All Episodes
Previous Next
Oct. 4, 2005 - Rush Limbaugh Program
36:20
October 4, 2005, Tuesday, Hour #1
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Welcome to today's edition of the Rush 24-7 podcast.
And greetings to you, thrill seekers, music lovers, and conversationalists all across the fruited plane.
It's time for broadcast excellence, America's Anchorman seated, ready for the play-by-play of the news today, as well as exclusive one and only news commentary.
All here from the Limbaugh Institute for Advanced Conservative Studies.
And the uh the it's a thrill and delight to be with you.
Always is the telephone number if you'd like to be on the program today, 800-282-2882.
The email address is Rush at EIBNet.com.
Looks like Ronnie Earle has taken a mulligan.
His uh his little golf lingo there, Mr. Snerdley.
Uh we we now call them Clintons.
When your first shot doesn't go where you want it to go, you simply ignore it and do it again.
Uh and it doesn't count.
Uh his first indictment was in the rough, uh OB, as it were.
It's really it's it's amazing.
His first indictment had to be thrown out because he didn't even get the dates right.
He was indicting Delay for a crime that wasn't a crime, and that so he went back and got a money laundering debate.
We have Tom Delay appearing on the program this afternoon at 1.30, uh right after our 130 break, and we will get into this in uh much greater detail.
All right, folks.
I think I think I know what's going on out there with this Harriet Myers thing, and I I think I touched on it yesterday, and I think I I got it right.
But I uh I have a question for you.
Uh uh Many of you are are uh are peppering me with uh with questions uh in the email, and and some of you remain perplexed uh over my uh my stance yesterday.
Folks, I've always told you here, you know, I don't moisten the finger and stick it in the wind and find out what way the wind's blowing, and then say whatever I want to say so it gets carried in the right way.
I don't anticipate what you want to hear and say that.
Uh I've never done that.
Uh that's called populism or pandering, and I I don't do it.
I if I if I'm not gonna come here and uh tell you truthfully what I think and feel about things uh that are important to me, then there's no sense in being here.
But some of you have said uh, but Rush, but Rush, look at all the ammo you gave the mainstream press.
I know, folks, I know it's gonna happen.
We did a little Nexus search today just to find out.
What was it?
It's either f I can't remember the number f it's either 49 or 79 mentions just today.
Uh two mentions in the New York Times front page in USA Today, two mentions in the LA Times, two mention of the Washington Post, all over AP and Reuters.
Rush, Rush, Rush.
Why were you why why were you piling on?
You knew this was going to I Yeah, I did.
I did.
But I'll tell you what else.
I was also invited on uh Good Morning America and the Today Show and a bunch of others, and I told them no.
The morning show said no, I don't get up that early.
Uh you know, I I I did an interview with Carl Cameron uh on Fox yesterday after the uh after the program.
Uh and I might do Greta's Van Greta Van Susterin tonight.
She asked me yesterday, too, just a little phone interview, but that's it.
Uh so you know, I I'm I'm fully aware of the of the ramifications of my comments out there, but uh I thought I explained them in great detail yesterday, and I I thought that I uh covered as many bases as possible.
In fact, I thought I handled this quite deftly yesterday.
Uh and to the extent that some of you are irritated with me and upset, fine.
Uh it's by the way, that's coming from both sides too.
I'm being called a Bush lackey and a lap dog, and then others are getting mad at me for uh selling the president out.
Uh so you know it.
On this, I know I on this, I don't know how I can be called a Bush lackey on uh on this after yesterday, but it's my point.
Uh my my point is I've been doing this program, we're now eighteenth year now, and if I had stopped at every moment to consider what everybody else thought about what I should say and what I should do and how I should say it, I wouldn't have lasted more than three months, and I would currently be wearing a straight jacket in an institution where they drive you back and forth on a little yellow bus.
I would have gone nuts trying to please everybody, and and you can't, you you you simply can't do that.
And uh president's a great example of that, too.
Uh I've been thinking about this a lot.
I've been reading Some of the um uh detail that's out there, some of the commentary from others that's out there.
I think I've got a pretty good bead here on uh what happened, and I was very close to it yesterday.
But before I get into that, I have a question for you.
I I, you know, sometimes we activate the think tank here that is known as the Limbaugh Institute, and I have just a question that uh that I want to run by you all, and and uh force you to answer this.
Those of you that call the program today, whatever else you want to talk about, I want you to take a stab at this question.
And there's by the way, no right answer, wrong answer here.
I don't I don't there's no trickery.
Uh that's not the what what is the uh trick trick analogy?
That was the Rita X's word to describe uh how we don't deal fairly with uh Calypso Lewis on this program.
There's no trick and allogy here.
There's no the I'm not setting you up with a question, it's a genuine question.
The question is, what is the best, the absolute best argument for supporting the nomination of Harriet Myers to be an associate justice on the U.S. Supreme Court.
What is the absolute best argument for supporting the Myers nomination?
Well, what what do you think, Mr. Sturdley?
I'm not going to repeat your answer out there, but what do you think?
What's the what's the best answer?
Mm-hmm.
Okay.
All right.
Okay, okay, so well Snerdley snurly told me what he thinks.
I want to hear what uh all the rest of you think.
So uh HR, I didn't ask you what you thought.
I'll I'll he's blasting me here in the IFB.
Um, you don't have to call in.
I just, I mean, I I wasn't prepared for you to start blaring the answer in there while I was prepared to move on here to uh something else.
Um again, there are other things in the news today too that we're gonna we're gonna get into.
But as I look at some of the opposition, for example, Diane Feinstein.
I mentioned yesterday Diane Feinstein, she came out of her palatial uh uh Pacific Heights residence in San Francisco, and she started going on and on and on about commerce clause and how she's concerned that the Supreme Court's gonna tell a Congress where it can and cannot legislate.
But do you remember during the Roberts hearings?
Oh, and there's there may be a rift still between Leahy and Reed.
Uh Leahy is crazy claiming credit for for the Roberts, I'm sorry, for the Myers nomination.
And Reed's claiming credit for it.
So the these two Democrats are claiming that uh they're the ones that gave Bush the idea uh about this.
But Diane Feinstein, remember when she when she announced her no vote on John Roberts, said that uh I'm sorry, I was distracted.
I'm looking at their Schlieckmeister meeting with Hurricane Katrina survivors, and I'm asking why.
You know, and then I remembered, oh, yeah, it's part of the fundraising uh fundraising effort with the Bush 41.
Why?
Why they have to watch this?
In fact, I'm not gonna watch.
How do I change channels?
All right.
You may think I've lost my place, but I haven't.
Diane Feinstein, when she was explaining why she's gonna vote no on John Roberts.
Well, I didn't learn anything she said about him as a man.
I didn't learn anything about him as a father or a husband.
I didn't get any sense of feeling about that from him.
And of course, at the time she she said that.
I said, Who this is an interesting way for feminism to evolve.
Here is a feminist asking a male nominee to the court, or telling him that she's not going to vote for him because she hasn't heard anything about his uh feelings as a father or as a husband.
And I I I thought that that's that's so out of character if feminism is sunk to that.
So here's the question for Diane Feinstein when Harriet Myers comes up there uh to be confirmed.
Senator Feinstein, you voted against John Roberts in part because he didn't tell you what's in his heart as a husband and father.
So will you now oppose Harriet Myers because she has never been married, has never had her life oriented around a man and motherhood.
And can you possibly know what is in her heart?
Because she's never married and she's never had children.
You think she'll ask that question?
No, but somebody ought to bring it up.
Uh also, I was reading the left-wing liberal blogs today.
And uh you know what their line of attack on Harriet Myers is you have to just in i the Myers nomination is what it is, and we know that there's some people on the right that are not happy with it for a host of reasons.
And I'll be glad to review them uh with you if you uh need be need me to remind you.
But the left has their standardized opposition, and it doesn't matter what reality is.
It's if I were the left, I'd be listening to what the right is saying and fomenting my response and opposition to her based on that, at least partially.
But they don't even do that.
They just go to their playbook.
And there's a there's an AP story today that actually attempts to say that Harriet Myers got the gig because of cronyism because she helped Bush protect the truth about his being a wall from the from the Texas National Guard.
I kid you not.
I'm holding it right here.
In my formerly, you know, n uh uh nicotine-stained fingers.
Can you believe that they're still going back to this?
She fired somebody when she ran the Texas Lottery Commission.
She fired two people.
One of the guys file a lawsuit, and it was that lawsuit that raised the whole specter of whether or not Bush uh was a wall and used political connections and so forth to get away with it, the Texas National Guard.
So they cannot let go of it, and they're gonna try to link Harriet Myers uh to that and a number of other things.
Quick time out, we'll be back.
We'll continue with all the rest of the program right after this.
Right after this.
The views expressed by the host on this show make more sense than anything anybody else out there happens to be saying.
The telephone numbers 800-282-2882, the email address rush at EIB net.com.
All right, let me grab a call, because I've asked a question.
What's the absolute best argument for supporting the Nyer Myers nomination?
Now, this folks, this is this isn't this a think piece, or this is a think question.
I want you to sit out there and I want you to think about it.
What is the best absolute argument for supporting the Myers nomination?
It's a think piece.
It's a Shaftsburg, Michigan.
This is Eric.
Welcome, sir.
Great to have you with us.
God bless you, Rush, megadiddos, small business titos.
Um my answer on that on the question is that uh I I put my faith in George W. Bush five years ago, and I I cannot afford at this point on uh Iraq or anything else not to continue to put my trust in him.
Okay, so your your answer is uh that Bush knows her personally and that uh we should trust Bush.
And then my other point I wanted to bring up is uh about the Democrats uh being so happy about her.
My my belief is that you know Sun Sinn says to be uh act strong when you're weak and act weak when you're strong.
I believe that Democrats are I don't believe they're stupid.
They're not necessarily smart, but they're not stupid.
I I think that they may be laying back hoping that the Republicans do the destroying for them and they don't have to stick with knowledge.
The republic the Republicans the Republicans aren't gonna destroy Harriet Myers.
Uh she she's you may as well think of her as uh Associate Justice Harriet Myers.
She she's she's the Republicans aren't gonna destroy her.
The the Democrats are not gonna sit back and let the GOP nuke her.
And frankly, you know, in in all of this, my my my my concern, my interest is is not what the Democrats are going to do.
Because I know what the Democrats are going to do, and that's one of the reasons that I was uh that I was disappointed yesterday.
Let me let me share with you, and by by the way, uh we can suspend the question because I don't think there is any other answer.
Which is my point.
What is the absolute best argument for supporting the Myers nominee?
The best anybody can come up with, trust Bush.
Okay, now I'm I'm just that's fine.
Don't misread my tone here.
We trust Bush.
Uh but there are some people who are gonna think, well, that's you know, that's awfully arrogant and condescending that we should just trust somebody uh uh that we shouldn't think for ourselves.
Uh we don't have a record that we can look at to be assured ourselves that she is what he says he was going to do during all these campaigns.
Uh and the arguments out there keep changing to meet the criticism she's evangelical's first woman, this or that.
Uh she's not a judge, all these things are being advanced as good reasons.
Uh uh these are, you know, the political spinmeisters are coming up with these uh explanations uh for her as the president uttered them himself today at the uh at his at his press conference, which I thought he was on fire, by the way, at the press conference.
uh dukes were up and ready for action on uh on a whole bunch of things, which is good.
I like seeing uh anybody, but particularly the uh the president energized.
Well, let me let me share with you here a little piece from the um American thinker.
As you know, it's one of our favorite blogs here at the EIB network, and this is uh written by Thomas Lifson.
President Bush is a politician trained in strategic thinking at the Harvard Business School.
He's schooled in tactics by experience and advice, including the experience advice of his father, whose most lasting political mistake was the nomination of David Suitor.
The nomination of Harriet Myers to the Supreme Court shows that he's learned his lessons well.
Regrettably, a large contingent of conservative commentators does not yet grasp the strategy and the tactics at work in this excellent nomination.
There is a doom and gloom element on the right, which is just waiting to be betrayed, just convinced that they're a hardy bandit true believers believers will lose by treachery those victories to which justice entitles them.
Now, Mr. Lifson is right about this, and I have lamented it on this program over the many years I've hosted it.
Whenever something good was about to happen, I would get phone calls from people uh all affected with pessimism and doom and gloom, just convinced, just convinced their leaders are gonna sell us out again and sell us down the river.
Because that's the experience of forty years of following blue blood country club Republicans.
When conservatives have uh had no choice but than to trust and invest in the so-called country club blue blooders, uh there have been countless times where the country club blue bloods have let everybody down and have not made it a secret that they hold disdain for the conservatives and the party anyway.
I make no mistake, the country club blue blood types hated Reagan.
They didn't like Reagan much, they didn't like dislike him as much as the left, but they thought he was a peon.
That he was a mental lightweight.
They weren't they weren't crazy.
It wasn't intellectual, it didn't have the pedigree that that uh that that pleased them.
So these these um attitudes are common, and Mr. Lifson is right in uh in referencing this.
Many on the right, he says, already are upset with the president over his deficit spending and his continued attempts to elevate the tone of politics in Washington in face of ongoing verbal abuse by Democrats and their media allies.
Uh they misinterpret his missing verbal combativeness as weakness.
Which I could take as a response to my comment yesterday that this nomination appears to have been made from a position of weakness.
There is also a palpable hunger for a struggle to the death with hated and verbally facile liberals like Senator Schumer.
Having seen that a brilliant conservative legal thinker with impeccable elite credentials can humble the most officious voices of the judiciary committee.
Conservatives demand a replay.
Thus we hear conservatives sniffing that a Southern Methodist University legal education is just two non-Ivy League adopting a characteristic trope of blue state elitists.
We hear conservatives bemoaning a lack of judicial experience, and not a single law review article on the last decade as evidence of a second rate mind.
Uh the critics are playing the Democrats' game.
The GOP is not the party which idolizes Ivy League acceptability is the criterion of intellectual and mental fitness, nor does the Supreme Court ideally consist of the nine greatest legal scholars of an era.
Like any group, any small group, it is better off being able to draw on abilities of more than one type of personality.
The Houston lawyer who blogs under the name of Beldar wisely points out that practicing high-level law in the real world and rising to co-managing partner of a major law firm not only demonstrates a proficient mind, it provides a necessary and valuable perspective for Supreme Court justice, one which has sorely been lacking.
All right, so what what is the the piece goes on, and it's uh it's much too lengthy here to read all of it in toto.
Uh but what is the point here?
The point is that there is an elite on the right, and that the elite on the right uh demands certain scholarship and the best and the brightest and so forth to be on the court representing the conservative side of things, and that that's not who Bush is.
Uh and and I think to a certain extent, as far as it goes about Bush, I think that's true.
I think I think Bush's Ivy League experience uh has resulted in in a healthy disdain for the Ivy League highbrow elite upper crust intellectuals.
Now, as far as it goes, uh uh I I can understand uh Mr. Lifson on this, and I can understand his his opinion on it.
Where I would where I would cut away from this and go a little different uh direction is that I'm I'm not sure that the people that I'm thinking about uh as good choices for the court would be people necessarily considered to be highbrow elitist intellectuals.
They may be scholars.
Um as such, I don't think they should just be written off or disqualified uh simply because they have some sort of a higher education uh credential list that is impressive at the same time.
More on this when we come back, stay with us.
You're listening to Rush Limbaugh on the excellence in podcasting network.
Well known radio racontour and general all round good guy, executing assigned host duties flawlessly behind the golden EIB microphone.
All right, so uh here we are.
I uh let let's let's let's take Thomas Lifson's argument just on the on the face of it uh as accurate.
The the president, even though he's trained at Harvard in strategic thinking, the Harvard Business School, and maybe uh light years ahead of us uh strategically.
Uh uh it is it is quite unnatural for the president to sit there and say, okay, this group thinks I should take this guy, this group, this guy.
I'm gonna pick my own people.
And he knows this person and he's not impressed with these uh highbrow scholars that everybody on the right seems to want to talk about.
The names are Michael Luddig and Edith Jones and uh Janice Rogers Brown, Priscilla Owen.
You've heard all of the names.
There are many of the Mike McConnell is one, there are many of them.
Let me tell you why, just so you understand, let me tell you why these people are attractive.
It's not that they're blue bloods, it's not that they're hoity toity elite scholars, is that they're courageous.
And that they are known quantities.
They are conservatives and they have been conservatives all their lives, and they've been conservatives in the field of the law where it is vicious to be a conservative.
You see what happens to conservative lawyers all of Bill Pryor, Clarence Thomas, and yet these people for their entire judicial careers have not wavered.
Their record is clear, and they are part of the army that has been fighting this battle.
And this battle has been waged for the control of the Supreme Court because of the way the court has evolved.
It's it's folks, it's too much at one time to think that we can de-emphasize the role of the Supreme Court as it currently exists in American society.
That's not how it's going to happen.
The only way it's going to happen is to get a majority of justices on the court who understand that the court as it's currently constituted and operating is exceeding its constitutional bounds.
It is making law.
It is institutionalizing liberalism.
And the and that the fastest and the surest way to reverse it is to get people on the court who you know because of their scholarship, because of their rulings, because of their writings, and because of their courage.
You know, it it look at look at how many conservatives move to Washington and wimp out after a while.
Look, it's it's a it's a large number.
Look at how many of them doesn't take long, and they want to be loved by the left, and they want to get written about very favorably and positively in all these newspapers and all these all these network newscasts.
They want to be invited to the cocktail parties and all that.
There's a way you do this, and that is you abandon your principles and you join them.
Well, the people that that we've been talking about on this program as potentially good nominees have not wavered, and that's a pretty good, I mean, you don't know who's gonna do what in ten to twenty years.
Nobody can, but you can look at somebody's track record.
You can see what they've written, what they've done, how they've ruled, what they've put up with, what they've uh what they've battled against, uh, and you can get a a a f a fairly educated idea.
And one of the things about this that that troubles me, you've you've got some some conservatives that just you think there are courageous conservatives all over the place, and I you could probably Name them.
There are courageous conservative jurists and lawyers out there.
And many of them, uh ones on the list that I know are all true believers, and they have been consistent.
Now look at the message that is sent to them about how you get on the Supreme Court.
Don't do that.
Be an unknown quantity.
Be somebody who's not a target.
They've spent their lives making themselves targets in the interests of advancing their beliefs.
And now they're told, no, that's not what we want.
that's a minor point, but I think it's something worth considering.
It's, it's, it's, it's, it's not an inspiring thing.
If you've got to, Everybody in a career has certain levels that they wish to achieve.
Some want to go to the top, some don't think they will, but you know, some people choose to go as high as you co as you can in a chosen profession.
In the legal business, some think that's the U.S. Supreme Court.
Others think it's in the plaintiff bar, but nevertheless, uh, in terms of prestige, it would be the U.S. Supreme Court.
There's there seems to be now a trick to getting there.
Either be a full-fledged hundred percent liberal where nobody will ever question you at all, and nobody will ever have to defend choosing you, or be a stealth conservative where nobody knows who you are until you get there.
And that's the thing about this that bothers me.
We are winning this.
We don't need to be stealth.
We don't need to tiptoe around.
We don't need to hide who we are in reality and fool everybody and then pull the whammy on them after we get there and said, ha ha ha, fooled you.
The left is on the ropes in this country.
There's a there's a reason that you have debates.
You have debates to air ideas.
We need to energize a debate.
We need a nomination battle at some point that is going to put before the country a genuine debate on the role of the Supreme Court in this country.
Because only then can we continue the process of educating the American people so that as they continue to register to vote and vote, the tide continues to turn.
When there is a fear or an apparent fear, I'll use apparent, because I don't really know.
But when there is an apparent fear to advance a nominee or an individual or an idea as conservative because of the reaction it'll get, as okay, we gotta we gotta we gotta we've gotta steer our way around this, we've got to get there on a stealth fashion.
I understand at the end of the day winning the war, but at the same time when you win the war, you can win the debate.
We are avoiding the debate in the process of winning the war.
Now, as I said, yeah, and I think this is what's going on here as well as uh uh I I don't know that that Mr. Lipson is right about Bush having a disdain for conservative legal scholars, elites, and this sort of thing.
But I do know this, and I mentioned this yesterday.
I do know that if one of these names on the list had been nominated, the left yesterday and today would have blown every gasket in their engine, and they would still be blowing their gasket.
And the the media coverage would have just been Bush is trying to, you know, for it take over the country, Bush trying to get want to send women back to the back eye.
You can imagine what all it would be.
In the process of that, you'd have some Senate Republicans who would go wobbly.
And I think it boils down to what I said yesterday.
The president is gonna go to war, doesn't want to go to war with the Senate Republicans as his army.
He's only got fifty-five of them, and all it takes is four or five defections, and you and Heat Big Doo do.
And if you have if you have a a nominee from the list that that causes those kinds of defections on the Republican side, uh you can count on unilateral, unified Democrat opposition, and maybe the nominee doesn't get confirmed.
Maybe they're thinking this in the White House.
The idea is to get somebody on there who I know Bush's Bush talk.
I know this one.
I know this woman's gonna be exactly what everybody wants.
I can't say that I know it.
I know her, I know her.
I don't have to question whether somebody's record is accurate, I don't have to listen to advisors, I don't have to listen to all these groups tell me that this is the right guy or that's the right woman.
I know this woman, and I know I can get her confirmed.
Because most of what she's written they can't have because she is my lawyer, there's executive client privilege, so I'm gonna skunk them again.
Here come my Harvard Business School strategic learnings.
I'm gonna skunk these people.
I'm gonna put somebody in this court, they haven't a slightly, they can't oppose this woman.
I'm gonna get somebody there.
All that's fine and dandy if she turns out that way.
But the the one thing about this is that we are avoiding the fight.
This is a debate that has to be had.
This debate on the Supreme Court has to be had, and the direction that it has taken uh uh far too many times for far too many years.
In fact, it's a debate we think we already won, and now some of us fear uh uh appear a little frightened to have the the debate or the fight, and that is what led me to claim yesterday that it seems this this nomination might have come from a position of weakness and unwillingness to fight.
Yeah, the Democrats might filibuster, yeah, the Republicans might fade away.
Well, let's have the fight.
You know, uh, and it's it's not folks just to don't miss don't misunderstand a lot of people who want to have the fight.
The fight is not just to have the fight to smear the Democrats.
I mean, that's that would be cool because for all these years they've smeared us, and it's about time they got a taste of their own medicine.
But that's not the real reason you have the fight.
The real reason you have the fight is to triumph and to educate and inform the hearts and minds of as many Americans as possible.
You also have to re-establish the premise, hey, who who wins elections gets to make these choices.
Winning elections matters.
You win elections, and this is what you get to do.
I think this filibuster notion that the Democrats is going to be called on and it's gonna have to be nuked.
This whole filibuster, it's still hanging out.
I don't care about the gang of 14 deal, it's still out there.
It's that they were threatening to use it last week until this choice was made.
There are a lot of us, and I'm one of them who wish the filibuster would have been nuked months ago instead of the gang of fourteen making some sort of a deal.
Because it is gonna come up one day, folks.
It's just sitting there in the grass hiding, but it's going to be used, and we're gonna have to deal with this at uh at some point.
There's a third reason that I think needs to be pointed out here, and that is that you lay down a marker for any future picks by this or any other Republican president.
We are the base, we are the people that elected these people, and what we uh what we're told during campaigns is what we expect to get.
And if the nominees or policies, let's just talk about the court here.
This is not just exclusive commentary to the court, though, but it's true in practically anything.
Okay, you're conservative, well then be conservative.
And if you're gonna put conservatives on the on the bench, put a known conservative or two or three, however many chances you get, put them on the bench.
Because this is gonna set the marker for any future Republican that wants to been, wants to be elected president by his base and by Republican supporters.
This is it.
But if you if you want to hide that, if you if you feel the need to uh you know make an end run uh and and do a stealth, there's still this thing that gnaws at me that says, okay, we're still not confident.
And we have to do this uh by virtue of trickery.
Now you might be so Rush, even if she's great, and if she's the right person, you're gonna still you're gonna be mad ten years from No, no, you're missing my point.
This is this is an opportunity that everybody's been gearing up for.
Everybody and and the Democrats are ripe for this fight.
They're ripe to go down, folks.
They are disorganized, they are as as some of the arguments they're bringing out about Harriet Myers now indicate to me just what a bunch of sitting ducks they are.
If you go read some of the websites today, they're already calling this woman a big Texas lesbian.
Now, this this is this is the this is the party that supposedly has all the compassion for homosexuals and gay rights, gay marriage, and they're just a big Texas lesbian.
She also had a role in making sure Bush got a wall for the National Guard without anybody knowing about it.
I mean, it's predictable what they're gonna do.
They're they're they're sitting ducks, and yet this has been delayed because obviously, for one reason or another, the fight was not desired, either because the president doesn't believe in it in the way I do, he doesn't look at conservatism and advancing it the way I do, Or he just doesn't want to go to war with the Senate Republicans as his army because he doesn't think he can win it and his eyes on the prize winning it.
I trust George W. Bush and his judgment of character and people.
I mean, I'm I'm not one of these people that's going to look at all the judicial nominees that he's made up to now.
And then and then say, I knew it, I knew it.
I knew Bush was going to let us know.
I knew Bush was going to pick so I know that's not me.
Don't confuse me with people who are saying that.
Because I'm not that fatalistic or pessimistic.
What again disappoints me is the bigger picture of conservatism versus liberalism.
Forty years of a struggle, educating people, informing people, turning out the vote.
And in the process, there are so many really qualified, courageous people in the uh in the area of the law who would be just perfect for the uh for the task at head.
And the idea that we now have to roll the dice and wait a number of years to find out if this one works out when it isn't necessary is I guess the big bugaboo with me.
A little long here in this segment.
A quick timeout, though we'll be back and continue in mere moments.
Did you people happen to see the New York Times on Sunday?
You know, this this this is something that got obscured.
In fact, I was I was playing golf one Sunday, and uh one of the guys my foresight was you see the Times today.
I said, No, I never I don't read it.
I I really not unless people like you tell me something's in it.
And the Times actually had a a headline that said people sentenced to life imprisonment or life without parole are dying in prison.
As though this is a problem.
People sentenced to life without parole or sentenced to life imprisonment are dying in prison.
They were stunned.
Now, what does that tell you?
What is it it tells you that the left's view of life without parole is not life without parole.
It tells you their opposition to the death penalty has nothing to do with punishment.
It has everything to do, they fully expect these people to be rehabbed in prison and get out someday.
The fact that somebody in prison for life is actually dying there is appalling.
To the New York Times.
I just found it, I found it laughable.
We also have the latest data.
Somebody somebody better tell Barbara Streisand and uh and uh the other Hollywood leftists about this.
Hurricane Katrina might have battered New Orleans and the Gulf Coast as a considerably weaker system than the category four tempest initially reported.
New preliminary information compiled by hurricane researchers suggest the system struck Louisiana on August 29th with peak winds, sustained winds of 115 miles per hour.
That would make it a category three, still major hurricane, but a step down from the enormous destructive force of a category four.
Uh Mark Powell, the research scientist who plotted the new wind measurements, said it's important from a public perception standpoint, because most people think they endured a category four.
They don't want to hear that this was a three, but it was a three.
Hurricane Katrina was a category three.
Now there are a number of things to say about this.
Uh okay, we now know how devastating a category three can be.
Uh we also know it wasn't a category four, and we also know now that the whole concept of global warming and warming temperature, it was not the big hurricane that everybody thought that it was.
Yes, Mr. Snerdley.
Question.
Um you thought you thought what would what was supposed to The levees were supposed to hold a category three.
That's another interesting aspect of the levies were supposed to be built up to category, but we know they weren't.
See, they that were those were the specs where we've learned a lot.
Remember the story last week.
Corps of Engineers said, I need another 900 grand here.
A contractor need another 900 grand because the soil on the foundation that we're building the 17th Street Canal, this thing is not gonna hold.
And it was a request was denied.
This was during the Clinton administration.
A lot.
We're learning a lot here after the fact, which I told you, I mean, I hate to do a yan-y-n-n-yeah, see, I told you so, but so much of this uh I warned you people about on the first day of the Monday after that hurricane struck the uh Gulf Coast on the weekend.
Quick timeout.
Your phone calls coming up soon when we get back.
Don't go away.
Told you last week about an idea that Republican Richard Pombo had for oil drilling uh uh off the coast of the United States, everywhere off the coast.
Well, our good old Florida congressional delegation has just killed the idea.
And I want to expand on this because it's Republicans killing the idea.
▲
Export Selection