
I'm I'm gonna I'm gonna interpret it that way.
Could well be that Senator Kennedy himself was trying to do the screwing.
But I it it it it it based on what I've seen up to this time, uh, it seems that you know what one thing, John let me change of change of direction just to make a point.
One of the things I haven't seen that I would love to have seen, because it would have proven the point.
Kennedy asks one of these five or six minute questions.
And I would love to hear Robert say, Senator uh, I'm not I'm not quite sure uh I get that.
Could you could you go back and look and see if blah, blah, blah, and make Kennedy go off his script, and you would see a panic.
You would see Kennedy turning around to an aide.
Uh, where, where, where those uh where those uh Ralph Nee's talking points when I need them.
Well, here's an example of it, I think.
It's up to you to decide whether Kennedy has been screwed by his team or whether he's attempting to screw Roberts.
Here's the question.
This was during the morning session today.
The swimmer says, you mentioned in your memoranda that we should, you're familiar, I think, with these words, and that's a t that's a Kennedy tactic, as you well know, and you're familiar with these words.
This is this is uh an attempt to intimidate, doesn't work with Roberts.
So the swimmer says, you mentioned in your memoranda that we uh should, and you're familiar, I think, with these words, they've been written up in the journals.
You can probably recognize them.
We should ignore the assertion that the EEOC is un-American, the truth of the matter notwithstanding.
Is there anything, is there some reason that you would make a comment like that that the EEOC is unAmerican?
Now listen to this answer.
Well, Senator, you do have to read uh the memo, I think, in in its entirety to put it in context.
That was not my language.
That was the language uh the un-American reference was the language that was employed by an individual who had a case before the EEOC.
He actually won his case before the EEOC, but he didn't like the difficulty and the time involved.
He wrote to the president.
He said two things.
One, that his treatment at the hands of the EEOC was un-American, and two, that the president had a uh promised uh in the campaign to abolish the EEOC, and he wanted to hold the president to that promise.
It was my responsibility to figure out how to respond to this complaint that had been received.
When you read the whole memorandum, you see two points.
The first is that I was unable to determine in the short time I had to respond whether or not the president had made such a pledge to abolish the EEOC.
I simply didn't know.
And I said that in the in the uh paragraph, if you read it, and that's what the truth of the matter notwithstanding is referring to.
The question of whether or not the president had promised to abolish the EEOC.
I say right in the memo that we cannot determine that.
And whether his treatment was un-American or not, it's beside the point.
We don't interfere with the activities of the EEOC.
That was the conclusion, and that's what we did in that case.
All right, so what do we have here?
We have Ted Kennedy who presents an entirely false picture, a false premise, half of a memo, and Roberts corrects Kennedy four times in this memo in this answer, corrects him four times if you're to read the whole memo, you would find that I didn't say it.
A client of mine said it.
He read the whole story.
What did you also not hear in the Roberts answer?
What did you not hear?
Come on, somebody tell me, what did you not hear?
You didn't hear Kennedy interrupt.
You didn't hear Kennedy try to stonewall this.
You didn't hear Kennedy, because Kennedy doesn't know what he's even asking about, is my theory.
My theory is that he got set up by a Ralph Nees type.
We're gonna nail this guy.
We're gonna nail this guy.
We're gonna say that he says the EEOC is un-American, because their template is this guy doesn't care about equal rights.
He's un-American.
He said it about the EEOC.
You ask him, Senator, so that's uh that's right.
We'll nail this SOB.
And Kennedy is left there hanging out to dry.
Literally hanging out to dry.
Roberts has no notes in front of him during this answer.
Kennedy does not ask for any further notes.
It just is what you heard.
So the question is, did Kennedy pull a fast one or was a past one fast one pulled on Ted Kennedy?
If Kennedy were informed and could have interrupted and tried to stem the damage that was happening here, he would have.
But he was lost.
He didn't even know what he was asking about.
Diane Feinstein did the same thing the other day.
You really think that more women need to be homemakers?
No, Senator, it's a joke from Shakespeare about lawyers.
And so forth.
Now, Turbin uh followed with the same question that Kennedy had asked after Kennedy.
I'll give you the details of that.
I don't have the sound bite of that, but um do I?
Now we got a next bite is from uh uh Kennedy himself, where he says Kennedy's but he does have a response.
Kennedy's excuse is, well, the parts parts of this are redacted.
And Roberts, wait till you hear this, Roberts nails him again.
No, Senator, it's just a couple names that are redacted.
So anyway, uh it's it's it's just fascinating to watch this because we find out what true intellectual lightweights these guys are and how totally dependent they are on these left-wing groups, and these left-wing groups are setting them up because the left-wing groups are lightheaded as as well.
They can't compete with this guy.
And the age-old template of just say he's a Republican, he's a conservative, he hates equal rights.
Uh this is so great, folks.
I just I can't I cannot tell you uh how to people watching this, this is literally destroying the Democrats, particularly on this committee.
Back with more in just a second.
All right, we just heard the uh answer from Judge Roberts, Senator Kennedy.
If you read the whole memo, you'll find out it wasn't I who said the EEOC is an American.
It said the client who who won the case said the EEOC was un-American.
So Kennedy says, well, as you know, this memo's been redacted.
And I think in fairness and fairness of the committee, if we can get out the other redactions, it'll be more accurate, kind of a complete record.
And then Spector says, well, if it's possible for Judge Roberts to deal with the redactions.
I think the redaction simply identified the individual was making the complaint who had his case.
The only thing I would emphasize is that the language that was quoted was part of a sentence, and the uh the the question of what the truth of the matter is referring to goes to the the first part of the sentence that was not read, which is the assertion.
The assertion that the president promised to abolish the EEOC.
That was the matter that I could not determine in the time available, whether that was correct or or not.
So I said the truth of that matter notwithstanding.
And I also emphasize that any reference to the phrase un-American is always in quotes to make it clear that that's what the uh writer of the letter said, and certainly not what I said, and certainly not my view then or not.
So it it it's patently obvious here that somebody's trying to trick the guy, and they fail big time.
I just don't know if Senator Kennedy is the architect of the trick or he's uh one of the victims.
Uh you think he's the architect?
Uh I I think he's duped.
I think that he's relying on these uh these left-wing groups and his staff to put this stuff together because they think, you know, Roberts is just a meathead conservative.
Hell, it's gonna be easy to wipe the floor with this guy.
And and and the the whole premise of the question is flawed.
The facts in the question are incorrect, they're wrong.
Uh, And so Kennedy's floundering Well, the memo's redacted.
I read the whole thing.
It's only the client's name that's redacted, Senator.
So the swimmer finally gives up in this next bite, but still thinks that Roberts thinks the EEOC is un-American.
Arlen Spector said, Senator, inspector's being nice here.
Specter's saying, Senator, you just got the floor wiped with your rear end.
Do you want to answer that?
That's not what Spector actually said, but he Senator Kennedy realized you know this is over.
You you want to keep pursuing it, so Kennedy said, Yes, I uh I wanna I want to keep talking.
Well, I I think we've been over the after all is said and done about finding out what uh President Reagan wanted to abolish or not abolish, that really wasn't the uh the issue or the question.
And the question isn't about whether the uh the the use of the un-American is uh obviously unacceptable.
I mean, and they're dismissing that.
But the uh Judge Roberts said uh the assertion the EEOC is un-American, uh qu quote, and he's quite right saying that they were dismissing that word, but then he adds the truth of the matter notwithstanding.
I think it's not unreasonable to assume that he somehow was disparaging the EOC.
That's all.
See, uh uh Senator, he doesn't even know how badly he has just been embarrassed.
He literally doesn't know it because the talking point on part of that question was Roberts says EEOC un-American.
And so that's the point he's gonna try to make.
The truth be damned.
Doesn't matter.
Roberts thinks EEOC unamerican, Roberts is conservative, Roberts hates civil rights, Roberts is unfair to the little guy.
But that's the whole guiding light here for all of these guys, and particularly this question from uh from Senator Kennedy.
Uh Jeff Sessions from Alabama, Alabama, then sums up this whole EEOC dust up and slams the Democrats in the process.
Judge Roberts uh commends you on your good humor, and even when they read a memo, suggest you said the EEOC was un-American when actually all you were doing was quoting a complaint and then and that you defended the EEOC uh and its uh rights uh and independence aggressively in that memo.
So the um the cast is uh is die here, the dies cast, whatever.
These guys are just flailing away and they're not even making contact.
It's uh this is literally embarrassing these people.
Uh Stephen in Rayford, North Carolina, uh, I'm glad you called a welcome to the program, sir.
Hello, Rush.
Rural letter carrier giddos to you.
We I really enjoyed listening to the Senator, uh, listening to this whole process.
But do you think that the Democratic senators who've been beaten by the ugly sticks so badly by Mr. Roberts, will they be more prepared to come back the next time around?
More vision in their attack.
No, no question.
You see, here's here's what this sets up.
Uh I'm glad you called because this this is an excellent question.
This sets up a couple of possibilities.
If the next nominee is able to replicate Robert's answers here, then the and the Democrats, it doesn't matter what the Democrats do, they're gonna be flummoxed if the if the next nominee, whoever he or she is, is able to uh I don't mean replicate word for word, but replicate the style uh of the answers here.
It's gonna be tough to find somebody this smart, but I bet they're I bet they're out there.
I bet they're all over the place.
These conservative jurists, scalia, these people are not they're not rare.
Uh you can find them.
Uh but here's the difference.
And we gotta be honest about this.
Roberts does not have a huge long paper trail.
He does have 50 opinions.
He does have 50 opinions that he's written, but he has not written them, say, in the style that a Robert Bork did.
So he he didn't present much of a target.
The next nominee, don't know who it is, but if the next nominee has a much larger paper trail, has written many more opinions, and has uh been very forthcoming in these opinions, then that nominee will become a bigger target.
And the Democrats will zero in even more.
But I think the basic answer to your question is they're going to be shell-shocked after this.
The next seat is the O'Connor seat.
They are really worried about that.
That's the swing seat, you understand.
And the swing seat, that's where uh moderate's supposed to go, so that the moderate will side with the left more often than the right.
And if Bush nominates a Roberts type, I will guarantee you, because they don't know how to be anything else.
They'll come out with the howitzers.
They'll come out with the bazookas, they'll come out with their shoulder-fired nukes.
They'll mount whatever they've got, and they will tell lies in the questions, like they've been trying to do with Roberts.
They will mislead, they will take him out of context, they will do everything they have trying to intimidate.
And then as the nominee starts to answer the uh let me let me continue on.
I think we know the answer to that question is gonna be, and we don't want to hear it now.
Well, what do you say about this?
It's gonna be something like that.
As they tried on the first day with Roberts, but it it didn't work.
Uh but to expect these people to change the direction, they only know one direction.
And that direction is backwards.
And nothing is going to change their approach, their philosophical approach, only their rancor will increase with the next nominee.
Having more fun than a human being should be allowed to have.
Bending in shaping America in extraordinary days.
800-282-2882.
If you want to be on the program, here's John in St. Louis.
Hello, sir.
Nice to have you with us.
Hey, great to be with you.
Megados from St. Louis, Missouri.
Thanks, sir.
Uh got a question.
I'm reading something off the web here from the uh Family Research Council that says after the Senate gets done questioning John Roberts, testimony begins from panels of outside supporters of the nominee and opponents like Planned Parenthood.
I thought this was advice and consent of the Senate, not of outside interest groups.
Well, this is common, though.
I mean, this is this has been going on for as long as I've been watching these things.
I don't know when this bringing in the ABA and the American Bar Association and the uh special interest group startup, it's been going on as long as I've been observing.
Uh and it's it's pretty much common practice.
Now it it's not going to go on very long.
The ABA, which is traditionally on the side of Democrats, gives this guy its highest rating.
Uh and the the Planned Parenthood, I I tell you what, I as far as I'm concerned, let them let them come in there, John.
Because these groups, if they're the architects of this pitiful performance, the Democrats, it'll be it'll be obvious to everybody.
Let them come in and use their hate.
Let them come in and use their lies.
Let them come in and try to portray this guy.
You know, we're a nation of pictures, and you can say this guy hates blacks, you can say he hates women, you say he hates civil rights, but there has been not one shred of evidence put forth.
All it is is allegations.
That's all a left generally has.
Allegations.
Uh seriousness of the charge.
We have some more audio sound bites here, and just to show you how deep that they're reaching.
In this next question, this is from this morning.
Senator Diane Feinstein actually tried to link John Roberts to the Contras.
Here's the question.
Let me go back into your past.
In trying to get Senate documents, um, one of the documents withheld was a draft memo titled uh Establishment of NHAQ, the Nicaraguan Humanitarian Assistance Office.
This office was used by President Reagan to give aid to the Nicaraguan count Contras following the passage of the Boland Amendment, and that was a prohibition on providing funding to the Contras.
What involvement did you have with the Nicaraguan humanitarian assistance office?
Can I rephrase the question for you?
How much money do you send to the Contras in violation of the enact of Congress?
Here we go, folks.
This is a question uh that you just laugh at.
Here's Robert's answer to it.
I'm not familiar with the memorandum.
If it was withheld, it was probably withheld from me as well, and I don't recall any involvement.
So I don't recall any.
I do know that there was an issue.
An issue was raised.
I have seen memory.
Stop, stop.
She's she's I think she's just read a question given to her by some group.
She realized how silly and stupid the question is, and she wants him to stop.
Okay, okay, okay.
That's her in the background.
Okay, okay.
She doesn't want this embarrassment to go on anymore, but he keeps going.
Miranda that I know have been released about uh private fundraising activities, and I do Know that I gave advice uh in order to make sure that they didn't engage in lobbying activities uh in order to be consistent with the Boland Amendment.
I've seen those, but beyond that I'm not recalling anything.
So uh that's what she didn't want him to say.
That that what what involvement did you have with the Contras?
I advised them not to die.
They gotta obey the Bolton Amendment.
That's what I advised.
But I haven't seen the memo either, Senator.
Um here's here's just uh an example, I think, of a a Roberts perfect example of of his answers uh all week.
Uh he just decimates the next question here and and doesn't really say anything in his answer, but he just decimates the question.
Senator Feinstein says, let me ask you a general question then.
If an executive exercises power in direct violation of an act of Congress, is such an act unconstitutional?
Well, the answer depends, Senator, and this is where you get back to the Youngstown uh analysis where Justice Jackson said uh there are three categories you can act with Congress's support, with uh being unclear what Congress's position is, and he recognized a third category where you can act the executive may act in the face of a congressional prohibition.
And there are certain areas where the executive does have authority to the exclusion of Congress.
Um, without stating a legal view, for example, one that law professors regularly talk about, uh, is the pardon power.
In other words, that's given expressly to the president of the Constitution, and restrictions.
If Congress were to pass a restriction on the pardon power, uh does the president nonetheless have the authority to act under the Constitution?
That's a difficult uh question.
But it may be that the President's authority would trump Congress's authority.
So I can't answer a question in the abstract without knowing exactly what the record is and what the situation is.
So what you have here in this case is just an an a question of utter imbecility.
It's just it's it's it's it's a simplistic question.
So the the Democrats, everything is adversarial.
So if if if if an executive exercises power in direct violation of an act of Congress is such an act unconstitutional, and they're hoping and praying, absolutely it is.
Well then, and they were there, I'm sure there's a talking point follow-up, uh, but she never got there because he's uh uh without knowing particulars, it's not that easy to say.
So it's it's it's just been fun to watch.
It's it's been an education to watch this, and it has been very illuminating and and uh heartening to me because the illumination has been more and more on just who the left is and just what their tactics are, and just how uh how they luck lack substance that they're empty.
One more, one more sound bite, and this is simply a uh a a uh a little bit of the closing remarks, the closing remarks from Senator Chuck Schumer.
Uh Schumer starts out praising Robert's intellects and then list one of his cons.
Uh and you will hear Schumer say that Roberts lacks compassion because he used the word amigo in the 1980s.
First is the question of compassion and humanity.
I said on the first days of these hearings it's important to determine not just the quality of your mind, but the fullness of your heart, which to I think a good number of us, at least on both sides of the aisle really mean the ability to truly empathize with those who are less fortunate and who often need the protections of the government and the assistance of the law to have any chance at all.
It didn't seem much, for instance, to concede that the wording illegal amigos was unfortunate.
Yet you refuse to say so.
America has moved in the twenty-first century beyond what Senator Kennedy called the cramped view of civil rights professed in the early admin uh Reagan administration.
But you wouldn't admit now in 2005 that any of those views you argued for in the early 80s were misguided with the hindsight of history.
That's troubling.
So this prompted uh Vice President Lindsey Graham uh to say, you know, I don't like this direction at all.
We're now we're we're we're supposed to examine these nominees' hearts.
He said, let me tell you a story.
We're all lawyers up here, and I've been a lawyer, And I've had to defend some really mean people.
I'm some people that were not very nice.
I had to defend a client on a military base once, and this man was so despised and so hated that nobody in the base would eat with me.
But I had to defend him.
I had it because it was my job.
You're going to tell me I did not have a heart because I chose to defend this guy.
We can't measure anybody's heart.
We can't.
How are we going to do this?
But see, when you go back to what Schumer says here, Roberts, in fact, go back.
I want you to play cut two, because this is a great way to answer another question he got from Senator Durbin.
Here is Schumer.
Says, you know, uh a good number of us, at least on both sides of the aisle, really mean the ability to truly empathize with those who are less fortunate and who often need the protections of government and the assistance of the law to have any chance at all.
He's saying here, you're going to be sensitive to these illegal amigos that you talked about in the 80s.
You're going to be sensitive to the downtrodden and the disadvantaged, and are you going to use the law to help prop these people up?
Now, Roberts had already answered that earlier this morning, and here it is again for you.
I had someone ask me in this process.
I don't remember who it was.
But somebody asked me, you know, are you going to be on the side of the little guy?
And uh you obviously want to give uh an immediate answer, but as you reflect on it, uh if the Constitution says that the little guy should win, the little guy is going to win in court before me.
But if the Constitution says that the big guy should win, well then the big guy's going to win.
Because my obligation is to the Constitution.
That's the oath.
The oath that a judge takes is not that I'll look out for particular interests, I'll be on the side of particular interests.
The oath is to uphold the Constitution and laws of the United States, and that's what I would do.
Now here's the proper way to interpret this.
Liberals think you are an activist if you are going to vote to uphold the Constitution.
They consider the Constitution to be out of the mainstream, essentially.
The Constitution is conservative.
The originalist view of the Constitution, meaning find the original intent, that doesn't serve liberals.
You can only use the courts to prop up the downprodent if you ignore the Constitution.
Everybody's equal before the law.
Theoretically, everybody's equal before the law.
But not with liberals.
Liberals, the disadvantaged get five or six bonus points simply because they're disadvantaged.
And here's Robert say, hey, if the law says a big guy wins, a big guy's going to win with me.
And I'm t I I tell you that would send ice to these liberals' hearts.
That is that that's like freeze-drying them.
They cannot deal with that kind of truth, but there was no rebuttal to this.
Because how do you take on somebody who actually says very proudly and pointedly, that's the oath.
I'm here to defend the Constitution.
Can a liberal come out and openly say, No, you're not.
That's not what you're to do.
You are to go in there and you are to write law if necessary from the bench in order to make things fair and just as we liberals define it.
This is another example why they can't be honest about what they really want to do or who they really are on a campaign platform or anything else, because it would just go down the tubes faster than they're already going down the tubes as it is.
Quick timeout, we'll be back with much more.
Stay with us.
You're listening to Rush Limbaugh on the excellence in podcasting network.
L. Rushboat, talent on loan from a god.
And we'll get to your phone calls back to your phone calls here in just a second.
Uh a couple of things.
You know, the the uh the the these hearings, uh now that Robert's testimony is over, he's finished.
Here you had Schumer uh raising questions about Robert's heart.
And when you get right down to it, folks, this these hearings are not about whether John Roberts has a heart or not.
It really is more about whether or not the Democrats have any brains.
I mean, that's the correct way to uh uh analyze this.
Uh but of course the media lost in the news cycle of the moment.
Uh stuck will not will not be able to see any of this.
They're still stuck on how many votes is he gonna get.
The media, well, let's see, which Democrats are gonna vote for.
They're not, they're not they have no ability to look outside the cycle and see what all this means down the road.
They're just they're just stuck.
Uh in in the and that's that's them daily.
They're stuck in the moment of the day.
It has no context, it has no meaning other than how will this hurt President Bush?
That is their sole focus, the sole bit of analysis, how is this gonna hurt President Bush?
Will this destroy President Bush?
Well uh Well, I I th Schumer doesn't have any qualifications to analyze anybody's heart.
But he has qualifications to ask questions because he's elected and he's on the committee.
And that's all it takes.
That's what qualifications Kennedy have to talk to anybody about li women's rights.
Honestly.
Seriously, what what what what under what other system would Ted Kennedy be allowed to have moral superiority over anybody else on women's rights?
Well, his life doesn't give him that.
His election in Massachusetts and being on his committee is all he needs.
24-7 subscriber says, Rush, I think I've detected who's uh Calypso Lewis's source is uh for saying that the uh levy was blown up uh and the water was directed only to black neighborhoods to flood and destroy.
They said, Rush, I've listened to your show.
I think your show is the source for Calypso Lewis.
You're you're running an ad saying that that John Roberts blew up the levy, and I and if uh Calypso Lewis listening, you you could be the source.
Here's what he's talking about.
While Hurricane Katrina was busy destroying the Gulf Coast, George Bush was also busy getting ready to destroy civil rights.
All right.
Kanye West says George Bush hates black people.
And now he's proven it by nominating John Roberts to Chief Justice of the Supreme Court.
While John Roberts was safely in Washington, D.C., thousands died.
While John Roberts was busy preparing his right wing agenda, thousands are becoming homeless.
While George Bush pledged aid to Katrina's victims, John Roberts and Carl Rule simultaneously attacked the levies in New Orleans with dynamite in Wardies, gasoline prices.
Coincidence?
We think not, Mr. President.
Tell George Bush, we don't need a dynamiting gas gouging, anti-civil rights justice on the Supreme Court.
Tell George Bush, the reign of terror must end today.
Followed by George Soros and Kayaking Friends of Nancy Pelosi.
So I could be guilty.
We could be guilty.
We could be Calypso Louis' source.
All right, to the phones.
Fayetteville, North Carolina.
This is Sean.
I'm glad you waited, sir.
Welcome to the program.
Hey, Pittsburgh Steeler Fan Ditto's Rush.
Thank you, sir, very much.
Hey, uh, gotta call you on your uh statement last hour about Bush and the polls.
Um normally I agree with you, but you know, if if all the pundits are correct about his address tonight, I think Bush is letting the polls and some of the media scrutiny uh drive his outlook.
I mean, if he's gonna throw 200 billion dollars at the problem, um, instead of letting the market, you know, work its way and capitalism take care of it.
I I completely disagree with it.
Well, I have to concede that that when I say he doesn't care about the polls, uh, I I think up until this incident, the polls were of no consequence to him, but when he went out and took responsibility for this, and by the way, the governor of Louisiana has now said, Ah, I take responsibility on a local level.
So they're all rushing to take responsibility now.
Uh for the well, Mayor Nagan hasn't rushed in there, but uh but but but Kathleen Blanco did.
There's no question that the this this is uh this is in response to the destruction and the overpowering images that uh the TV produced.
Uh and of course everybody, we gotta do something, we gotta do something.
And uh the president uh you could say he's responding to polls, and and I wouldn't disagree with that in this instance, but I also think that uh if you talk about hearts, I guess got a heart, and uh, you've got a U.S. city here that was leveled, and and there is a desire to help it back and and it's uh uh and its people.
So I I think there's a there's a there's a number of things uh uh going on here.
But you know, Sean, I lamented, I'm on the same page with you.
I lamented last week what was gonna happen here.
This is just typical.
When there's any kind of a disaster like this, the president, whoever he is.
I did it it doesn't matter.
Reagan did it.
You they all do it.
You just start writing the checks.
You just start spending the money.
It's the best way to stop the bleeding.
It's the best way to uh to to reverse uh to reverse the tide.
All that notwithstanding, though, uh uh the to say the president's dead, uh presidency destroyed, just look at these hearings and you'll find out that the left's number one concern, the judiciary, is slipping away from them.
We still have an hour to go, folks, and we're gonna make the most of it.
The latest on Congressman William Jefferson, Democrat Louisiana.
▲
Export Selection