All Episodes
Previous Next
Oct. 11, 2005 - Rush Limbaugh Program
36:39
October 11, 2005, Tuesday, Hour #1
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Welcome to today's edition of the Rush 24-7 podcast.
Well, I didn't think it was all that complex, but it must be, so we're gonna have to we're gonna have to keep trying to make this simple here.
They keep trying to try and confuse things out there, folks, but that's why I am here, America's anchorman on the Excellence in Broadcasting Network and L. Rushball.
Great to be with you as we uh march headlong into the abyss, into the murk to try to straighten out all the confusion and the uh the messes that are out there.
Telephone number, if you want to be on the program today is 800 282-2882, and the email address is rush at eIB net.com.
I I I I I don't I don't I don't understand this.
I am I'm this disappoints me.
Uh it it it's I it confuses me a little bit.
Uh the first lady, Laura Bush, for whom I have nothing but the greatest admiration, uh has joined in the uh uh I I guess I sh was asked by Matt Lauer if sexism might be playing a role in the Myers controversy.
She said it's possible.
I think that's possible.
I think people are not looking at her accomp uh uh uh accomplishments here.
We've got the soundbite.
I just see let's go to audio soundbite.
Number uh number four.
This was the uh Today Show today from Covington, Louisiana, and Matt O'Hauer uh says some are suggesting as little possible sexism in the criticism of Harriet Myers.
How would you feel about that?
I think that's possible.
I think she is so accomplished.
And I know I think people are not looking at her accomplishments and not realize that she was the first elected woman to be the head of the Texas Bar Association, for instance, and all the other things.
She was the first woman managing partner of a major law firm.
She was the first woman hired by a major law firm, her law firm.
We've heard that, I know, but the the idea that there is some sort of sexism here.
I mean, the the more I this is hard for me.
It is really, really hard for me.
The more I hear from the from the defenders of Ms. Myers, and and and again, I've got no brief against her.
I but the more I hear the uh the people whose job it is to defend her, the more I hear them sounding like the left.
That she is that that there's sexism here, that there's elitism going on, and let me let me try let me take a stab at this again.
Let me let me go back to one of the things that got this whole ball rolling, and that is this whole notion of Roe vs.
Wade, and we need we need to overturn Roe vs.
Wade.
And I think that there is developed here a considerable sense of confusion and lack of understanding uh about most of the people on the right about Roe versus Wade.
There are two camps in the Roe versus Wade camp, I guess on the right.
I mean, I the the uh the left is of a unified voice on this.
They they care about the vote.
And there are some on the right that care only about overturning Roe versus Wade, but I have spoken at length on this program about the fact that the Constitution is the science, that it is a the Supreme Court is a culture, and that the culture of the Supreme Court is just way out of whack.
And so while some people may think that the primary objective here on the part of conservatives or people like me is to get enough votes on the court to overturn Roe v.
Wade, that's that's not gonna stop abortion.
That's really not what this is about.
Roe versus Wade is bad law.
What happened was that a Supreme Court could not find the word abortion in the Constitution and yet found it.
And they created uh uh a right to privacy and a number of other rights.
I mean, Harry Blackman talked about the penumbra of the Constitution.
Well, spare me.
We don't care about the penumbra of the Constitution.
We care about the Constitution.
And if you're gonna have a Supreme Court, And folks, if you've listened to me for regularly for a long period of time, you understand that this is a consistent point of view that I've held.
And it is this.
Court is out of control.
The court is made up now of nine people, some of whom are simply substituting their own personal policy preferences or foreign law or whatever to find in legal cases that come before them.
Now these cases involve the Constitution.
And if you're going to have members of the Supreme Court look at the document and find something in it that isn't there, then we've got a problem.
The Constitution's meaningless.
If you can find something that's not there, and if you can ignore something that is and get away with it because you are on the majority of the Supreme Court, then the Constitution is meaningless.
This whole thing is about reorienting the court to constitutionalism.
Another word for that is originalism.
You go back and you check the originalists, the founders.
It's there.
And if if the Constitution doesn't provide for it, you don't make it up.
You amend it.
And there's an amendment process.
The founders left this uh left us look quite a quite a path constitutionally defined, I might add, to change the Constitution.
It's how we deal with things that it doesn't specifically address.
And some things that it doesn't specifically address, that's it.
And it's up to other people to decide, such as the states.
Roe versus Wade, if it's ever overturned, is simply going to go back to the states.
It's going to be decided on by the people of this country, and it's going to be legal in some of these states.
You know that.
Overturning Roe v.
Wade's not going to overturn abortion.
It's not going to make it illegal throughout this country.
And so a vote just to overturn Roe versus Wade, meaningless unless there's some foundation behind that vote that believes it's bad law, not just that it was a bad result.
And and to sit here and get caught up in all this, well, this is a sexist view, and then these are elitists, and these people don't understand the I mean it so misses the point.
And it's it's it just saddens me as I as I listen to the people whose job it is to defend Harriet Myers in this nomination run around and like Rich Lowry makes the point today that something's wrong when Ed Gillespie, the former chairman of the Republican National Committee, basically has the same talking points that Barbara McCulski does.
Now something's wrong there.
Barbara McCulski is sitting as a we're we're a bunch of sexists and we're uh we're anti-women and so forth, and to have the former chairman of the RNC out saying similar things to um to us about the those who oppose the the Myers nomination is well as I say it's just it's dumbfounding.
I and I I can't I I I refuse to believe that they really mean it.
I think they're coming, no, I don't think they think we're sexists.
I don't think Laura Bush thinks that either.
I think it's just what else have they got to say?
She was this and that.
She was accomplished.
I'm not denying any of that.
All I'm saying is that there are people and women, and by the way, this sexist business.
I don't know that Janice Rogers Brown or Priscilla Owen or Edith Jones would consider me a sexist, or any of the other people who have supported them in their quests to sit on the appellate bench and then on up to the Supreme Court.
That's why this sexist business doesn't wash.
Well, who's she took Mr. Studies?
You're not, I'm not, I'm not who she's talking.
Who she's talking, who's she talking about?
Mm-hmm.
Mm-hmm.
Uh-huh.
Well, all right.
Okay, Snerdley says that uh Laura Bush is not talking about me.
She's talking about those out there criticizing Harriet Myers on the basis that she has no qualifications.
Uh hey, Brian, open those up.
I'm like a kid on Christmas morning with those things.
I haven't had an haven't had a new set of those things in uh just a bunch of sex toys, folks, six years.
Um my mistress in Arizona sent that in.
Make sure it's a marriage before you open it.
Uh if if they're out there saying of the critics that they're not me, that they are saying this is unappreciative of her qualifications.
I think they're misunderstanding.
Most of the people I know who are having a problem with this nomination have a problem with it on the basis that I just mentioned.
The Constitution, the court, originalism, not a single case, not a single vote, because that single vote's not going to change it.
You can find if you're against Roe v.
Wade because you're against abortion, that very, you know, very moral of you, and I love you and I'm proud of you.
But you also got to understand it is horrible law.
It set the precedent.
Well, it didn't set the precedent, but I mean it it established a huge, huge precedent to allow the rulings of the court ever since then, since 1973 to go outside the Constitution.
Once it was praised as great law, once it was praised as progressive, that's we had all kinds of trouble because it's bad law.
It would be no different than if the court decided to just cancel a second amendment because some justices didn't like it.
What would you think of that?
And by the way, that's not far out of the realm of possibility because liberals read the Constitution differently than you and I do.
They read it and they see things that aren't in there.
And then they read it and they see the things that are in there that they can't believe are in there, and they if they can write them out of there with a Supreme Court decision, they would.
So if you get enough of them on there that want to get rid of the Second Amendment on the basis of founders never intended this, it's up to us to interpret modern times.
Same type of reasoning is what gave us Roe v.
Wade.
Well, that kind of reasoning stinks.
And that kind of reasoning is going to end up destroying the very fabric that holds us together constitutionally and legally.
And that's that's the beef here.
Oh boy, be back in just a side.
I really don't know.
I really don't know.
You know, there's also some people, there are some people out there now, folks, that that on the conservative side, who are beginning to uh level these these allegations that uh the conservative movement is a lockstep movement, and if you're off the if you're off the beaten path, then you're gonna get savaged.
And I I can't believe that.
After the four years of that we've just had five years of proving this, this is a this is a we're not we're we're a movement, we're not a political party.
The conservative movement's not a political party.
It's made up of all kinds of people with all kinds of different views, but there's a core in there.
There's a foundation in there that makes somebody conservative or not.
But this is the place where ideas are openly debated.
The left is where you have lockstep demands.
The left is where you don't have any mavericks, as it were.
Conservatives are where all the mavericks are, and this idea now that there's some ideological test that somebody has to pass in order to be a conservative.
I mean, this is the kind of stuff that I've I've been hearing the left say.
Litmus test and all this sort of all of these years, and now we got some people on the on the right wing starting to use this kind of language.
I mean, the the nobody demands acceptance in Toto in the conservative movement.
It it it's I'm I'm befuddled.
I'm I'm amazed here at this.
The uh the conservative movement, if you want to talk about marching lockstep, it has marched lockstep behind the president until this moment.
The conservative movement's been right there.
And some of you people during the course of these five years, some of you people who've called here and angry with me over Myers, how many of you wanted to sell Bush out in 2002?
How many of you wanted to sell him out in 2003 because of immigration or spending or whatever?
I mean, this is common.
There are always debates within the uh conservative movement.
It's it's where ideas do get debated.
The idea that there's some lockstep requirement now, and that Harriet Myers doesn't meet the demands is silly.
It isn't what this is.
We're not out there, you've got to get a real conservative.
What it be if somebody's saying we need a real conservative, what they really mean is we need somebody who's gonna give them a court that's gonna have to understand the Constitution, and how it is being bastardized by the current culture of the Supreme Court.
I think this debate that's going on on the right actually shows the maturity of the conservative movement and the principled approach to this issue that is being taken.
I mean, the idea that there are elitists, purist, or that we are, that we are elitists or purists or whatever because we question the wisdom of this one thing the president's done.
And the and the criticism, by the way, falls down on several legitimate and thoughtful levels.
I mean, to think that there is elitism going on or litmus testing uh uh being being required is is foolish.
The other side uses old worn liberal arguments to attack us like sexism and glass ceiling and trust me all that.
And now to have the uh the the right wing start using this kind of lingo, puzzling to me, folks.
I know some of these people on the right.
They're they're just they're they're trying to, you know, carve out uh they're new players out there and they're trying to carve out a niche for themselves as the smartest people in the room uh and and all that.
But I tell you, I think some of the critics of this nomination have been far more intellectually honest and principled than some of the defenders have been, if you want to know the truth.
You know, I I have tried, folks, I've tried to put I've I've really worked on this.
Because like I mean, I've I've got friends of mine.
I can't believe you're doing this.
I can't believe you're not behind the president.
I am totally behind the president.
Folks, don't want, but I disagree with this nomination.
I've tr I've tried to put myself in the shoes of those who are defending it.
And I can't come here and tell you.
I just I I'm sorry.
I couldn't come here honestly and say, you know those people that are against Harriet Myers are a bunch of sexists.
Because I know they're not.
And you know these people against Harriet Myers, they're just this glass ceiling, they're just they're just a bunch of anti-women types.
I I I cannot hear myself saying these words about about people I know who are um opposed to this.
To me, these are all phony arguments like when they come from the left, they're just as phony.
What what the left is cliche?
Racism, sex racist, sexist, bigot, homophobe, all that those are the cliche arguments, and and to have those now advanced by some of our people um is silly, especially when there are there are plenty of highly qualified women that uh Bush uh could have chosen from and and would have been profoundly supported in uh in doing so.
So I I just I I've I've done I've really I've worked this any number of ways.
When people have been critical of me and say, okay, let me see if I can say to you what you're saying to me and see if I can believe myself.
And I can't.
I can't I just after railing against these labels and these cliches uh for oh so long, I just can't imagine myself uttering them again.
And you know what, folks, I'll bet you I'll I'll bet you that if I came on this program and sounded like some of the people paid to defend Harriet Myers, you would accuse me of selling out simply because of the words I'd be using.
Because you know those are not words that I use uh and that that's not even the way I think.
Racist, sexist, bigot, those are all labels designed to discredit people with whom you don't have the guts to debate.
So you come up with these labels to just discredit them so you don't even have to take them on.
So you have to get to the problem of dealing uh with their with their ideas.
Let me let me grab a quick phone call here with the time remaining in this segment.
Linda in Bethesda, Maryland, you're next.
Welcome to the EIB network.
Hi.
Hello, Rush.
Um, I think you're you're right on.
I think that Harriet Myers' defenders are doing her more damage than her detractors.
Um the charge of sexism is foolish.
Um Myers is maybe six years older than I am.
I you know, I was in the first class of women at Yale, you know.
The pioneer thing is over by now.
It is so over by now.
You judge people on the credentials they built.
Um, and her credentials are are lame.
They bring up the same three things that she was a good corporate attorney.
Well, that's fine.
But that work involved state courts.
It doesn't involve the federal courts at all.
In fact, if you go to West Law and use Harriet Myers as a search term, you come up with six hits.
If you go to all federal cases that mention the name Harriet Myers, you get six hits.
That's pitiful.
She has not worked in the federal court.
Yeah, but you know something that uh Linda, in all candor, I think your first point's the one that more zeroes in for me.
This this stuff, uh I I'm not opposed to the fact she's not a judge and that she's never been a judge.
I don't I don't think there's any magical requirement, but there are plenty of people out there who aren't judges who are constitutional scholars.
Well, I agree with that.
Absolutely.
Who are lawyers?
Where you really hit the nail on the head is this makes me feel like it's 20 years ago.
We're being told to support the woman because she's a woman, because she's the first woman, this first woman, that first woman.
You're right.
We're so beyond that now.
I agree with that.
Absolutely.
And I don't understand why Bush is trying to insult his followers in order to get this woman confirmed.
Um, I'm see, that's the thing.
I'm not, I'm not conf I'm not convinced he's trying to insult.
I don't I don't really know who's coming up with all this.
Uh I uh I don't I don't think there's any insulting going on.
I I think there's probably some shock at the White House at the reaction uh more than uh anything else.
Look, Linda, it's great you call great points out there.
We'll be back.
We'll continue here in just a moment.
Uh don't think about it, folks.
Let me do that.
I'll tell you what to think.
That's my job.
Here are the excellence at Broadcast Network and the Limbaugh Institute for Advanced Conservative Studies.
I'd like to welcome Dawn back.
How was the family reunion?
Anybody get any fights?
Uh-huh.
Mm-hmm.
Oh, wow, this is oh, what a great love story.
Dawn's 87-year-old grandfather married his 84-year-old bride.
I wonder if they remember why they did that.
800-282-2882 is the number.
By the way, uh a couple of people say, Rush, what's a penumbra?
You keep breaking out these new words on us.
As I was talking about Harry Blackman, Harry Blackman in the Roe decision talks about the penumbra of the Constitution.
Well, the think of the penumbra as a shadow.
Uh the the dictionary definition of a penumbra is the partially shaded outer region of the shadow cast by an opaque object.
In astronomy, it's the shadow cast by the earth or the moon over an area experiencing a partial eclipse.
Uh it's uh it's Latin for almost or shadow.
So when you when you say that the right to have an abortion is so is is in the penumbra of the Constitution, what you're saying is, yeah, it's in the shadow.
Uh in the outer region.
It's silly.
It's asinine, folks.
It is, it but it's also uh extremely dangerous.
Do you remember?
Wasn't week or two ago?
I'm watching uh I'm watching, well, I got the TV TV's on here in the studio doing show prep.
And uh I'm seeing videotape of the Today Show, and they're having Habitat for Humanity out there outside the set in Rockefeller Center on the street, and they're building a habitat for humanity house to show how it's done and to credit this is this all part of Hurricane Katrina uh relief, hurricane reader relief.
I said, well, okay, fine.
I can understand it's a today show, it's NBC, bring Habitat for Humanity in and build one of these little shacks in Rockefeller Center, right?
Uh that and then you know, tear it down and move it out of there.
We're just we're just gonna make a big show out of it.
Well, get this.
Bush, President Bush in Covington, Louisiana today.
And uh on the Today Show this morning, Matt O'Hauer interviewed the president and Mrs. Bush.
They were at a Habitat for Humanity event building houses.
And and this is the exchange between Matt O'Hauer and President Bush.
I talked to a prominent Democrat in Louisiana who said that um this type of an appearance, while it's great to see you guys rolling up your sleeves and grabbing a hammer and helping with this piece of wall here, that it's a photo of, and they want to see a plan on paper.
Do you have that kind of a plan?
I don't think Washington ought to dictate to New Orleans how to rebuild.
We have a different philosophy than whoever the prominent Democrat was you spoke to.
Lauren, I had dinner with Mayor Nagan and a group of distinguished New Orleans citizens from all walks of life.
And my message to them was we will support the plan that you develop.
What are they building back there?
One of those habitat for humanity houses, is that what the hammering was?
Now, do you believe this?
It's like it's perfectly okay for Matt Lauer to bring in a Habitat for Humanity Bunch, start building a house down at 30 Rockefeller Center outside their set for the Today Show, and that's not a photo op.
Or when Bill Clinton goes over and uh and you know passes out milk to deprived kids at the tsunami, that's not a photo op.
Or when Jimmy Carter does nothing for five years but pound nails, that's not a photo op.
But Bush goes down to Mississippi and Louisiana, joins with a habitat for humanity, he pounds a couple of nails, and it's it's a photo op.
It just I I don't, I just I just love this.
And these people are and they don't see themselves the way they are seen.
They have no idea how the people viewing this react to them.
John Tierney has a has a great column in the uh New York Times today.
He he replaced William Sapphire.
And I don't have the whole column because you have to pay now to get the New York Times op-ed columns.
And I, even though I'm a powerful, influential member of the media, I refuse.
I am not going to pay the New York Times, even for the great work of John Tierney.
There are other ways to get it anyway.
I just haven't had time to do it.
But the uh bottom line, he says, you know, liberals own journalism and they own the law schools.
And he also makes a great point that one of the pro he says he doesn't think that there is an active liberal bias in the media, though I disagree with that that you have to define active, since they're all liberals, there's a bias.
Now they may not think they're biased, but they are.
But the fact is it's not so much just what they put on the news or what, but what they don't, what they don't see as news.
We talk about that constantly.
And it was just, you know, it's it's it's nothing really earth-chattering, but to see it in the New York Times was uh was nice.
And and here here's the Today Show, just two weeks removed from building their own stupid habitat for humanity house outside their set.
Now ripping the president of the United States for doing things that all presidents do.
They all do photo ops.
That's in fact, if you if you want to know the truth, it's one of the things that bugs me about the modern TV era as it relates to presidencies, all these things for photo-ops.
And Bill Clinton popularized Bill Clinton's photo ops were nothing but an ongoing serial campaign disguised as governance during his eight years in the uh in the White House.
Uh but it is a region that's been devastated, people are putting it back together.
There are a lot of people involved, Habitat for Humanity.
Bush gets involved and has to take some heat for it.
And I just I don't think the people who put these programs together, and I don't think the people that that star on these programs have the slightest idea how they're viewed by a vast majority of American people.
Uh now, Bush has a response here to another question from Matt O'Hauer uh that links Iraq to critique Katrina, Hurricane Katrina, by making a joke and then implying that it's a Democrats who continue to politicize the hurricane.
That's Bush's response.
Uh Matt Lauer says Carolyn Maloney is a Democrat from New York and a Congresswoman, and she said You're quoting a lot of Democrats today, Matt.
That's interesting.
She said that that we aren't asking the people of Iraq to pay back the money we're spending there.
Why are we asking the people of the Gulf Coast requiring them to pay back this money?
How would you respond to that?
Well, the people of Iraq are paying a heavy price for terrorism.
A lot of people are dying, Matt.
These people are working hard to establish a democracy, and they're paying a serious price.
And uh look, I understand there are a lot of politics.
One of the things that I suggested was we keep the politics out of out of New Orleans and Mississippi as we all work together to rebuild these communities.
And we got people here who volunteered their time from all over the country.
And they didn't say, you know, I'm a Democrat and I'm gonna work here, I'm a Republican, I'm gonna come and work here.
They said, I'm an American that wants to contribute.
Did you happen to get this question for Matt Lauer?
This stuff goes by pretty fast.
He's quoting Carolyn Maloney, New York uh Democrat.
We aren't asking the people of Iraq to pay back the money that we're spending there.
Why are we asking the people of the Gulf Coast, requiring them to pay back this money?
How do you respond to that?
Now, you may be offended at that question on a you know, one or two or a series of levels, but there is a deep meaning behind that question.
The first place, I know a lot of you, what do you mean pay back?
Haven't we authorized already sixty-two billion and they're asking for 250 billion?
What's it gonna be to pay back.
That's number one.
Number two.
This whole battle, this aftermath of Katrina is setting up as a giant political test to see who's winning the battle of the welfare state these days.
And that's Carolyn Maloney's interest.
Carolyn Maloney and the Democrats' interest is that this is all going to be paid for by the federal government, and there will be no offsets for it.
This is all going to be new spending because this is this is the way we define the kind of country we are.
And there is a story today, the New York Times that demonstrates this.
It's by Jason DeParrel.
And the headline is this liberal hopes ebb in post-storm poverty debate.
As failing programs will not be expanded.
The story is all about the deep funk that the left is in, because the what the thing that has happened is that the aftermath of this Katrina has shown us that the ideal nirvana of a community run by Democrats for 60 years in a state run by Democrats for 60 years is an absolute hellhole for most of the people that live there.
It's a place of poverty, it's a place of drugs, it's a place of unemployment, and yet it ought to be a utopia.
Liberals and Democrats have done nothing but run New Orleans for I don't know how many generations.
There ought not be one unemployed person.
There ought not be one unhappy person.
There ought not be any discrimination against anybody on the basis of anything.
There shouldn't be ramshackle areas of town.
There should have been levies that would have withstood a category seven hurricane.
There should have been levies that would have withstood an earthquake.
It should have been a utopia, because that's what the left has been promising us.
That's their whole argument.
They've got a better way of doing things.
Everybody will be okay.
Everybody will be equal.
Everybody can be happy.
There will not be winners and losers picked by an unjust system.
There will be equality, and everybody will be hunky dormy kumbaya every night, and they take a day off for Mardi Gras for the beads, but after that it's back to Kumbaya.
And so here we go now, and we're finding out that none of that's true.
That when liberals run things for this many years unchecked, you end up with more misery in their communities than you do anywhere else in the country.
And a spectacular inability to deal with these crises and natural disasters that are going to happen.
You got corruption, you've got money allocated to shore up the levies.
It doesn't get spent on that.
Who knows where it goes?
You've got a corrupt police force, you've got an incompetent governor and mayor that can't get people out of town, even though they know days in advance this thing is coming.
And so the liberals are in a funk because people are now saying, well, what we were doing isn't working there, and what we were doing is what they want to do.
The welfare state, the entitlement mentality, all these programs.
And so people are saying, you know what?
They don't work.
We've now seen that they don't work.
As the New York Times writes about it, as Hurricane Katrina put the issue of poverty onto the national agenda.
Many, and that's that's a crock.
The issue of poverty's never been off the national agenda.
It is item number one.
What did John Edwards run on but two Americas in the last campaign?
The haves and the have nots.
We've been talking about poverty.
We've been working on it, the Great Society and a war on poverty since 1964.
Six trillion dollars we've spent on it.
What do we got?
We got New Orleans.
And the liberals know it.
So many liberal advocates say the New York Times wondered whether the floods offered a glimmer of opportunity.
The issues they most cared about, health care, housing, jobs, race, were suddenly staples of the news, with President Bush pledge to bold action.
But what looked like a chance to talk up new programs is fast becoming a scramble to save the old ones.
Conservatives have already used the storm for causes of their own, like spending uh suspending requirements on federal contractors, uh to have a uh affirmative action plans and pay locally prevailing wages, and with the federal cost for rebuilding the Gulf Coast estimated at upwards of 200 billion, congressional Republican leaders are pushing for spending cuts with programs like Medicaid and food stamps, especially vulnerable.
Women and children, hardest hit.
Cliche, cliche, cliche.
Well, we did the food stamp problem last year, or last week.
It's a it's a corrupt program, too.
It's bogus.
They're advertising for food stamps all over this country because there aren't enough people taking the benefits now.
Robert Greenstein, the director of the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, a liberal advoc advocacy group in Washington said, We've had a stunning reversal in just a few weeks.
We've gone from a situation in which we might have a long overdue debate on deep poverty to the possibility, perhaps even the likelihood that low-income people will be asked to bear the cost.
I find it unimaginable if it wasn't actually happening.
Mr. Greenstein's comments were echoed by Representative Rosa DeLoro, Democrat Connecticut.
Poor people are going to get the short end of the stick despite all the public sympathy.
That's a great irony.
But but a lot of conservatives see logic at work here.
If the storm exposed great poverty, they say it also exposed the problems of the very policies that liberals have supported.
Amen, bro.
This is not the time to expand the programs that were failing anyway, said Stuart Butler, Vice President, Heritage Foundation.
While the right has proposed alternatives, including tax-free zones for businesses and school vouchers for students.
Mr. Butler of the Heritage Foundation said the left has just talked up the old paradigm.
Let's expand what's failed before.
Amen.
And that's why they're in a funk, and that's why you hear Rosa Deloro and now Carolyn Maloney, we're gonna make the poor pay for their own uh uh rebuilding.
Who are they trying to kid?
Nobody has suggested that.
Nobody even if somebody wanted to, they wouldn't have the guts to do it.
How do you say that there's gonna be anybody repaying for themselves when you were gonna spend 200 to 250 billion dollars down there?
And the best cost estimates so far are less than uh 150 billion.
It's just so for all this excitement the left thinks they're in, they have failed to see it again.
Just like Matt Lauer doesn't have any idea how viewers watch this today's show and his hypocrisy on habitat for humanity, they have no clue here how the pictures of New Orleans were really seen by the people of this country.
Quick time out, back with more after this.
San Luis Abyssal, California.
We go next to the phones.
Uh this is Andrea.
Hi, Andrea.
Welcome to the EIB network.
Hi, Rush.
Ray Nagan must be licking his chops and choking on his grits at the prospect of him and his cronies having control of a hundred fifty billion dollars.
Whoa whoa, ho, ho, ho, ho, you are more informed than I. Well, probably.
I live I live down there.
Wait a second.
No, no, no, no, wait.
I uh where have you heard that the money is gonna be passed back to the uh I'm not saying it is, I'm just saying at the prospect.
That door was opened up this morning.
You mean because he had breakfast with the president?
Well, because the president said that he really felt that Ray Nagan and his friends were better equipped to make a decision about how the money was being spent.
Well okay, here we go.
I'm gonna hope that what he means.
Listen, it's evil.
It's medium.
I'm gonna I'm gonna trust the president on this.
Uh I I hope that uh what he means is what is consistent with what he's always said, that the federal government's not gonna go in there and demand it be done this way and that way and this way, and that local free market entrepreneurs are gonna rebuild New Orleans.
Well, I wish I could be reassured that he understands the system down there.
Well, Nagan is still the mayor.
Look at each other.
He can't go down there and exclude school bus Nagan from the meeting.
We don't know what was said at the meeting.
All we know is they had the meeting.
We know what Bush says publicly, but we don't know uh they they they're not gonna make that mistake.
He's already said as much that this money is it's it's it's we're gonna do vouchers, we're gonna do enterprise zones, tax-free business loans and so forth.
We're gonna try to move to ownership rather than renting uh for people who want to uh in in putting their homes back together.
We're not gonna rebuild the ninth ward, the parts of it that were destroyed, uh, as an exact replica before it was destroyed.
Nobody's gonna go down unless Habitat for Humanity gets hold of it.
We're not gonna go down there and build a bunch of ramshackle places.
It's gonna be redone, and it's and he's he's he's simply talking about the private sector as the best place for this to happen.
And to the extent that the uh private sector is local, uh there there you there's school bus Negan.
I don't think you can leave him out of the equation, and I really I I wouldn't expect the president to say, and by the way, I'm gonna make sure that that idiot mayor down here and that governor don't get their mitts on this loot because they're the ones that screwed it up in the first place.
Not gonna say that.
You're never gonna hear him say, even if he thinks it.
You're not gonna hear him say it.
Just just trust him, Andrea.
Just to trust the president.
We'll take a break and be back.
Stay with us.
Okay, the uh the the that New York terrorism uh uh threat in the subways turns out the uh informant in Iraq says it was a hoax.
Uh the informant says the subway threat was a total hoax.
We'll have details on that.
And uh we're just gonna keep gliding here, folks, uh, wherever the winds take us today.
We'll be back and resume and we'll have the ditto cam on when we get back too, by the way.
▲
Export Selection