All Episodes
Previous Next
Sept. 20, 2005 - Rush Limbaugh Program
36:23
September 20, 2005, Tuesday, Hour #3
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Yeah, the the forecast uh for the hurricane category three as it hits the Texas coast.
It just was upgraded to category two.
That's uh just the forecast sometime Friday.
Greetings and welcome back, folks.
Uh great to be with you.
Rush Limbaugh, the Excellence in Broadcasting Network.
I am America's anchor man, firmly seated here in the prestigious chair endowed by Friends of Attila the Hun here at the Limbaugh Institute for Advanced Conservative Studies.
The uh telephone number, if you want to be on the program today, 800-282-2882.
The email address is rush at EIB net.com.
Attention, Coco at the website.
Need you to listen to this uh because this will be for posting on the website.
I spoke with Haley Haley Barber, the governor of Mississippi after the program yesterday, interviewing him for the next issue of the uh of the Limbaugh Letter.
And it's uh it's it's this it's a pretty pretty good interview.
He he uh uh I asked him all about the federal response, uh what it's been, uh how the reaction's been in Mississippi versus Louisiana.
Uh he he he was politic in his uh in his answers, but he was firm in his uh in his belief that the the actual rebuilding that will matter and that will count most uh in Mississippi and he believes anywhere will be that done by the private sector.
Uh the entrepreneurs and the people who um lost everything rebuilding themselves.
Uh he's not not at all suggesting that federal government or any other assistance is not uh helpful or crucial.
But he was uh it was very forceful in his in his belief that the uh the private sector will ultimately determine uh what all of this rebuilding looks like.
I also asked him uh because I I know this would be a concern of a lot of you, what could people do for the state of Mississippi?
We don't hear much about Mississippi in any of this.
We haven't seen much uh footage out of Mississippi, and I said, why is that, Governor?
He said, well, you know, it it rush I heard it's kind of like what you said when you went to Afghanistan.
There's not a whole lot going wrong.
Uh and so there's really not a whole lot to show.
There's some things going right here.
We're making some good progress here, and that there's not there aren't nearly the uh the the human misery stories here that there were elsewhere, and so the the the pictures here just aren't as compelling.
Uh but he they've set up their own specific fund, and I want to I want to mention the name and the address of the fund and we'll post it on the website.
I know everybody's been inundated here with, you know, we we tend to in this in this country, we just it's it's amazing how we overreact.
We just it's it's uh I guess it's it's understandable, but the hurricane uh uh hits New Orleans and the immediate aftermath, oh my gosh, city is uninhabitable six months.
Oh, this has been terrible, oh it's 30,000 dead, oh it's gonna be horrible.
We shouldn't even rebuild the city.
Oh, the worst thing we've ever said.
And and we now find that the city is already coming back to life.
It's not nearly as bad as people predicted that it would be.
Just this just this this hysteria that we all have.
It's based on the pictures that we see, coupled with the reporting that accompanies the uh the pictures.
Now the uh the reaction is uh charities everywhere and giving everywhere and places to donate everywhere.
Uh last night they had a huge fundraising appeal.
The National Football League did.
Uh, and they also played a football game around the fundraising appeal.
Uh the if if I was watching that football game last night, and I actually thought this is not a football game, it's a fundraising appeal.
Uh, because of course fundraising and charitable activities are are uh necessary, but that they're also good marketing.
So I asked Governor uh Barber, what what can people do?
And he said, Well, we've set up our own fund if uh if if people have uh willingness or desire to contribute.
So let me give you and the president's in Mississippi today, that's where he went, uh, as the press continues to carp on his spin control and damage control, but Mississippi is where he went today, maybe going back to Louisiana too, I don't know.
But Governor Barber told me that they have a fund called a Mississippi Hurricane Recovery Fund.
And the address is Post Office Box 3562.
Jackson, Mississippi 39207.
That's the Mississippi Hurricane Recovery Fund.
P.O. Box 3562, Jackson, Mississippi, 39207.
We'll post that address on the website.
Uh by the way, mail delivery started today in coastal Mississippi.
Uh that's already back and uh and up and running there.
And you see pictures out of Mississippi, you wonder where they're delivering mail to.
Uh but obviously people uh have a place to go get their mail even if their homes aren't there anymore.
So the the mail is being delivered.
Uh late news here.
Democratic Senate leader Dingy Harry Reed, this is no surprise, has told associates he intends to oppose the confirmation of John Roberts as chief justice.
Reed scheduled a speech on the Senate floor for mid-afternoon, at which he was expected to make his announcement public.
Uh as you know, the uh Boston Globe, the Washington Post uh have endorsed Roberts, the New York Times is not.
Uh, Democrats are out there strategizing.
Okay, how many votes do we uh do we give this guy?
What'll it what'll it say about how we act at the next nominee and so forth?
So the substance is irrelevant to them, nothing but the politics is, and how it will help them or how it will hurt them.
Uh you might say, well, don't Republicans do this too.
Well, I don't know.
Ruth Bader Ginsburg got 90-some odd votes when she was nominated by Bill Clinton.
I don't know that Republicans do.
In fact, when it comes to Supreme Court nominees, I can tell you Republicans don't do this.
Uh not nearly to the degree that the uh that the uh Democrats do.
Pope Benedict the 16th, did you hear about this?
Pope Benedict the 16th has given his approval to a new Vatican policy document indicating that men with homosexual tendencies should not be ordained as Catholic priests.
This is reported in uh the publication Catholic World News.
The policy statement is a direct result of the Pope's concern about the pedophilia scandal in the church, particularly in the United States.
The text approved by the Pope at the end of August says that homosexual men should not be admitted to seminaries even if they are celibate, because their condition suggests a serious personality disorder that detracts from their ability to serve as ministers.
Said the Catholic World News report.
Priests who have already been ordained if they suffer from homosexual impulses are strongly urged to renew their dedication to chastity and a manner of life appropriate to the priesthood.
The instruction does not represent a change in church teaching or policy, according to the Vatican.
Catholic leaders have consistently taught that homosexual men should not be ordained in the priesthood.
Pope John the twenty third approved a formal policy to that effect, which remains still an effect.
However, during the 70s and 80s, the policy was widely ignored, particularly here in North America.
The pending release of the instruction in the face of certain criticism from liberal forces in America and Western Europe demonstrates the determination of the Vatican to uh improve the quality of priestly ministry and to protect the church from some of the scandals that have recently shaken the Catholic community and no doubt deterred many men from entering uh priestly training.
So we will no doubt be uh hearing about this in uh the days to come.
I this next story is is it's almost unbelievable.
I say almost unbelievable.
My source is News Channel 5, but there are probably about 1,500 news channel 5s in this country, so I don't know which news channel 5 this is.
All Channel 5s in America calls them call themselves News Channel 5 or Channel 5 News or some such thing.
They don't use their call letters anymore.
So I have no clue uh where this is from.
The Red Cross has been praised for its tireless efforts assisting storm victims in Middle Tennessee.
But there are concerns in the black community that the Red Cross lacks diversity, especially in an effort helping mostly black evacuees.
A number of minority churches and groups uh are offering to help, but say they've been left out.
Now the Red Cross shelter in Franklin, I guess this is a Tennessee and then uh in the in the Nashville area.
The Red Cross shelter in Franklin opened its doors to storm victims last week.
It's only one of two shelters in Middle Tennessee, the others in Nashville.
Both shelters are in suburban areas, and the volunteers are predominantly white, while the evacuees are almost all black.
And some members of the African American community say that that's not enough.
When you're different and you're the lone person, you do feel different.
When you're in crisis, you like to have some familiarity there, said Joyce Cersei of the Bethlehem centers of Nashville.
I guess just the fact that you're all Americans doesn't cut it.
We were talking about this earlier in the program.
I told you that I have so many people say, Rush, you can't criticize blacks.
Blacks have to do that.
Only blacks can criticize.
You can't do it.
You can't criticize gays because only gays can criticize gays, and can't criticize uh, you know, women because only women can criticize women.
You don't have any credibility when you Well, that's that's political correctness, and it's run amok, and it is you know, I I I think political correctness is such a serious problem because it really is a roadblock to honesty.
It is a roadblock to truth.
And when you cannot have honesty and truth, then all the other problems that we're going to encounter are rendered academic or meaningless.
Hell's Bell's here.
What what is this?
So Red Cross shelters in Tennessee have opened up, and the civil rights leaders in Tennessee are upset that they're all white.
And yet most of the evacuees showing up are all black.
The balkanization of our culture continues.
The Red Cross, well, before the Red Cross says, uh Joyce Cersei, who is with the Bethlehem Centers of Nashville, says she tried to open her community center as a shelter, but couldn't get approved by the Red Cross.
It already had a list of 63 churches and community groups.
She said, you know that big headline that we were going to have 6,000 evacuees in a list of shelters in a newspaper were in the suburbs, so the question is, why aren't these in our community?
The Red Cross says it's because the other groups are already on a pre-approved list.
Their facilities have already been checked out and the volunteers already trained.
But the Reverend Enoch Fuzz says in times like this, the volunteer corps should be more diverse.
Who in Brentwood would know where a black beauty shop or black barber shop is?
Asks Enoch Fuzz.
The Red Cross acknowledges that most of its volunteers are white, but says training's open to anybody.
Since then, Joyce Cersei went through the training and is signing up others.
Number of black churches are helping evacuees on their own, even though it isn't through the Red Cross.
And uh they're assembling some uh teams of fifty that take turns volunteering at uh at Red Cross shelters.
This is this is just uh this is just unbelievable.
What would Dr. King say about this?
Dr. King was all about what, Mr. Sterling?
Integration, right?
Brown Brown versus Board of Education is all about what, Mr. Snerdley?
Integration, right?
All about now who who is it that's that that's sponsoring all this segregation here.
Who is it that's really in enforcing segregation?
No, we can't go to that shelter.
There aren't any black people.
That shelter could tell us, you know, relate to us or so forth.
Uh this is to say nothing of looking a gift horse in the mouth.
I don't even want to go there.
I'm uh wonder how insensitive I would be accused of being if I touched on that.
Time for another big time L. Rushbow C, I told you so.
Yesterday I read a story about Cindy Sheehan, in which she called out Hillary Rodham and said that Mrs. Rodham would soon be changing her mind on troops in Iraq and be demanding that they come home.
That if she didn't, she might live to regret it, or words to that effect.
I said, You don't say this about Hillary Clinton.
You don't say this, I said, but the time this story was published and Mrs. Clinton heard about it, operatives of Mrs. Clinton will have gotten to Cindy Sheehan, and she will never ever mention Hillary's name again.
So, the New York Times today.
In an anti-war speech by Cindy Sheehan, the mother of an American soldier killed in Iraq, was cut short yesterday after the organizer of the event was arrested and police officers confiscated his audio equipment.
and Mrs. Sheehan has not shied away from controversy, opening her New York visit on Sunday night in Brooklyn by accusing Senator Hillary Rodham of failing to challenge the Bush administration's policies in Iraq.
Ms. Sheehan, who did not mention Ms. Clinton yesterday, and she will not mention her again, ladies and gentlemen.
Unless she wants to end up in Fort Marcy Park.
Mark my words on it.
By the way, a late update here, anti-war activist Cindy Sheehan, who lost a son in the illegal war in Iraq, said Tuesday that she was hurt slightly in a scuffle that erupted when the cops broke up a rally as uh she was at the microphone.
An organizer was arrested and charged with using a loudspeaker without a permit.
I was speaking, and someone grabbed my backpack and pulled me back pretty roughly, sheehan said, describing at the scene Manhattan's Union Square on Monday.
I was shoved around.
Sheehan, the grieving mother, whose vigil near President Bush's Texas ranch sparked anti-war protests around the country, cough cough, said she wasn't roughed up by police, but uh she was jostled when officers broke up the rally and arrested the organizer Paul Zulkowitz.
So Cindy Sheehan, hurt at the rally where she did not mention the name of Mrs. Clinton.
Now, uh Dingy Harry is on the floor of the Senate.
Has he yet announced his no vote?
Okay, so he's so he's is there a big audience of the Florida Senate?
There's hardly anybody there.
So there wasn't anybody there when Spector uh announced his vote for Roberts yesterday.
But Dingy Harry is a big long, boring speech here leading up to his earth-shattering decision not to vote for Judge Roberts.
Here are the main points as I've been able to grasp them up to now.
Dingy Harry says that Judge Roberts may turn out to be the wrong man for the job, and he can't risk that for the American people.
Dingy Harry said that the president is not entitled to much deference when it comes to judicial appointments.
He did allow that while Roberts is not motivated by bigotry, he does not appreciate the history of the civil rights movement in this country, and as such, uh he can't get Dingy Harry's vote.
He hasn't said that yet, but of course, he's not motivated by bigotry.
He just doesn't understand the civil rights movement and its history.
So you see, there's there's this never absent underlying tone when it comes to Democrats.
All Republicans are racist, even the ones that don't know it.
Even the ones that don't want to be, they still are, just because they're Republican.
He's not motivated by bigotry, but he's simply too stupid to appreciate the history of the civil rights movement.
Can you imagine a lightweight like Dingy Harry commenting on the intelligence of a man like John Roberts?
If nothing else, folks, we saw that Roberts is the smartest guy that sat before the Senate Judiciary Committee in my lifetime.
I mean, if nothing else, I don't care what he ends up doing as a judge, his brain is unsurpassed.
Dingy Harry runs at a snail's pace compared to John Roberts's brain.
And for us to sit here and have to listen to Dingy Harry comment on the intelligence and the sensitivity of John Roberts is nothing more than laughable and comical.
And especially when you realize Dingy Harry and his crowd think they've turned the corner now.
They think they've got the 06 and 08 elections wrapped up, folks.
I'm I kid you not.
They think they have destroyed the Bush presidency.
Meanwhile, Roberts is going to get confirmed, and there's going to be a new nominee to come down the pike.
It probably just upset him just as much.
Dingy Harry also said that Judge Roberts failed to adequately answer questions, including the one on Starry Decisis, which is precedent.
That's only because Dingy Harry doesn't have the slightest idea how to understand what Roberts said about Starry Decisis.
It's only because the Democrats don't themselves believe in it.
They believe in precedent only when it upholds the cases they like, but they are firmly against precedent when they want to overturn decisions, like the Texas sodomy law.
Or when they want to overturn any number of cases of the Democrats, oh, that's a stary decisive, it can be punted right out the window.
These people are just, they're laughable.
They're they're intellectual, effete snobs that have no clue how truly ignorant they really are.
But Dingy Harry did say he personally likes him.
He personally liked Judge Roberts, the not intentional bigot.
And the obstruction of justice answerer of questions.
But this is a high burden, and Dingy Harry is thinking of the American people.
You're just a fool, you old man.
You're listening to Rush Limbaugh on the excellence in podcasting network.
Just a couple more things here before we go back to the phones.
I got uh an email from a subscriber at Rush 247.
Dear Rush, I'm from Franklin, Tennessee, and I worked at the Red Cross in Nashville.
All the people we served in Nashville were very grateful.
Our Civil Air Patrol squadron worked all Labor Day weekend and the following weekend weekend, and we still continue to help.
Nobody I talked to indicated we were too white.
I personally gave out over 100 beanie babies to all the little kids and even some of the adults, even though this kind of talk breaks our hearts, we're going to continue to serve.
You know, based on this, if the if the if the and this is just anecdotal, but this is one person who was at a shelter, and if there weren't any complaints, doesn't surprise me.
It's the civil rights leaders that are that are that are that are raising the complaints here.
Story is made to look like some of the evacuees themselves are ungrateful, but I don't think that's the case.
I I think it's these civil rights leaders just play playing the race card.
Trying to hold on to their flock, if you will.
The worst thing that can happen is for some of these people to find out that white people aren't the devils that they've been portrayed all these other all these people's lives.
I mean that, folks.
I think this is just, it's obscene, this story from Nashville about the the complaints being uh uh uh offered up about these uh the the the Red Cross shelters in Nashville being too white.
So at least here's one eyewitness account says none of the none of the none of the evacuees have been complaining about anything, which doesn't surprise me.
Just like I wasn't surprised when ABC got stunned in their post-Bush speech little attempt at the Astrodome, they had a bunch of evacuees, and they were begging these people to rip into Bush for an inadequate response.
And none of them did.
They all blamed the local people.
They blame the mayor and they blame the governor for not following the plan and not getting them out of there.
They know the score.
ABC, and you know, you haven't heard that reporter anywhere else besides ABC, but uh still this this is it's just I don't know, these are the kind of things really frustrating civil rights leadership, right?
Even in the midst of this, trying to drive a wedge between people.
All right, now one of the things that I have commented on, particularly when it comes to the uh the Democrats and the John Roberts nomination.
I have warned you people several times to keep a sharp eye out on how the Democrats decide to vote on this, because the Democrats are gonna be divvying up their votes, making sure that he doesn't get too many, but he's gonna get confirmed because they got to leave room to oppose the next nominee.
So the Democrats are gonna be twisting arms in their caucus to make sure this guy doesn't get 70 or more votes.
So it's all about how can this help us?
How can we turn this to our advantage?
Rather than having it be on the substance of any of this.
And I've also told you in the last couple of three days that the Democrats are becoming more and more concerned and loyal to these coop fringe bloggers.
There was where was that story from that talked about how Hillary was going to be meeting with some of these bloggers?
What was that story?
You remember the source?
I don't remember the source of the story.
Was it AP story?
It was something, but but it was it was all about how the Democrats are gonna Oh, it was somebody warning the Democrats, or advising them, that they're gonna have to take on the face and actions of the act.
It was Howard Feynman.
It was Howard Feynman's piece at MSNBC.
Howard Feynman late to the day, saying, you know what, these activists on these blogs, they uh they're they're they might provide a little bit of a problem for Washington Democrats.
Might.
They already are.
They're threatening the existing Democrat establishment.
And they're vowing to take over if the Democrats in Washington don't do what these extremist kooks want.
So, from the Hill, the newspaper of Capitol Hill, comes this story.
For 08, a tough choice lies ahead for Democrats.
It's by Jonathan Allen.
A vote for Judge John Roberts could be well within the mainstream, but may not be where Democrats with an eye on the oval orifice are looking to swim, according to some political strategists and analysts.
Steve McMahon, best known for being the husband of Cynthia Uxney, and also a Democrat political consultant who worked on Howard Dean's 2004 presidential campaign, said, if you're running for president, you need to take a hard look at voting no because that's where the Democratic base is.
Anyone who's running for president is watching everybody else who's running, said McMahon.
When the robbers' roll call starts, those senators who are viewed as possible contenders for the nomination in 08, Hillary, Kerry, Biden, Bye, Feingold, maybe others, will be under a microscope.
That's particularly true of Clinton, who has not publicly revealed her intentions on either Roberts or the 2008 race.
Okay, we knew all that.
Page two.
Comments on the liberal website, DailyCause.com, excoriated the Washington Post editorial page for recommending that Senators support Roberts.
The more liberal editorial page of the New York Times called Sunday for no votes, a position not likely to be ignored by Clinton.
Senators should vote against Roberts not because they know he does not have the qualities to be an excellent chief justice, but because he's not met the very heavy burden of proving that he does.
The Times ridiculously oponed.
The reasoning underscores the dilemma for Senate Democrats.
They've expressed few complaints about Roberts, what he actually said, but the next nominee may be inclined to reveal even less if Roberts is confirmed.
Senate Democrats also remain frustrated by the White House's refusal to release documents from Robert Stint as a deputy in the Solicitor General's office during the presidency of Bush.
They never do.
Silly.
No president's given up those papers and those documents.
At any rate.
So once again, we see, let me put it to you in a way that you can understand.
If you found out that Carl Rove and the Bush White House were formulating policy based on some kook fringe right wing blog, what would your reaction?
You would be panicked.
Oh my God.
Oh no, what's happening?
That's exactly what's happening to the Democrats.
But the thing is, it's been going on for a long time.
It's not something new as Mr. Feynman discovered last week prior to writing his column.
This is this is just patently absurd.
I don't know if you people have taken time to look at some of these websites.
You really should.
You really should.
You should go to the Daily Cause, you should go to the Democrat Underground, and you should just you should just for as long as you can handle it, treat yourself to some of the bile, the vile, the absolute sewer trash drivel that's coming from these sites, and understand then that this is the pressure being brought to bear on the Washington Democrats.
And then keep in mind that while all this is going on, they think they are winning.
So a blogger, a wacko kook blocker, can threaten Democrats with their vote on John Roberts, and they stop and consider it.
This is if it was a mainstream Democrat blog, that'd be one thing.
But these the ones they're listening to, folks, they make Cindy Sheehan look like Pat Buchanan.
The best way I can put it.
I mean, it it it it's it that that's how far off to the left that they are.
It's it's just it's glorious.
It's absolutely wonderful.
And now they're out there worried how they should vote on this nominee based on what the reaction's gonna be on these kook fringe.
When you, if you if you take some time to read some of these things, you will no longer have any worries.
If you just just if you struggle through this, remember that people like Harry Reid and Barbara Boxer and Diane Feinstein and Ted Kennedy and all the others are reading them too for guidance.
And then they're also listening to the nayroll babes, the nags, Ralph knees people for the American way.
And isn't it obvious that these groups don't have the power that they used to have?
They couldn't stop Janice Rogers Brown.
They couldn't stop uh Priscilla Owen, they couldn't stop Bill Pryor.
And yet the Democrats are listening to him more than ever.
I love this.
I just can't believe it.
I think we are succeeding in driving them insane.
And I'm gonna I'm gonna raise my hand as a leader of the bunch that's causing them to go insane.
I don't think they've been able to deal with competition.
I don't think they've been able to deal with the fact that the bloom is off their rose and that we're shining a constant bright light at their tactics, at their customs, at their at their despicable views, their whole philosophy.
They can't.
They've been able to get away for all these years with lying about what they're gonna do, saying they're gonna do, and then doing something else.
They've been able to portray themselves as people that they aren't, and now who liberals really are is on full display.
Their rage and hatred and anger has removed the mask.
The cabouflage that has always hidden who they really are.
The monsters that these people are and have always been is now plainly viewable, and they scare not just kids, but anybody who gets anywhere near their path and gets a good look at them.
And I think we're driving them insane, and I'm the reason.
And a lot of others too.
Don't misunderstand, but I'm pointing my at myself, I'm raising my hand as the leader of the core of conservatism to drive the left insane.
And we are succeeding.
Here's John in uh in uh in America is it Meridian or Meredith, Connecticut?
Which is it?
Meredith.
Meriden.
Thanks for the call, sir.
Rush, I I like your show.
And um I just want to tell you that first.
And um I am a registered demo democrat.
I did vote for Kerry, and I personally am disgusted with these proceedings.
Um, and I'm agreeing with you what what you just said lately.
I mean, this should be about the Constitution.
Isn't that what the justices are supposed to do?
And and there's so much politicking and so many windbags just derating him, and I I I must say I'm impressed with John Roberts.
He's he he's sticking to the law, that which is exactly what he's being going to be paid to do.
You know what the thing that impressed me more than anything about John Roberts, aside from the the obvious aspects of his intelligence, is something that we used to always hear was the number one concern when nominating a man for the Supreme Court, and that was his temperament.
This guy's he they couldn't rattle him, he didn't get offended, he didn't get mad, he didn't take anything as an insult.
He seems to be quite reasonable.
And you know, the I must tell you that a lot of people on the right are confused a little bit upset with his lack of answers on things.
There's some people out there on my side that oh my god, he didn't say it overturned row, oh no.
He didn't give anybody anything, which is what a judge is supposed to do.
He doesn't know what cases are gonna come before him and how.
Uh but but I uh you you voted for Kerry and and uh you're you're uh are you let me ask you is that as a Connecticut Democrat, are you are you concerned let's say that that you may not be totally aware as I am of of how the these blogs are taking over the party.
Right.
And you may you may disagree with me, but pretend for a moment that you agree and you think I'm right.
If it's true, right, what's your reaction to that?
I just think that um I I'm disenchanted with that.
I think there's a departure from logic there, and uh that the Democratic Party had at one point, and in this hatred for for Bush, they seem to have lost.
And I say that as someone who doesn't disagree who disagrees with some of Bush's decisions and who disagrees with some of your opinions, but I I don't I don't buy into these these attacks and and as you call them these wacko groups, and there's a lot of hatred there.
That's that's that's not what I'm about, and that's what a not a lot of Connecticut Democrats are about, I I don't think.
And I I I actually think you're right.
I think there are some people like you who have been Democrats all all of your lives, and you for whatever reason, and you are, but but you're normal Americans and you want the best for the country and all that, and you'd You generally think that the Democrat Party has been the best way to go.
Uh if I were one of you, seeing what I see, uh I'd be just as upset if David Duke were overtaking the Republican Party.
I if if David Duke were taking over the Republic or pick whatever right-wing fringe candidate that we've had in some of these state races, wherever, or the I would I would I'd be I'd be devastated.
And I just don't see that out there on the Democrat side.
I I see it's like it's the hatred for Bush just governs all.
And if you have that, then everything else will be tolerated and understood, or swept away and forgotten about.
Anyway, uh John, I appreciate the call.
I'm a little long in a second, and I have to go, but I appreciate the time that you took the call.
We'll be back here in just a second.
All right, we have a couple of sound bites here from Dingy Harry and his uh floor speech to the U.S. Senate today, where he leads up to uh and actually says here that he's opposing Judge Roberts.
You know, as you people know, I have a very fertile and uh uh big brain, and I I access my brain frequently trying to come up with the most accurate descriptions of uh events and people.
I I I'm at a loss here.
Listen to this.
I I'm just I'm just I'm at a loss to explain this to you, other than to say these people are insane.
And I when you couple this with the fact they think they're winning and they think that they are communicating to a majority of Americans.
Dingy Harry thinks he's actually communicating to a majority of Americans, and if he doesn't think that, he thinks that he will persuade a whole bunch of people to join him and will be a majority by speaking this way.
It's more than out of touch.
It's more than elitist, it's more than being just removed.
It's it's it's embodied somewhere in in elitism and superiority.
But the man just he cannot possibly be happy.
I I I don't I'm sorry I'm failing you here in in coming up with an explanation for this, but just listen uh to the fur.
We have two bites.
Here's the first one.
Judge Roberts spoke about a Hispanic group that President Reagan would soon address.
And he suggested that the audience would be pleased to know that the administration favored legal status for the illegal amigos in the audience.
Illegal amigos.
After twenty-three years, couldn't he acknowledge that that was insensitive, that it was wrong.
The use of the Spanish word amigos in this memo is patronizing and offensive to a contemporary reader.
I don't condemn condemn Judge Roberts for using the word amigos twenty years ago in a non-public memo, but I was stunned when at his confirmation hearing he could not bring himself to express regret for using that term or recognize that it might cause offense.
Uh Dingy Harry.
Um, you are not the arbiter of sensitive.
You and your crowd are, you don't get to define what's sensitive or ends that you you you just this is what rubs me so wrong about who the hell do you think you are?
Some of the things that you have said about President Bush, some of the things that you have said about the American service men and women in Iraq, some of the things that you have said about your own country, Senator.
And you dare to sit there and preach.
Like someone who is infallible, who never makes any mistakes, daring to define what's sensitive and insensitive, and demanding that someone respond to you and admit it.
The truth is you do hope to score political points by saying this, just like you illegally looked at some judge nominee's FBI files and blab to the world and the Florida Senate that he was unfit.
That's a violation of the law.
You don't have the character to speak for this country, Senator.
And that's why people laugh at you in this country who know the score about illegal immigration to boot, and that people like you won't even do anything about it.
Just can't take these people in the Don't forget that Dingy Harry called President Bush a loser and not in a memo in public to a bunch of high school kids or grade school kids, and he refused to apologize.
And last I looked, amigo in Spanish means friends.
It's they're going insane out there, folks.
▲
Export Selection