All Episodes
Previous Next
Oct. 3, 2005 - Rush Limbaugh Program
36:19
October 3, 2005, Monday, Hour #1
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Welcome to today's edition of the Rush 24-7 podcast.
Hey folks, greetings and welcome.
It's the Rush Limbaugh program, and here we are, three hours of broadcast excellence straight ahead, the golden EIB microphone right there, and the ditto cam is on.
We'll have it on for the entire three hours at Rush Limbaugh.com.
Telephone number if you want to be on the program today, 800-282-2882.
I'm sure you do want to be on the program today, and I'm I'm not going to be the least bit surprised by pretty much anything I hear today.
If you want to go the email route, it's rush at EIB net.com.
All right, uh, ladies and gentlemen, let me just cut to the chase here.
I, in the end.
Uh I have a lot of problems with this, but I don't know what I actually ultimately am going to think of this for a while.
But like everybody, it's hard to resist the uh the pull to be angry.
It's hard to resist the pull to be depressed over this.
Uh and let me give you my reasons why uh on on the on the negative side first, because I think that's probably the there are right now more reasons I feel that way than otherwise.
Just last week on this program, we were talking about making decisions from a position of weakness versus a position of strength.
And I think the choice of Harriet Myers, and I don't know the woman I first heard her name last week or whatever it was ten days ago when she was uh her name was thrown in a hopper as uh as possibilities.
And I you know I I don't pay attention to that because I think uh the everybody's name gets thrown in a hopper, and and so many people claim to have inside knowledge and and sources that I really pay very little attention to that.
I just I just wait for the choice to be made.
And it just it seems to me at the at the outset here that that this is a pick that was made from from weakness.
There was an opportunity here to show strength and confidence, and I don't think this is it.
There are plenty of known quantities out there who would be superb for the court.
This is a nominee that we don't know anything about.
Nominee purposely chosen in in one context, we don't know anything about her.
Makes her less of a target, but it also does not show a position of strength.
I have a tough time believing that if the White House didn't feel embattled over all of this stuff with Hurricane Katrina and the war with Iraq and these poll numbers, the choice would have been somebody different.
Somebody that could immediately be tagged as a as an originalist, somebody who was uh in the in the in the same mold of Scalia and Thomas, who the president once told us were his ideals for the uh for the Supreme Court.
Now the Democrats are saying some favorable things about Harriet Myers right now, led by Dingy Harry, the Senate leader.
He likes her very much.
Almost like uh he'd like to marry her.
He likes her so much.
And when you start hearing the president's opponents start talking about this, uh, in the way they're talking about it, you have to have a red flag go up.
Now there's always the possibility that this is a giant uh uh rope dope, too.
Uh the president obviously knows this woman very well, and most of us do not.
Uh and in that sense, uh we're sort of hampered here, and the the gut knee jerk reaction that uh I I know a lot of people are having today is one that uh is probably shared by you.
But the main reason I don't like this pick has nothing to do with Harriet uh Myers, because I don't know her.
I think the pick looks President Bush look weak.
I think the pick uh is designed to avoid more controversy.
The pick is designed uh to uh appease.
And I just I've that this I can't tell you how that disappoints you.
I can I can't tell you how it it uh won't I won't say depresses me, but people have been working, folks, in the conservative movement for however long you want to go back, fifty years, thirty years, twenty years intently, uh, to find a a uh to get to the point here where the opportunity to reshape the court and to take it in a clear originalist uh direction and to weaken the the court as structured by the left.
As I've said over and over again, the the court is the last refuge for the left.
It is where They hope to institutionalize their beliefs and get their beliefs out of the arena of debate.
They want liberalism to be institutionalized, made a part of the Constitution, so that the American people have no opportunity to debate it, uh, oppose it, uh, elect uh uh congressmen and senators to uh debate it and oppose liberalism and defeat it.
The more it gets institutionalized and the highest courts of land, uh the greater the uh chances are that we're stuck with it.
Now, all this having been said, the the caveat to this is I I don't know this woman.
I have no idea she could end up being fabulous for all anybody knows.
That takes me back to the why do we have to take the risk?
Why do we have to roll the dice?
Some of you, well, Rush, you trust the president.
The president said he was going to do this, and he's uh picked a person here that uh he firmly believes in.
Yeah, I know.
You want to trust the president?
Uh you do, and and but folks, there have been too many too many things that you look at all the spending.
I mean, where's conservatism in the way this government has grown in the uh in the last five years?
Uh it it's not it's not evident.
So there's um uh there are a lot of things here to to have a red flag uh raised about.
Uh we're in a a lot of us feel that we're in a war with a left wing that is disintegrating.
With a left wing that's uh impaling itself on extremism, a left wing that is taking the Democratic Party so far over the edge that if we just let them go and force them over the edge on their own, that they'll take that route.
And the nomination of a uh of a of a genuine known conservative originalist uh of that of that quality would have perhaps pushed them over the edge.
There are many things going on here.
This is not, you know, this is there's a lot of people think, a lot of people believe that we are in a genuine war in this country for the future of the country and how it's how we're how how our country is uh gonna be shaped and how our children and grandchildren are gonna live in it, what they're gonna grow up to to experience and find in this country.
And uh defeating the left has been a lifelong objective for many people, and and and defeating them to the point that they are not rendered uh uh absent but obsolete.
And to now compromise with them or to to appear to compromise with them is what looks weak to me when you listen to what some of the Democrats are saying.
For example, here's Harry Reid.
I am um I like Harriet Myers.
As White House counsel, she's worked with me in a courteous and professional manner.
I'm also impressed with the fact that she was a trailblazer for women, as a managing partner of a major Dallas law firm and the first woman president of the Texas Bar Association.
In my view, Supreme Court would benefit from the addition of a justice who has real experience as a practicing lawyer.
Current justices have all been chosen for the lower courts, a nominee with uh relevant non-judicial experience to bring a different and useful perspective uh to the court.
Well, okay, Harry Reed likes her, but what does he know about her?
What uh the the uh well, Rush, are you looking for a knockdown dragon?
No, I'm looking for a knockdown win.
I'm not looking for a knockdown.
We're gonna get that anyway.
Folks, they're gonna research this woman and they're gonna find something.
You have to understand they still have to fundraise.
They still have to be uh loyalty to the loyal to these these extremist groups, Ralph Nees and that bunch, and they're gonna they're gonna say things about this woman.
They're gonna find whatever her position on abortion is, and they're gonna portray it as as as pro-life to the hilt, and they're gonna come out and they're gonna trash this woman all which are they're gonna do anyway.
They've got to do this for fundraising.
They have to do it to keep their base happy.
Uh and and uh so but it I don't know, this is just not what I was expecting.
Then you have uh uh various uh members of the well, president of the Dallas Bar Association, Tim Mounts.
I think Harriet Myers would make an excellent judge, and for a number of reasons.
One is, although Harriet was a very good advocate for her clients, she also tended to try to operate by consensus.
Whenever possible.
So I think that she'd be a good Supreme Court justice for that reason.
Here's that word consensus.
Consensus, as Margaret Thatcher once said is the absence of leadership.
I I don't know what role consensus has on the court other than with the chief.
Uh Tim Russert, Harry Reid, leader of the Democrats in the Senate has said favorable things about Ms. Myers in the past.
Dana Bash, CNN were told by a senior official that a part of the reason they say that Mr. Bush felt comfortable at this point nominating Harriet Myers is because she was recommended to him not just by Republicans, but also by Democrats.
Senior officials said that the President took seriously an admonition by the chairman of the Judiciary Committee in the Senate and the top Democrat that he should think outside of the appeals court.
Think outside the monastery, as Senator Pat Leahy of Vermont has uh has put it.
Now it's true that a number of Supreme Court justices have not been judges.
She's not unique in that regard.
Uh in fact, it was Ronald Reagan that started the modern trend of appointing men and women who were judges.
And he did it precisely because he knew their judicial philosophy and didn't want to make a mistake, like Eisenhower had with uh with Earl Warren.
Uh I'm not sure about Standard Day O'Connor.
I don't know if she was a judge uh or or not.
Well, I know Harry Reid said he liked John Roberts too before he voted against him.
Um that's what I say.
There's a lot we don't know here.
The the the initial gut reaction is why do this and look weak in the process.
Why do this and have to appease the left?
Why not pick a known quantity?
Uh you're gonna have the battle anyway.
Let me take a quick timeout.
We'll come back, we'll get a little bit more into this, and I'm sure you want to weigh in.
Stay, stay sitting tight, folks.
It won't be long, and we'll be right back.
Look, folks, don't misunderstand me here.
She this woman's gonna be confirmed.
She she she is going to be on the Supreme Court.
They're they're they're not gonna be able to stop this.
Uh the the only way she won't be confirmed is if the Republicans rise up and filibuster.
You know, if if if don't laugh.
I'm just I don't know that I have I'm just saying I have no clue what's gonna happen, and I think there's it's pretty good bet that she will be confirmed.
You're gonna have a lot of Democrats.
They're gonna attack her because they have to for fundraising and so forth, but but uh uh you know, she's already being in fact.
In fact, here's here's my point.
If you go read some of the criticism of this nomination right now, you'll find that it's not even oriented toward her.
It's oriented toward Bush.
Bush has picked a crony.
Right now, that's the theme that's out there.
And it these themes that the left uses to attack this woman are going to change.
As uh by the way, Santa Day O'Connor was an appellate judge in Arizona.
So I just I I was unsure.
So that it makes my point about Reagan even stronger.
He picked judges that had a record that he could know uh because he he had he wanted to have a decent idea what they were going to do with the court.
It was important to him.
Uh we may find out what Harriet uh Myers' personal beliefs, although let's say she is pro-life.
Let's say she's a hundred and fifty percent pro-life.
Can she talk about that at the hearings?
She can't.
I mean, she won't.
Uh they're gonna say she is if they find evidence that she's the slightest bit pro-life.
Uh but we don't know what her judicial philosophy is.
And that that's what this is.
Personal beliefs are one thing.
We don't know what her what her what her judicial philosophy might happen to be, because there's no way of knowing.
Now, the president may know.
He knows her.
Uh and and the uh uh she she may she's got a great pedigree as uh as a lawyer in uh running this law firm.
She did rise from nothing to the top of 400 member law firm.
As I say, I don't I don't know the woman, and she may end up being extraordinary.
She could end up being just superb.
As I said, I can't I can't get past this notion that the pick was uh chosen from uh from a standpoint of uh of weakness.
And I think when you hear these attacks on uh on not her, but but Bush F. Bush has picked a crony.
It's a it's a continu.
They're gonna say that about Bush no matter what, so why not go for the gold?
They're gonna say whatever they say, so why not go for the gold?
Go for the known quantity and uh and and keep your support aligned and don't have to reach out to your supporters.
Are you okay, are you happy today?
What are we gonna do something that you know is gonna be supported without having to roll the dice on it all.
Let's grab some opinions.
By the way, we're gonna have Vice President Cheney on the phone to talk about this.
Uh the time is floating right now.
Uh the latest we have about 115 to 117.
Uh Vice President will be in Camp Lejeune.
Uh and uh he was gonna take time out from his uh uh duties there to uh spend some time with us on the phone to explain the White House position on this.
Here's Bill in Seattle.
Nice to have you, sir.
Welcome to the program.
Hey, Rush.
Uh hey, I disagree in in when you're saying that this woman is an unknown quantity.
She's an unknown quantity to the political establishment.
But to Bush, she probably is the most known quantity, and he probably did what you say he always does.
He did what he thought was right rather than what all the political talking heads said he should do, which was to pick a conservative that everybody was comfortable with.
Well, I know.
That's why I want to get some opinion on this today, because I know there's going to be a wide divergence of opinion on this.
And I'm sure a lot of people still have, and in their minds justifiably so, Total faith and confidence in the president to do the right thing, that he's not lied about this up until now.
These picked people for this court and the and the uh appellate courts that are right out of the mold of what he said uh he would do.
And so there's based on experience, there's no there's no reason to doubt that he's not done that here.
Uh it's just that it's uh it's an unknown quantity.
You have to understand that so many people uh really do not see the world in the country today, the way the mainstream press sees it, the way people that live in Washington see it, and uh and the way the Democrats see it.
Uh we we don't see the president floundering.
We don't see the president in a position of weakness.
We don't we don't see this.
Uh we and we certainly don't see the need for it.
Uh and y so anything that appears any decision that that appears to be made from a position of weakness or attempting to to stem a uh a falling poll number or a uh stem angry criticism is is it that it never works.
Uh given the people we are trying to appease is my only point.
Kevin and Raleigh, North Carolina, you're next.
Welcome to the program, sir.
All right, let's just get right to it.
Why did I send all of this money to Pat Tooney?
Why'd I send all this money to John Soon?
I wanted to fight.
I wanted this over with.
I wanted them broken.
I wanted a strict constructionist that we know.
I wanted a known quantity that was as hardcore as you could get.
Um who's the the judge from either Alabama or Mississippi?
Uh that when he was going up to the court of appeals, they said, What do you think about abortion?
He said it was just the worst ruling ever.
William Pryor.
Bill Prior.
Exactly.
And I am just I'm heartbroken.
It feels like we're gonna have another generation of just sitting on our heels hoping we get lucky.
Yeah, I hear that.
Uh you know, but we the thing is we're not gonna know uh for for a long time uh what what kind of Supreme Court Justice Harriet Myers will make.
Uh so that that complaint that you have voiced is one that I've heard quite a bit this morning.
Why have to roll the dice?
Why go through all this when there are plenty of really strong known quantities out there who could also be confirmed?
Who could also be confirmed?
Here's uh Madeline in Cleveland, you're next on the Rush Limbaugh program.
Hello.
Well, hi, Rush.
I'm a first-time caller, and uh thank you for um putting me on the air to talk to you.
I just wanted to say, you know, I have complete faith in the president, but it's not a blind faith, and I always felt that listening to you on the air that you look at things critically but come down on the side of the president and some things we just have to have faith in because we can't have all the information.
And the fact that he picked a woman, okay, so fine.
The fact that he thinks that she's qualified, I'm sure she w he was working on this while Roberts was going through this.
Isn't some decision that he's made in a cut cavalier way?
He's never done that with anything, and I support him a hundred percent.
I think he's doing a a fine job in in every area.
And of course, nobody has polled me on my opinion, but I think there's a lot of us out there, and I thank you again for your voice because you speak for us, and I think that uh everything is just fine with uh the pick that he has made, and uh I hope that uh he Well, let me ask you a question, Madeline.
Is are you at all troubled when you hear all these Democrats and media types coming out singing this woman's praises?
Um the Democrats are saying, the Democrats are saying that this proves Schumer said it.
Schumer said the fact that Bush knows that he can't nominate any of these known quantities because they're out of the mainstream of American thought.
They're extreme right wingers.
So he had to choose somebody like this who is not an extreme right wingers.
Of course, to Schumer, anybody left of Trotsky is an extreme right winger.
But he's out there.
They're happy.
I mean, uh when you when you look at what these people are saying right now, they're happy about this because they're at least convinced that they're not gonna have to deal with a a true, genuine conservative originalist.
Now they don't know either.
No, they don't their thinking is now.
I'm sorry, what did you say?
I said that's what they're thinking is now.
They have no clue either, but they seem pretty confident.
Right.
And I and I don't trust anything that that's being said out there.
I think one thing uh following the Roberts, you know, questioning and and watching that on the air is just getting a real education about how these people think in when they're in different roles and how we can never really know a hundred percent what they're going to do once they get there.
And I think if nothing comes up that would negate her qualifications, then she ought to go forward as the president's choice.
And I know.
Madeline, I I have to stop you there because of the constraints of the programming format.
We'll be back after this, folks.
Stay with us.
You're listening to Rush Limbaugh on the excellence in podcasting network.
America's anchorman seated at the Limbaugh Institute for Advanced Conservative Studies.
Let's go to the audio tape.
Here's the President this morning in the Oval Office.
A portion of his remarks on uh White House Council Harriet Myers' nomination to the U.S. Supreme Court.
Over the past five years, I've spoken clearly to the American people about the qualities I look for in a Supreme Court justice.
A justice must be a person of accomplishment and sound legal judgment.
A justice must be a person of fairness and unparalleled integrity.
And a justice must strictly apply the Constitution and laws of the United States and not legislate from the bench.
Well, okay, well, hey, nominate somebody without knowing what their judicial philosophy is.
That's that's one of the reasons that Reagan nominated sitting judges.
Uh it's not to say the President does not know what her judicial philosophy is.
She is a lawyer, uh and as such, she may have a judicial philosophy.
And if she does, he probably knows what it is.
Uh but there's no record of it for the rest of us to know, uh, which includes the Democrats.
So they're gonna have to go out there and dig deep and make no mistake about one thing.
Even though you've you we've got Democrats out there saying favorable things, uh or at least non-negative things right now.
Make no mistake about the fact that they probably already hired their investigators.
They're out there doing their opposition research, and a left-wing groups are on the trail, and they're gonna dig up as much dirt on this woman as they can unless unless their investigation is, wow, did we dodge a bullet here?
This is exactly what we're looking for.
And uh, you know, just mount token opposition for their fundraising efforts on the uh on the left.
Okay, we've confirmed Vice President Cheney will lead off the next hour.
He'll be here at 106 when we kick off the uh next hour of the program.
Here's more from the president on uh Harriet Myers as a pioneer.
Harriet became a pioneer in the field of law, breaking down barriers to women that remain a generation after President Reagan appointed Justice O'Connor to the Supreme Court.
Harriet was the first woman to be hired at one of Dallas's top law firms.
The first woman to become president of that firm.
The first woman to lead a large law firm in the state of Texas.
Harriet also became the first woman president of the Dallas Bar Association, and the first woman elected president of the State Bar of Texas.
Here is Harriet Myers herself after she has been chosen.
From my early days as a clerk in the Federal District Court and throughout almost three decades of legal practice, bar service, and community service, I've always had a great respect and admiration for the genius that inspired our Constitution and our system of government.
My respect and admiration have only grown over these past five years that you have allowed me to serve the American people as a representative of the executive branch.
The wisdom of those who drafted our Constitution and conceived our nation as functioning with three strong and independent branches have proven truly remarkable.
It is the responsibility of every generation to be true to the founder's vision of the proper role of the courts in our society.
That's exactly right.
The Constitution is made up of words.
Those words were specifically chosen.
Those words were not the result of uh throwing it up against the wall and see what looks good.
These words in the Constitution were specifically chosen.
And if she uh if she has a devotion to the words of the Constitution as uh as she seems to hear, then uh that's a a plus uh even though there's no way of actually knowing, uh which is again, there are a lot of people going to be commenting on this, folks, and a lot of people are going to uh and and a lot of people who thought they had influence with the White House, a lot of people who thought they had influence with the selection process are now going to be let uh let down and uh and disappointed uh thinking that uh they were not listened to.
It's gonna run the gamut.
Uh the thing that you have to remember here uh is that we're we just don't know.
The the the other than the what we are told by the president, if you want to place faith and trust in the president, you always have, then you should have no problem here.
Uh if if you do think that there were known quantities out there in terms of judges that would have no question about who might face a tougher confirmation battle, but still the confirmation that's what this is all about.
The 20-year battle, 30-year battle to get to this point to reshape the direction of the court, particularly as the court has evolved at a as a political institution uh in this country that must change.
And uh we also know this is another concern that I have uh you can look at Justice Kennedy.
Justice Kennedy was the replacement for Robert Bork, and it was well assumed then that he was pretty much like Judge Bork, not not nearly as uh fiery or as combative, but in terms of judicial philosophy, pretty much like Judge Bork.
What happens is, you know, Washington's still a culture that's dominated by the left, both politically and socially, uh, as well as uh the media.
That's one area of the country where they're still dominant.
And so the people who live there fall under that pressure.
And uh, if you care about what the Washington Post style section says about you, if you care about what the New York Times editorial page or Washington Post editorial page says about you, uh then you can find uh yourself growing, or you can find yourself uh evolving to positions to get that kind of praise and credit.
And this is a fear that a lot of people have when when an unknown quantity is uh is sent up.
Uh these uh judges are all the time uh invited to appear at various legal conferences abroad and uh throughout the country.
Uh they're invited to appear, their their self uh worth enhances their uh self-image and their desire to be taken seriously by the elites who determine who's good and who's bad, which what goes on in Washington, those kinds of pressures are uh are brought to bear.
So when a nominee comes up about whom very little is known, uh these these natural fears surface.
Oh no, what the pressures of Washington.
What are they gonna be uh on on this nominee?
You don't have those questions so much anyway, with a with a with a known quantity.
I mentioned all this to you to help you put all the comments that you're gonna have uh and hear from people from now until the end of this confirmation process in a little bit of uh of perspective.
And if you hear anything out there, I don't care what pundit or talking head says anything and where, and if you have a question about it, call me, and we'll do our best to talk our way through this uh and and make sense of some of the criticism.
Some of it and some of the criticism is oriented in fear, and some of that is uh is genuine.
Uh there is some skepticism, and there's some downright anger out there over this, uh, and there are a host of reasons for uh for all of that.
Here's Chuck Schumer, by the way.
Chuck Schumer was uh appearing at a Capitol Hill news conference today.
It was asked by a reporter, you have a theory for why the president didn't choose a person further to the right.
Now that question goes to the heart of my only real problem with this, and that is the pick seems to come from a position of weakness.
So we have a nominee that a reporter already Well, this is not a conservative.
What do you think about that, Senator Schumer?
I think they realize that the extreme wing of their party's views are not close To the American people's views.
I think they're beginning to realize it's one of the reasons they have problems in their second term.
And yet they couldn't choose an avowed moderate.
That's why probably Consuelo uh Callahan was not chosen.
So they chose someone with not very much of a discernible record.
And that's what they did with John Roberts as well.
I think they realize the extreme wing of their party's views are not close to the American people's.
Senator Schumer, have you looked at a map?
You looked at an electoral map of the country lately.
Do you really think, sir, that your views are the mainstream today?
You couldn't be more mistaken.
This is why fear of these people just infuriates me.
I it just rubs me the road.
These people are in the process after twenty years of being neutered.
They're being now maybe not in Washington.
Maybe if you live and work and breathe in Washington, you still get the sense that they run the show, but you go out around the country uh and you go out around uh uh all these red states, even to some of the blue state areas.
Um there there's no love for the Democrats.
There's no wish the Democrats were back in power.
There's no there's no general consensus out there, particularly among Republicans that Bush is screwed up.
There's no consensus that Bush has bollocks everything here and it's all lost and it's all over.
That's what the mainstream press and liberal critics want you to believe.
They think they've been successful at that, but they haven't been.
They no more have any idea how to read the hearts and minds of the American people than somebody who doesn't live here does.
Uh and yet they're they're uh they they apparently get away with defining the terms uh under which they will participate, uh, and so forth.
And I just I cringe at that.
You know, they're they're they didn't win the election.
They don't get to choose this.
They don't get to determine the outcome of these uh choices.
They get to participate in the vote, but as the minority, if they lose, that's uh tough toenails.
Uh that's why we're even going through uh silly moments where the left is trying to redefine minority.
We all always talk about minority rights, and uh we can't forget the minority.
That's simply because they can't forget the fact that they've lost, they can't believe it.
They want to treat a re try to redefine the fact that they have lost in the meaning that they've actually won.
So uh it's it's uh in one sense it's a missed opportunity.
Uh the other sense could be the most brilliant stealth pick that has ever been made.
That's just it.
We won't know uh for quite a while.
Josie in Cincinnati, you're next.
Great to have you on the EIB network.
Hello.
Megadetta's rush.
Thank you.
I'm hoping you can help me out.
I'm so frustrated.
The frustration for me lies in having to guess.
You know, the people that elected President Bush, we are proud, blatant conservative.
And we would like him to nominate a proud, blatant conservative to the bench.
Why the guessing game?
It's it's as if we didn't win.
Well, well, he may have.
That's uh he may have nominated here a very proud conservative.
But why guess?
Why not give the people the chance to rally again behind a proud, blatant conservative?
You know, like another.
Now, what I'm hearing you say is that you're not necessarily uh filled with trust or faith that the president's chosen someone that he knows you would want.
Well, that's that's true.
I mean, every decision kind of makes me wonder.
But I mean, I voted for President Blesh Rush, and I do it again because as a conservative, you don't make a decision and then not give it the resources to succeed.
But you know, uh can he can he reciprocate a little bit?
That's you know, it's like where's the love.
All right.
Well, I appreciate your call, Josie.
I have to run.
By the way, uh let me let me deal with this right up uh give me Tracy from Carlisle, Pennsylvania next so I can uh deal with right before we go to the break.
Hi, uh hi, Tracy.
Welcome to the program.
Great to have you with us.
Hi, Rush.
Thanks for taking my call.
You bet.
Um I heard today that um Harriet Meyer gave money to the Bill Clinton campaign and the Al Gore campaign, and that just really concerns me.
Uh well, well, first point he she didn't give money to Clinton.
That's an error.
There was somebody uh there was a Harris Myers that uh gave two hundred and fifty bucks to Clinton down in Dallas also, but it was not Harriet Myers.
Harriet Myers gave money to Gore, gave money to Lloyd Benson, gave money to the Democrat National Committee when she ran this law firm.
I wouldn't put my I wouldn't Worry about these donations at all, folks.
She hasn't she hasn't contributed to a uh Democrat since 1994.
She made these donations when she was uh running this law firm.
You never know.
These these may have been business donations, uh more many corporations, law firms as well donate to both sides, uh just to cover their bases.
Uh you never know who's going to win.
You have to deal with the winners.
Uh it's it's uh uh probably no more than that.
I wouldn't uh don't don't get all concerned about that.
That's uh that's that's sort of a sidetrack issue.
It it's not it's not gonna give you too much of an indication about where the woman is now politically or uh what her judicial philosophy is.
So Tracy, thanks for the call.
We'll take a quick timeout, be back after this.
Stay with us.
Hi, welcome back.
It's L. Rushbow again.
Vice President Chaney will lead off the uh next hour.
Uh he will be in Camp Lejeune.
He is there now, uh, and uh he's there for other reasons and will be uh talking to us about the nomination of Harriet Myers to be the next U.S. Supreme Court.
Justice Sandy in Springfield, Illinois.
You're next.
Welcome to the program.
Uh yes, I am very comfortable with the nomination.
Um first uh listening to what President Bush said, but also I decided, you know, the measure of a person is oftentimes their own words, so I flipped over to C-SPAN to see if they had anything on.
And they actually had Harriet Myers speaking before the National Uh Republican Association of Lawyers, and they had a segment on I didn't get to listen to at all, but the segment they played she was defending Janice Roger Janice Rogers Brown and Patricia Owen and uh Mr. Gonzalez,
um, and that the two uh women that have been uh nominated for uh positions on courts, and they have not even had an up or down vote.
She first of all ran through their qualifications, gave her wholehearted support, and uh really uh was calling for uh them to be able to have an up and down vote and and was indicating that this is part of the constitutional process, and she was very, very strong in her articulation of this type of thing, and you can tell that she's had years of experience as a litigator.
She was very analytical, very sharp, and I'm thinking, you know, a woman who has been a trailblazer like this, to be the first president of a uh a prestigious law firm.
Uh she's been elected by her peers to it's my understanding, I may I I think I got this right, to a national office uh in the Bar Association.
Um and she was elected, I think, to the pr as president of the of the Texas Bar Association.
You know, I don't think this woman may be a dark horse to the rest of us, but I don't think she is to George Bush.
And I think as president, one thing he has shown us, you know, he may have some weaknesses.
I don't agree with everything that he's done, but he is very good at picking good, strong people to surround himself with.
And I don't think he's gone wrong here.
All right.
Well, I appreciate your uh your point of view, Sandy.
There is something to be said uh uh for the I know a lot of people uh uh something to be said here for the stealth nature.
Uh a lot of people uh remember uh uh a lot of Republicans, the uh that that contingent from Maine, Susan Collins and Olympia Snow, uh running around saying Bush pick better be better be right here.
I can't say I will support the pick.
Um there's a lot we don't know, folks.
Uh remember, one of my theories and themes is a lot we don't know.
And we uh one of the things we don't know could well be that the White House has figured out that they don't want the filibuster fight because they want to lose it.
And they don't want to lose a great pick, lose a great nominee.
Uh and the idea is to get somebody on the court that they trust uh and and that is in the image of what the president has said.
And uh one way of doing it is this, another way, John Roberts.
The point is it always still goes back to we won the elections.
We did everything we were told to do, got people educated, got them to the polls, we won the elections, and now we still have to play games.
We still have to still have to fake and and and and juke out the left.
Uh rather than just, okay, here's who we are.
This is our nominee, this is the person or people that we want to be on the Supreme Court.
These are the people we love, these are the people we trust uh with no guessing game and and no uh no roll of the dice.
It always just still to me comes back to that.
Quick timeout, we'll be back.
Vice President Cheney coming up in about ten minutes, remember.
Sit tight, folks.
The EIB network rolls on.
I sense a lot of conservatives just want the fight, not just.
I think I want to win.
A lot of conservatives want this fight, want to nail the left.
And that will apparently not happen with this nomination, which also leads to some of the disappointment.
Vice President Cheney is next.
▲
Export Selection