All Episodes
Previous Next
Oct. 4, 2005 - Rush Limbaugh Program
36:13
October 4, 2005, Tuesday, Hour #3
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
And welcome back, folks.
Nice to have you with us on the Rush Limbaugh program and the Excellence in Broadcasting Network.
Looking forward to talking to you on the phone in this hour.
Telephone number is 800-282-2882.
The email address is rush at EIBNet.com.
You know, everybody's talking about this Tom DeLay business.
And yesterday, by the way, was John Roberts' first day at the Supreme Court.
And there's sort of a funny story about him in the Boston Globe, which I'll share with you here in just a second.
But the Investors Business Daily has a tremendous editorial today entitled Schumer's Plumbers.
Now, it's amazing when we talk about the area of politics where corruption resides.
It's amazing how all this attention is focused on delay because of this indictment.
But what Chuck Schumer has done here, people and his staff have just, it's basically still under the radar, and that's why I want to talk about it.
Staff members for a champion of the right to privacy and a leading critic of identity theft fraudulently obtained the credit report of a rising black political star.
Your turn for tough questions, Senator Schumer.
While the media focus on Tom DeLay's alleged skirting of campaign laws to get Republicans elected, former Education Secretary Bennett's allegedly racially insensitive, hypothetically stated remarks regarding blacks and Bill Frist's recent sale of stock, real crime against a black politician has been committed in virtual silence.
Senator Chuck Schumer, chairman of the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee, and it's his job to get Democrats elected in hopes of wresting Senate control from the GOP.
Michael Steele is a lieutenant governor of Maryland, and the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee, along with most everybody else, expects Steele to run for the open seat of the retiring Senator Paul Sarbanes.
Steele is an African-American, a rising star in a Republican Party, regularly accused of racial insensitivity, if not outright racism.
A party that thought so highly of him in his political future that it chose him to be the deputy permanent chairman of the 2004 Republican convention.
Steele is a Catholic who once trained for the priesthood, was inspired to join the Republican Party by Reagan's failed 76 presidential bid.
He demonstrated in his appearance at the 2004 convention that he has charisma, warmth, and a keen grasp of public policy.
It's already won statewide in Maryland.
Apparently, nothing frightens the Democrat Senatorial Campaign Committee more than an articulate and charismatic black American who also happens to be a Reagan conservative.
How else to explain the behavior of two of Schumer's campaign committee members, research director Katie Barge and junior staffer Lauren Weiner, who dug for dirt using Steele's social security number reportedly culled from court records to fraudulently and illegally obtain his credit report.
Michelle Malkin has been trumpeting this, and she reported that as of September 30th, according to Steele staffers, Schumer, who himself is a longtime crusader against identity theft and denies any knowledge of the scheme, had offered no apology for the invasion of Steele's privacy by people in his employ or given any hint as to what they were after or why they did it.
Now, these were no naive, overzealous interns.
Katie Barge, a longtime Democratic operative who led the research unit for this liberal media watchdog group run by David Brock.
She led the opposition research team for failed Democratic presidential candidate John Edwards.
She knew the ropes and she knew the rules.
So what motivated her and Weiner to knowingly and willingly break the law and put their freedom and future at risk?
Under Federal Fair Credit Reporting Act, knowingly and willingly obtaining a credit report for false pretenses is a felony, punishable with a fine and maximum two years in prison.
Reportedly, these two babes confessed to the act in July.
They were suspended with pay until August 31st and finally resigned in mid-September.
Now, one would think a political potential felony by staffers for a top Democrat would at least get a paragraph of coverage somewhere between the grocery coupons and the obituaries, but it didn't happen.
Can you imagine the media firestorm if staffers for, say, Frist had used Barack Obama's Social Security number to fraudulently obtain his credit report, looking for stuff to derail his Senate campaign?
Frist would have been before a media firing squad faster than you can say Bill Bennett.
New IRS tax data is out.
You know, we have this permanently published on our website.
Not much changed.
This is the IRS tax data for 2003.
They just released it this morning, and 2003 is the most recent year for which statistics are available.
According to the latest statistics, the top 50% of income earners in America pay 96.54% of all income taxes.
The top 1% pay more than a third, 34.27%.
We're going to update all the quintiles on our website with the latest data.
But the top 50%, 96.54% of all income taxes, top 1% pay more than a third, 34.27.
And yet, when you look at these numbers, it's just, it's academic.
When you cut taxes, who's going to, I mean, if 96.5% of all income taxes are paid by the top 50%, how in the world do you cut taxes and not reduce their taxes when they're the only ones paying taxes?
So we will update this.
More corruption.
Hillary Clinton camp has egg all over its face after belatedly discovering that a consultant hired by Hillary trashed 9-11 victims shortly after the Twin Towers tragedy.
Consultant Gia Medeiros was dumped after her comments came to light, but the damage has been done.
Medeiros is an unconventional corporate teen marketing guru who believes the supernatural can be used to pitch products to young people.
This according to the New York Post.
She was recently put on the payroll of Clinton's Senate campaign, Friends of Hillary, along with her political action committee, Hill Pack.
She got nearly $75,000, according to federal records.
Just weeks after the terrorist attacks in New York, Medeiros told a forum in Boulder, Colorado, where she now lives, all of those people who died that day, those folks who we've heard toasted as angels and heroes and martyrs, well, they weren't all good people.
I used to live in New York and I know it.
That's what she said.
This is her bid to become Mrs. Ward.
What's this?
What's his name?
Ward, this professor out in the University of Colorado.
No, no, it's say Ward Connolly.
Yeah, Ward Connolly is a great guy.
Ward Churchill.
Sounds like this babe's got a crush on Ward Churchill trying to impress him.
She also stated on a self-empowerment website, quote, one friend of a friend had a husband who died.
When I asked about their relationship, my friend said terrible.
He worked too much.
He drank too much.
He was never home with her or the kids.
They don't say that in the obituaries.
Now, again, we're talking about the people among us who claim to be the most enlightened and the most sensitive and the most caring and the most compassionate.
What we've learned, folks, is that the people on the left are just vile.
They are mean.
They are bitter.
They are obsessed with a hatred and rage.
But what would possess a woman to say things like this anyway?
What would possess Mrs. Clinton to go hire her?
What would possess them to say like that?
Well, they weren't all good people.
I know there's people in New York.
This is a woman, obviously, that nobody likes very much, and she's jealous of other people who have nice things said or written about them, and it upsets her.
Well, they weren't all good people.
What the hell are they?
Look at this guy.
He was a two-timer, a womanizer, a boozer, never home with the kids.
They don't put that in the obituary.
Her comments aren't likely to sit well with New York voters next year when Clinton runs for re-election to the Senate.
Clinton spokeswoman Anna Lewis said that Clinton camp didn't know about Madero's outrageous remarks until informed of them by the New York Post.
In a statement, Anna Lewis said, we were not aware of these inexplicable comments and strongly disagree with them.
The people who died on 9-11 were loving family members who were missed every day, and Senator Clinton continues to work with their families to honor their memory.
No apology has come forth from the Clinton campaign.
And there probably won't be one.
They'll just try to sweep it under the rug.
Now, what's the source for this?
Well, the New York Post and our buddies at newsmax.com.
You won't find anything about this in the mainstream media.
Quick timeout.
We'll be back and continue in just a moment.
Okay, back to the phones.
800-282-2882.
It's Clark in Glendale, Arizona.
Hello, sir.
I'm glad you've waited.
Welcome to the program.
Thank you, Rush.
Longtime listener, first-time caller.
I love your show.
Thank you very much, sir.
I just wanted to say that I believe that Bush is fulfilling a campaign pledge to unite Washington.
I don't think he went there for a fight, and I don't think he's given up on this goal.
I think it's cost him politically, but he's still proceeding with one of his goals that we, I think, all admire him for, you know, his consistence and, you know, and just sticking to his word.
All right, so you, you obviously, you would answer the question I asked earlier, what is the absolute best argument for supporting the Myers nomination?
You would answer by saying you trust the president.
I would answer that, yes.
Okay.
So if I'm not trying to hornswoggle you, I asked this question earlier, and I'm not trying to put you on the spot, nor was I trying to put anybody on the spot.
It's a think-piece question.
What is the absolute best argument for supporting the Myers nomination?
And the first call I got on this was, I trust the president.
There is no other answer.
I'll tell you right now, there's no other answer to it.
Well, Rush, one of the reasons I called was you were going on after that about how you thought we should fight for this Supreme Court nomination.
We were ready for a fight.
I don't think Bush wants to fight the Democrats.
I think he wants to unite them.
Well, now, wait a second.
Don't tell me that.
Don't.
For what?
He wants to unite the Democrats behind his choice?
Well, he went to Washington to unite the Republicans and the Democrats in Washington to unite our country.
And I think he's still sticking with that in the back of his mind.
Okay, it's been interesting.
I hadn't thought of this at all.
It's been five years now.
Is there any evidence out there that the effort to unify the country is succeeding?
I don't think so, but I think he's still trying.
Okay, so is it your desire that the country be united?
Republicans and Democrats, I'm talking about average people now, the voters, forget the Congressman.
We know that's not going to unite.
But do you think that it's possible?
If so, how?
What has to happen to unite the Democrats and Republicans among the citizenry of this country?
Well, Rush, that's a very tough question.
I don't know that I can answer it, but working together is a step forward.
And I know Bush took a lot of criticism when they created the seven-member panel about discussing nominees and things like that.
I mean, that was a first, probably unprecedented, but I think he did it just, you know, in the essence of still trying to unite the country.
Fight the enemy and unite the country.
Well, but who's the enemy?
Well, the people that we have to go to war with.
I mean, we have several enemies, terrorists and stuff like that.
But I believe that he wants to unite the Republicans and Democrats.
I think you may have something there.
Particularly behind the war on terror, I don't doubt for a minute that he would like to have the country unified on that.
And he would probably wish the country united on how to deal with these disasters and so forth.
I guess if you look at it that way, that he's never positioned himself as a fighter, but rather as a uniter, you may have a point.
I don't necessarily agree with that.
I think that there was nothing uniting, for example, about renominating three judges or seven judges the Democrats had steadfastly refused to even deal with.
They filibustered, what, four of them.
I don't think there's anything uniting about, I think he's done his best to be in their face.
I think he wants to beat them.
I don't think he wants to unite them.
There's no, you can look out over the political landscape.
The question was a tough one.
Okay, how would you go about uniting the people of the country, meaning the Republicans and the Democrats and the left who hate Bush?
How would you unite them?
The Democrats are not going to change their minds about anything.
See, the fight here, the battle here is not about uniting anybody, as far as I'm concerned.
That's a myth.
That's one of these inside the Beltway talking points that is, it's something that a Miss America pageant contestant would say in the interview.
Well, I want everybody to hug and love each other and understand our differences and accept each other for who we are and all get along.
Okay, fine.
Keep it in Atlantic City or wherever they are.
World peace.
I want world peace.
Yeah, all those things.
But Clark, this is why Miss America pageants never get elected president and why they don't even run.
It's really not a realistic view.
And in fact, a united country, may I be so bold as to say that the idea of a united country outside of wartime is largely a myth.
These battles have been raged since the founding.
We were not unified during the founding.
There were no public opinion polls at the time of the founding, but historians say that at the time, according to the best efforts they've made to find out, only 37% of the people were for the Declaration of Independence.
And yet the founders prevailed in their wisdoms.
They're really not about uniting people.
In fact, this is one of the few times where we are at war, where we're not unified, where the Democrats are taking the occasion of the war as a policy on which to run the president out of town because they think they succeeded with this back in Vietnam.
The task at hand here, as I've maintained from the first day I began this program, if anybody ever accused me of having an agenda, They were right, but they always got the agenda wrong.
I've always had an agenda.
It's informing and educating the American people while making them laugh now and then at the same time.
But informing them and educating them as to the things I believe and doing my best, what little bit I do here to create a public that's more participatory and more informed and more educated, because that's how things get done in the country.
The idea is to not unify with the left.
It's not possible.
The idea is to make the left a genuine minority so that they're no longer a threat.
The idea is to beat them because they're trying to do the same thing.
The aggressor always sets the rules.
And we can sit around and we can extend the friendship ring and the handshake and all this sort of stuff.
And it's just, they're going to take that as a sign of weakness.
Any attempt to include them, any attempt to be nice to them, any attempt, they're going to take it as a sign of weakness.
And they're going to, in their plotting strategies, aha, they are ripe.
They're not ready for the fight.
We can take these guys.
That's the way they react to it.
And this has been the case my whole life.
So, you know, the idea that we can unite with these people is facetious.
And I don't think that's what Bush is about.
I think Bush is about beating them.
But he's about beating them in an untraditional, non-confrontational way.
He's not going to take them on head-on.
He doesn't respond to the outrageous things that they say about him.
He doesn't veto any legislation that comes.
He is not a confrontationally oriented person.
But, but, he gets even.
He's going to get even one way or the other by hook or by crook.
Some point, somehow, it'll not be in a way that anybody sees, though.
And so that's why I told you that I think the Harriet Myers nomination, like I said yesterday, she could be perfectly qualified.
We don't know, but she could be the best thing that ever happened in the Supreme Court for all we know.
And he's looking at this.
I want to change that court to hell with the liberals in a way they're ruining this country.
He's never going to say that, but he knows it.
Put somebody on the court that they can't possibly defeat.
In fact, give them somebody that they even asked for.
Sort of like a Trojan horse is largely my thinking on this here.
You're listening to Rush Limbaugh on the Excellence in Podcasting Network.
Okay, let's see what the lib media is saying about all this, shall we?
The Boston Globe editorial today, loyal and inexperienced.
Now, keep in mind, we're talking to the lib media.
These are people who believe in women's rights, advancing the cause of women's rights.
No woman is unqualified because women have been discriminated against all these years and blah, But we've got to suspend that for Harriet Myers.
Running a state lottery does not qualify anyone for the Supreme Court.
Solving a property rights dispute is also not a qualification, even if the client becomes a president.
Clerking for a federal district court judge is serving on a city councilor meager additions to a resume for the job.
Heading up a large law firm can demonstrate ability as a lawyer and manager, but provide little experience with constitutional principles.
Working as counsel to the president does inevitably involve major public issues, including questions of constitutionality.
The council's job would be a significant qualification if it had been held for years rather than months.
All in all, Harriet Meyer's work experience makes her one of the least qualified nominees for the Supreme Court in many decades.
So, well, wait a minute, bash a professional woman.
This is what I love.
The liberal media tripped up here.
I don't care how you feel about this otherwise.
The liberals continuing to trip all over themselves.
Here comes a powerful, accomplished, achieved woman, a Trailblazer in Texas, and she stinks because she's not elite enough for the Boston Globe.
What are her views on the separation of powers?
Does she believe that the executive branch is seeking to arrogate too much power from Congress and the courts?
Has she contributed to that effort?
What does she think of the Bill of Rights?
Has she helped the administration diminish fundamental rights and management of the Patriot Act and its handling of prisoners from Iraq and Afghanistan?
Does she find in the Constitution a right to privacy unenunciated but strong?
Hey, Boston Globe, that's what the hearings are for.
They'll ask her.
I'm sure Ted Kennedy's got your questions already put on the note cards.
Ronald Brownstein in the Los Angeles Times today, trying to slip in an angle here on 9-11.
After they left Texas for Washington following the 2000 presidential election, Myers assumed such an insider role that in 2001, it was she who handed Bush the crucial presidential daily briefing hinting at terrorist plots against America just a month before the September 11th attacks.
So what?
So she hand-delivered that August 6th presidential daily brief.
Yeah, she said, well, so she's in charge of all the paper flow to his desk.
In fact, a lot of people say, or are saying lately that it's not Karl Rove you got to go through to get to Bush or Andrew Card.
It's Harriet Myers.
Somebody even said, I saw last night on television, even Karen Hughes has to go through Harriet Myers or had to.
And Karen Hughes supposedly sits at the right hand.
So the media continues to characterize this administration and its structure in a whole bunch of different ways.
But can you imagine a whole story?
The headline here: the president's pit bull.
Though said to be shy, the nominee is described as tenacious in her defense of Bush.
So a whole story here on the fact that she handed him the brief.
So what?
Did she write it?
This is like getting mad at the mailman.
It's like saying a mailman is not qualified because they delivered the mail to Bush.
It's absurd.
And this year, it was Myers who brought word to the president that Justice Sandra Day O'Connor was retiring.
It was Myers who interviewed potential successors and told others they were passed over.
It was Myers who ended up winning the nomination herself.
Obviously, we know what happened now.
The reason it's none of the other people is because Myers already told him, sorry, it's not you, when Bush hadn't even made up his mind.
This is an evil woman, folks, plotting to take over the Supreme Court.
Bush has called her a pit bull in size six shoes, presenting her with a legal award equipped.
When it comes to a cross-examination, she can fillet better than Mrs. Paul.
At any rate, that's Ronald Brownstein, the LA Times.
They're reaching.
They are.
And they're so predictably reaching.
That's the one thing about it.
It's just, it's funny as it can be to read the left and what they're saying about this.
It's been.
What's this?
Oh, and the Washington Post editorial, yeah.
They're concerned she's too detail-oriented.
Oh, yeah.
Yeah.
In a profile late last year, Legal Times suggested that Harriet Myers struggled to make decisions while serving as deputy chief of staff and tended to get bogged down in details.
These are not ideal qualities for a justice.
She has no record as a judge or as a scholar.
Her views and approach to the law are largely unknown.
Well, I like the woman better already.
You need somebody.
The law is very detailed, and it can be very nuanced, and it's about time somebody's there that's going to pay attention to these sorts of things.
And, of course, the Washington Post agreeing with the Boston Globe, she's just not elite enough.
She's just not a scholar.
They're all sitting around saying, why can't we get Larry Tribe on the court?
Oh, yeah, the left.
This guy's life ambitions to be nominated in the Supreme Court.
Launched Tribe, Harvard Law.
Not even Clinton, though, appointed him, which had to be a shock.
Gainesville, Florida, this is Tom.
You're next on the EIB network.
Hello.
Hi, Rush.
Hi.
I was just thinking, and I'm far too young to remember the years of President Reagan.
But I do recall hearing his common phrase of trust but verify.
Yeah, it was about the commies.
Yeah, I realized it was about the commies, but I think part of it, maybe you can help me, but maybe it was his whole stance on government and that the people should perhaps be a little bit wary of what the politicians are up to.
And it seems to me today's conservatives are willing to trust the government as you've been asking for reasons why we should support this nomination.
We're supposed to be willing to trust the president, yet when are we going to get around to verifying what we're being told about this nominee and whether or not she actually is a conservative?
Well, that'll happen during this.
Well, that'll happen during the confirmation hearings.
I mean, especially, and I frame this from the point of view that this is not a president that I see as being very conservative, and therefore it seems to be a bit of a reach to say that someone who's rather moderate would appoint a Scalia or a Thomas.
I think he's not demonstrated very many conservative actions, although his rhetoric is conservative.
No, he has.
You know, this is the thing.
It's an enigma because he has in quite a few conservative things.
The thing that people look at that don't attach much conservatism to is the fact he hasn't vetoed any spending bills, and the federal budget has grown faster than even it did under Clinton.
And there's been no breaks put on it.
People say that's not conservative, but his judicial nominees for the circuits and the federal district courts have been on the money.
Can I say one quick thing about that?
Yeah.
I wonder about that, too, because is that perhaps a smokescreen for them to point at and say, well, if my appellate nominees are conservative, then you must therefore assume my Supreme Court nominees are also conservative.
And I don't see how one necessarily implies the other.
No, I mean, that's basically what people are saying.
There are plenty of people out there with proven records that we wouldn't have to guess, roll the dice, wait 10 years, or what have you.
Right.
No, that's true.
I was just speaking within the context you don't think he's very conservative.
He is on a lot of things.
Tax cuts.
Tax cuts are great, but we seem to be using a policy right now of guns and butter.
And I think that violates every economic law from the beginning of time.
I mean, we're in a wartime, yet we're still increasing Medicare.
We're increasing the Department of Education.
Again, Ronald Reagan said, let's get rid of it, and now we're doubling it.
Yeah, but he didn't watch it.
See, that's the thing.
Reagan didn't get rid of the Department of Education.
But he's talking about it.
We're not.
Fine.
Well, now, wait a second.
Now, let's take these.
He talked about it, and everybody went rah, rah, rah.
And then the newt Republicans, we're going to get rid of the NEA.
It's still there.
A lot of talk.
Well, you know, I heard an interesting point of view on that today, actually, on the web.
It was talking about when you have Republican leadership, they're going to try to reach out to the voters that they don't have on the left so that the Republicans are actually going to move the country to the left, whereas the Democrat Party is going to reach out to the moderate Republican voter and actually maybe nibble away at the size of government a little bit.
And I think that's been empirically shown in the past 15 years or so.
There is something to that.
It's much easier to get votes by buying them, particularly if you have a population that's gotten used to it and you've put more and more people on the entitlement mentality.
It's much easier once you get power of showing that you're not mean.
Look, a lot of this is why we want to have the debate.
Now, follow me on that.
The left has said we are cold-hearted, mean, cruel, mean-spirited, racist, sexist, big, and homophobes.
We don't care if people are starving.
So what do we do?
We act defensive.
Oh, no, we're nice guys.
Watch us.
And we'll rebuild New Orleans at three times the cost of Democrats.
And we will make sure that seniors who don't even want it get free drugs as part of Medicare.
See, we have big hearts.
It's the problem.
The definition of how you prove that you're a compassionate person.
This is what's pervasive about the left has for 50 years been defining these terms.
And you're right.
So Republicans become the majority, and they get sensitive to all these charges.
They say, okay, well, we're not this.
We're not these rotten scalawags.
We're not mean-spirited.
And the definition of that is how much money do you give people?
How much money does it?
And so this is why we want the fight.
This is why conservatives are saying it's time to straighten all this out.
We're sick and tired of being tagged with this racist tag and homophobes and all this when none of it's true.
The real racists are on the left.
And it's time to say this.
I know you're right, Rush, but it all goes to the unity argument.
And the only way we're going to be unified with these people is if we all join moveon.org, which is not going to happen.
But I think the real problem is the voters who decided that they were going to vote for John Kerry to send a message that they didn't agree with President Bush.
And all that did was undercut the apparent amount of support that the conservative movement has.
Think about if the president had actually gotten 55, 56, 57% of the vote, he would have had a much larger mandate.
And he could really point to that and say, see, the support for the Democrat Party really is dwindling.
They did even more pathetic this time around than they did before.
See, now you're singing my tune.
I don't want to wait around and we get 55 or 56.
We got the trend.
We got whatever it was, 53.
We had a 4 million vote margin.
We still sit around and accept the terms of the left.
Well, this isn't a mandate.
Why?
With 55,000 votes changed in Ohio, Kerry, what I want.
B.S.
It's an absolute lie.
It's an absolute myth.
The fact is the Democrats are losing elections more and more often, and there's a trend going, and it's time to hammer the nail.
You're making my argument out here.
And this is the thing people have been fighting for for 40 and 50 years on the conservative side of things.
And they have to continue to frame everything we do in the bibliography and the vocabulary of the left is damned frustrating.
And to continue to have to ask defensive and stealth and use trichinology or whatever to run end runs around these people.
The longer we do this and the longer we avoid acting confident and strong and decisive, the longer we're going to have to put up with this duality here of having the liberals becoming more and more irrelevant, yet still appearing to define the terms under which public policy is debated.
And I, for one, am fed up with those terms.
And I'm fed up with the definition of compassion.
And I'm fed up with the way we've gone about trying to prove to black people that we're not racists.
I'm fed up with the way the left has gotten away with defining that when they're the ones that perpetuate it.
It just, all of it is just, is, I'm tired of the superiority of the left.
I'm tired of them sitting on their ivory towers and telling us, you know, what's what and how's how.
And I'm sick and tired of people that don't want to just, that are not offended by it.
I know there are a number of different strategeries that you can employ to embattle these things, but I'm going to tell you this, folks.
And this is where the rubber beats the road.
This is putting a pedal to the metal.
This is where the hot knife goes through the butter.
This is where the elevator goes all the way to the top.
When it comes to winning elections, it has been done by articulating strong, fervent, decisive conservatism.
It has not been done trying to fool people into thinking we're something that they don't think we are.
We've not adopted the language of the left to go win elections.
And we don't have to do this.
It's amazing to me that conservatism wins elections.
And then after that, the very people who benefited from the conservatism all of a sudden think they have to start speaking liberal language in order to stay in power and prove to people that they're not mean-spirited, racist, sexist, bigot, homophobic, and so forth.
And that's what I mean by acting defensive or embarrassed or what have you.
Anyway, I'm a little long here, but that's a great call out there.
I'm glad you called.
Thanks much.
Back in just a second.
Folks, here's what I'm talking about.
We've got big issues out there.
We've got illegal immigration.
We've got McCain Feingold, campaign finance reform, federalizing local education, expanding all these agriculture subsidies.
I mean, you know the list.
It could go on and on and on.
We've always said the judges are the key.
And we have to make sure that we change the court with all else that's going on.
So it's just, I don't know.
You know where I stand on this.
I will say this for Harriet Myers.
I will say this for Harriet Myers.
She has a far more substantive legal background than Hillary Clinton ever hoped to have.
And this is something that I really, I want to amplify because there's Mrs. Clinton, smartest woman in the world.
What?
Rose law firm.
Rose law firm billing records.
Rose law firm.
Yip, yip, yip, yip, yahoo.
There was talk about putting her on the Supreme Court one day.
There has been talk about back during the Clinton years, Hillary would make a great justice.
Why?
Rose law firm is it.
Whitewater handling the legal affairs for Paula Jones and Jennifer Flowers and all that.
Or not Jennifer Flowers, Paula Jones and I forget the other one, but bollocks to everything she's touched when it comes to legal thinking.
So, I mean, Harriet Myers runs legal circles around Hillary Clinton.
No question.
Katie in Houston, we have about a minute and a half here.
You're welcome to go.
Such an honor to speak with you.
I just want to say that this decision to nominate Harriet Myers is exactly why I voted for Bush.
He leads.
He is not defensive, embarrassed, apologetic.
He's not taking a poll or searching for popularity.
He's a leader.
It's so refreshing in this world that we're living in that I think, quite frankly, people don't know what to do.
But he stands out there.
He makes a decision.
He leads.
He's a leader.
And that's what I love about this.
Nobody else can, you know, he's not trying to unite.
He's not trying to bend over on the left.
He's not trying to compensate for anything.
He's made a decision.
He leads and we follow.
Okay.
Anything else?
Well, I just want to say I've listened to you for 13 years and have tried several times to call, but it's such an honor just to be able to voice that and say that.
And really, I mean, that's what I teach my kids all the time is, you know, to be a leader, you've got to have people to follow you.
And that is what I love about Bush is he steps out there, he leads.
He has such a, you know, I trust his leadership, but it's not just because I trust him blindly.
I just think this is his job.
He leads.
He steps out there, not looking for popularity, not looking to appease to anybody, you know?
That's true.
That's probably true.
Katie, thanks for the call.
I appreciate it.
Sadly, our time is up.
We have to go.
Back in a moment.
Mayor of New Orleans, Ray Nagin, says he can't get any banks to secure funding for the payroll, so he's got to lay off 3,000 city workers in New Orleans.
Just wondering if that's only part of the problem.
Maybe 3,000 city workers aren't going to move back.
We will see you tomorrow, my friends.
Look forward to it.
▲
Export Selection