All Episodes
Previous Next
Oct. 20, 2005 - Rush Limbaugh Program
36:26
October 20, 2005, Thursday, Hour #1
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Welcome to today's edition of the Rush 24-7 podcast.
All right, I think it's showtime because I hear the theme playing.
Is that right?
Well, no, sometimes I hear the theme before the show starts when you're testing it.
I know it's showtime.
I'm literally swamped here, folks, putting on my amateur hurricane hunter hat here, trying to figure out what's going on with this latest hurricane.
And I admit to being totally confused, but I'm a little frightened to tell you why because I'm not an expert.
Anyway, greetings and welcome.
It's the Rush Limbaugh program, and we are here, and we are ready to go already Thursday on the fastest week in media.
The telephone number, 800-282-2882, the email address is rush at EIBnet.com.
All right, look, I know there are a lot of people in South Florida that are very much concerned about this hurricane and where it's going to go.
And I'm one of them.
And one of the reasons, I don't know whether I'm going to be able to be here on Monday to do the show or have to go to parts unknown.
I'm going to be in Las Vegas over the weekend for a charity golf tournament of CapCure, which is prostate cancer.
So I'm in the process of trying to figure out.
I mean, the thing has really slowed down.
I was thinking I might not be able to get back here on Sunday night.
Now, the hurricane's not supposed to hit until what, Sunday night or something like that.
So whether, depending on, well, I probably have to go to New York anyway.
And you people do not know how that frosts me.
You just do not know how that front.
I can't, it's nothing to do with New York.
I love the city.
And it's nothing to do with the staff up there.
But I'm not going to tell you.
It just frosts me that I have no choice in this.
This hurricane.
So I'm watching this.
And folks, I don't know whether I should tell you what I think because I don't want to create any, I mean, I'm not a forecaster.
I'm just like you.
I'm a consumer.
I go to as many websites I can find.
I look at all these forecast models.
I compare.
I look at a satellite loop of the hurricane.
And I don't see this turn to the northwest.
If I'm in Cancun or in the Yucatan Peninsula, I'm cussing some people now for telling me that I was going to be in the clear because this thing looked like it's going to cream there.
If it does that, all this category four business is a bunch of worthless BSes as far as we are concerned because it'll wreck it.
It'll knock it down to a category one or two.
But that's not even the big thing.
The big thing is that of all the relevant models, and I've been studying this long enough to know now which models the National Hurricane Center uses a lot and factors a lot which ones I throw out.
For one, there's called the L-Bar model, and they hardly ever use it, but it shows up on all the model runs when you go to the right websites, and it shows Tampa or Orlando getting creamed, and it has from the get-go, but they're throwing that out.
The models that they use most, only one of them now touches Florida, the rest, and that's the very southern coast of Florida.
The others go through the Florida Straits.
I cream the keys and go through the Florida States.
There's one model.
There is one model that still goes right over us, and that's the GFDL model.
And that appears to be the one that they're relying on because all the other models are moving south and they haven't moved the forecast track at all.
And they say, well, we need a couple, three model runs, Mr. Limbaugh, in order to put high confidence.
And I understand in the models, and I understand that.
But, you know, I have to confess that I'd say eight out of 10 times, they're right and I'm wrong.
I mean, I'm not the expert here.
I did win my bet that the last hurricane Rita was going to hit Louisiana, not Texas.
I did win that one.
It was close.
It was close.
But now this thing's not supposed to even get going to really slow down.
And depending on how long it spins over the Yucatan, it may not get here till Sunday night.
So Anyway, you have to throw things up into a tizzy here and you have to make appropriate plans to handle either circumstance.
And that's been, but that's what I've been doing here.
So when the theme starts, is it showtime already?
Because frankly, I haven't been doing any show prep for the last 30 minutes.
I've been watching this hurricane stuff.
I'm ready to go.
I mean, don't miss under.
Don't worry about it, folks.
I could do this show without prep for at least two days in a row because my prep is good for two days.
You know, one night of prep for me is the equivalent of six months of prep for most other hosts.
So don't sweat that.
So where are we going to start here?
How about Robert Novak's column?
George W. Bush's agents, this is how he starts.
George W. Bush's agents have convinced conservative Republican senators who are heart sick over his nomination of Harriet Myers to the Supreme Court that they must support her to save his presidency.
But that doesn't guarantee her confirmation.
Ahead are hearings of unspeakable ugliness that can be prevented only if Democratic senators exercise unaccustomed restraint.
You want me to translate this for you?
You really want me to translate this?
Let me read the next graph.
Will the Judiciary Committee Democrats insist on putting under oath two Texas judges who are alleged to have guaranteed during a conference call of Christian conservatives that Myers would vote to overturn Roe versus Wade?
Will the Democrats dig into Myers' alleged interference nine years ago as Texas Lottery Commission chairman intended to save then Governor Bush from political embarrassment?
Officials charged with winning Myers' confirmation told me neither of these issues is troublesome, but in fact they suggest incompetence and neglect by the White House.
To permit a conference call with scores of participants hearing close associates of the nominee predict her vote on abortion is incompetent.
To nominate somebody implicated in a state lottery dispute in the past without carefully considering the consequences goes beyond incompetence to arrogant neglect.
President Bush was not originally prepared for the negative reaction from his base when he nominated Myers, his longtime personal lawyer.
Former Republican National Committee Chairman Ed Gillespie, leading the confirmation campaign over two weeks, convinced skeptics that Myers is conservative enough.
Whatever her qualifications, dubious Republican senators, after hearing from Gillespie, decided they couldn't deny his chosen court nominee to a president on the ropes.
Bush has solidified Republican support not because he's strong, but because he looks weak.
And they need to rally around him.
That's Novak's theme.
Myers remains so shaky.
However, she may not be able to survive confirmation hearings that go beyond sparring over how much of her judicial philosophy she will reveal.
That is why John Fund's column in Monday's Wall Street Journal chilled the president's backers.
He reported a conference call with religious conservatives October 3rd, the day the Myers nomination was announced, that indicated a lack of White House control over the process.
John Fund wrote that Texas Supreme Court Justice Nathan Hecht and U.S. District Judge Edkin Cade on the conference call flatly predicted their friend Myers would rule against Roe versus Wade.
Although the two jurists deny that, I, Robert Novak, checked with two sources on the conference call, one of them, Valerie Plame.
Just kidding.
Gotcha.
Who confirmed Fund's version.
That raises the possibility of bringing two judges under oath before the Senate committee to grill them on what they said and what Myers told them.
All right, that's the basic thrust of the Novak piece.
Let me go back to this first paragraph.
George W. Bush's agents have convinced conservative Republican senators who were heart sick over his nomination of Harriet Myers to the Supreme Court that they must support her to save his presidency, but that doesn't guarantee her confirmation.
Ahead are hearings of unspeakable ugliness that can be prevented only if Democrats, senators exercise unaccustomed restraint.
The unaccustomed restraint, don't call Nathan Heck, don't call anybody anything to do with that conference call.
Let it go.
We believe Democrats are going to do that.
The second thing about unspeakable ugliness, and this relates to the questionnaire that she filled out, some of the Democrats who have read it, and there's our old buddy Specter, who's out there.
Anytime anybody criticizes Harriet Myers, our old buddy Senator Specter stands, you have no right.
You need to leave this poor woman alone.
It says it's not your job.
I think she's a fine person.
He can attack her all he wants, sitting right next to Patrick Leahy at the same time.
And he did.
And Leahy did.
The Democrats are saying they looked at her questionnaire, and I can tell, I can read their body language, folks.
I mean, the Democrats are vicious.
They are mean-spirited and extreme, but not even they will kick the cat around.
I mean, you know, not even they, I mean, they said, they said that the questionnaire was incompetent.
They said that it was embarrassing.
They said that it was insulting.
What do they mean by this?
What do they mean by it's insulting?
What do you think it means, Mr. Sturdly, when they say it's insulting?
What they're saying is that, oh, folks, I hate this.
I just hate this.
Some of it's confirming my instincts on this whole dreaded thing.
It's such a pity it needn't have happened.
When they say it is insulting, take a break.
Feedback here.
President Bush spoke about the Harriet Myers nomination.
By the way, greetings and welcome back.
Oh, for you NFL fans, try this.
The National Football League has got a problem on Sunday.
The Kansas City Chiefs are doing to play the Miami Dolphins at 1 p.m. at Dolphins Stadium.
Now, I frankly think whether there's a hurricane or not, they should play the game.
Football is a game meant to be played outdoors in the elements.
If there's a hurricane going on, you have to game plan for it.
I mean, I would love to see a football game in a hurricane, but it won't happen.
Have the safety of the fans to worry about and all that.
So they're thinking of moving the game.
Now, the logical thing to do would be to move the game to Kansas City.
Kansas City has an open date because they're scheduled to be on the road.
So nobody's using the stadium.
There's no tractor pull or anything going on, which are big in Kansas City.
So you could, well, they've used it for that.
I mean, they did when I lived there.
But I think the league is still stung over letting the Saints, having the New York Giants get an extra home game against the Saints during the Saints home openers.
They're thinking of moving the game to tomorrow.
An NFL game on a Friday.
Now, I hope they've told the Chiefs because the Chiefs are going to have to leave today in order to get there.
That would be unprecedented.
They can't do it Saturday because that's when the hurricane arrives.
They did not know.
Doesn't arrive till Sunday, but it's going to get close and travel and all that.
So I just wanted to pass this on to you.
Stick with Harriet Myers here for just a second.
Again, folks, the senators who've looked at her questionnaire, some of them, the kindest way to say this is they've been unimpressed.
And when you go back to Novak's first paragraph here, Democratic senators exercise unaccustomed restraint.
I think what he also means here is hold your fire because it isn't necessary.
In fact, I once two weeks ago gave some advice to the Democrats in that committee how they could best handle themselves during this upcoming hearing.
And if you want me to repeat it, I will.
I know it's going to upset some of you.
I know this is a very tense and touchy subject for a lot of you out there, because I've heard from you, but it just doesn't appear that, let's put it this way: her questionnaire was not impressive.
Now, that would be the best way to say this.
So, Bush was asked about this today during his press conference with the Palestinian leader Mahmoud Abbas.
Reuters reporter Steve Holliday Alreuters reporter Steve Holland says, Senator Specter called the rollout of the Myers nomination chaotic.
Is that a fair criticism?
Are you satisfied with the way the nomination's been handled?
Would you be willing to release any more documents about her if it would help?
One thing the questionnaire does show, if people look at it carefully, is Harriet's judicial philosophy.
Hold it, hold it, hold it, hold it.
Is that Calypso Louie in the background?
We got two things fired at once there.
Is that what happened?
Oh, it's a cart that wasn't clean.
All right.
I think, you know what, you better check all the soundbites because if we didn't bulk erase all the, let's just put one in.
Put the second bite in.
Let me hear the second bite.
Let's just find out right now if they're all dirty.
We can take care of this problem right now and redo it.
I've got a job to do.
Part of my job is fine.
That's fine.
That one's clean.
Let me hear number one again, Recue It.
Maybe we can still distill it.
Even, I mean, I have the ability.
I've got the transcript here.
I know what he said.
Put number one back in there again.
Hey, this is real radio.
This is as it happens: when you have interns working for you, what can you do?
Hit it.
I said, if you elect me, I will name people that will have that judicial philosophy.
I now have two chances.
One, John Roberts, and now Harriet Myers.
And they share the same judicial philosophy.
That's what the questionnaire says.
So Harriet will answer all the questions asked.
But out of this will come a clear picture of a competent, strong, capable woman who shares the same judicial philosophy that I share.
We don't want to guess about it.
We don't want to be.
I'm telling you, it was Louis Farrier.
Follow me.
I'm telling you, folks, Louis Farrakhan was part of that soundbite.
Do I know what I hear when I know what I hear it, or do I know it?
That was Calypso Louie.
We failed to bulk the cart that we last used for that.
Anyway, here's what the president said in response to the question.
He said, one thing the questionnaire does show, if people look at it carefully, is Harriet's judicial philosophy.
And it's the main reason I picked her to serve on the bench, if confirmed, and that is that she's not going to legislate from the bench.
She will strictly interpret the Constitution.
I said that when I ran for president.
I said, if you elect me, I'll name people that will have that judicial philosophy.
I've now had two chances, John Roberts and now Harriet Myers.
And they share the same judicial philosophy.
That's what the questionnaire says.
And so Harriet will answer all the questions asked.
But out of this will come a clear picture of a competent, strong, capable woman who shares the same judicial philosophy that I share.
All right.
Now, I understand Democrats can look at this questionnaire and they can kind of say whatever they want about it.
They can try to imply that she just doesn't have the folks.
I can't do that.
You know, I'm sitting here.
I'm just, I'm trying as best I can to be as diplomatic and polite as I can be.
But I don't know what they mean by insulting in her answers.
They're pretty straightforward.
I think they're trying to create the impression that she's a lightweight, are they not?
They're trying to create the impression that she's a lightweight, that she doesn't measure up academically and this sort of thing.
And so inspectors out there, he's kind of giving the impression, too, that he's not all that impressed with this.
And of course, this partisan battle that's going on in Washington, you have to understand these people are going to say vicious things, mean-spirited things.
Have you seen the questionnaire?
I didn't spend time reading it.
You agree that it's vacant, Mr. Snerdley?
Nothing on you.
Snerdley, who what law school did you graduate from?
Snerdley is a graduate of the Limbaugh Institute legal wing, and he says it looked good to him.
I really, I haven't read it.
Here's the second Bush soundbite.
This question from Al AP, the reporter Terrence Hunt.
Mr. President, there are a lot of distractions for your White House.
CIA leak investigation, conservative uproar, congressional criticism over the Myers nomination, and even investigations of top Republican leaders in Congress.
How preoccupied is the White House by these problems, and how are you dealing with them?
I've got a job to do.
Part of my job is to work with others to fashion a world that'll be peaceful for future generations.
And it's got a job to do to make sure this economy continues to grow.
I've got a job to make sure that there's a plausible reconstruction plan for cities affected by Katrina.
I've got a job to make sure this hurricane headed toward Florida as the federal response is prepared for it.
So to answer your question, there's some background noise here.
A lot of chatter, a lot of speculation and opining.
But the American people expect me to do my job, and I'm going to.
Well, you've got piled on again yesterday.
Apparently, the man who was the chief of staff for Colin Powell went over to something called the, when I want to get this right, the new, some new liberal think tank.
And I didn't know it was a liberal think tank until I looked it up last night when I saw this.
The new, darn it, I can't find the new American something or other.
Let me get the name of this.
It should be right here in the first paragraph of this New America Foundation.
There it is.
This guy, when you read his comments, said, look, Dick Cheney came and took over the whole foreign policy operation, stole it from underneath everybody.
Cheney and Madeline and Rumsfeld, they turned it into a cabal and they hijacked foreign policy.
And that's why this country's in bad shape.
Colin Powell's chief of staff made this bee.
I'll give you the details when we come back.
Stay with us.
A man, a legend, a way of life.
Rush Limbaugh, your host for life.
Serving humanity on the Excellence in Broadcasting Network.
It's official now.
The Kansas City Chiefs will play the Miami Dolphins Friday night at 7 at Dolphin Stadium in Davie.
The Davie Dolphins, Fort Lauderdale Dolphin, whatever they are.
It's going to be 7 o'clock there on Friday night.
Rita in Tucson, Arizona.
Let me grab this phone call real quickly.
Thank you for calling and welcome to the EIB Network, the one and only.
Rush?
Yes.
Hi, Rush.
This is Rita.
Yes.
I can't believe I'm sitting here in bed with my husband.
He's a big fan of yours.
I've gotten you on everything in my house because of him.
I said, I have to eat, sleep, and breathe, Rush Limbaugh.
But I'm sitting here thinking, come on, Rush.
Who are you kidding?
Spit it out what you feel about Judge Meyer.
This is not like you to hedge and hedge.
I can't do it.
I can't do it.
Well, either you can't do it because it's what you think, or come on.
You know, I can't believe you pulled this.
It is sort of unique, the Odi and audience goading me into speaking.
First, Rita, a question.
You're in Tucson.
By my calculations, it makes it about 10.34, 10.35 out there.
It's 9.30 right now.
9.30.
Sorry.
So what are you still doing in bed?
Oh, yeah, well, you know, I'm retired, live in Saddlebrook, and I'm just...
Okay, that's a good enough answer.
Yeah.
Yeah, I take my time.
Well, I don't blame you.
One little bit.
Plus, you're a woman.
But it's a gorgeous, gorgeous day.
And I hope you get to experience the fullness of it, too.
What I'm afraid of, Rita, just you want me to spit it out.
What Novak says here is the unspeakable ugliness that can be prevented.
I think there's two things here.
One is subpoenaing these two guys that participated on the conference call with the religious leaders and guaranteed them a vote by Harriet Myers on Roe v. Wade.
That would be pretty ugly.
I think the second ugly thing that could possibly happen is I can't say it.
Why not?
I mean, ugly is what the liberals spit out.
I mean, you know, I've read Ann Coulter's write-up on this, and boy, she didn't hold back at all.
I'm disappointed.
I'm really disappointed.
What are you disappointed in?
Well, I'm not a legal expert at all.
All I do, I tell my kids, we've got two kids that are liberals and two kids that are Republicans.
And, you know, but I kind of go with the flow with my husband.
I don't have much choice.
But he's got me believing in you.
But the thing is, this really disappoints us all because, I mean, there's going to be a fight anyway.
Why not have it a really good fight over somebody who all the...
No, I understand that.
I, you know, have uttered the same desire, and I've expressed my reasons, which I really don't want to rehesh here.
The reason I'm holding back is because I don't know the woman, and I'm just, what I'm afraid of is that all this is leading up to the fact that she's not the brightest bulb in the room, and it's going to be on display for the whole country to see, and it's going to be embarrassing.
And it's just, I hope I'm wrong about that, but I think that's what some of the people who've read her resume or not a resume, her questionnaire are alluding to.
And you have to factor in, folks, the one thing you have to factor in here is that since it's out there, that has been put out there by two of her well-known friends and supporters that she is arguably pro-life and is guaranteed to vote to overturn Roe versus Wade.
I mean, that's, you talk about jet fuel for a hurricane.
That's jet fuel for liberal Democrats to gin up the typical, we can't support this nominee and do whatever they're going to do to destroy her.
And part of the destroying process, the destruction process, may be this attempt to put it out there that she's a dim bulb based on her questionnaire, which, if they succeed with that, might fire up the conservatives who are upset with this already and make them even angrier.
And all of that leads to unspeakable ugliness because it's all going to take place in public.
It could be the public embarrassment of a woman who's done nothing wrong.
It could be the public humiliation of a woman who's been nominated for something that she's really not qualified to do.
And if that's what everybody's talking about, it would be ugly.
There's no reason to put anybody through that.
There are others who say, no, that's not what this is.
The questionnaire is not that bad.
This is still a bunch of gamesmanship that's going on out there.
But whatever, whether it's unspeakable ugliness or something else, I am telling you that it is going to be fireworks.
These hearings are going to burn brightly.
It's going to be fascinating to watch the way both sides do this.
And now with these Republican senators having been approached by people from the White House saying, you've got to support this nomination.
This is the presidency we're talking about saving here.
The impression, and by the way, Rush, do you believe that?
Well, I'm looking at some senators whose initial reaction was much like mine, and now they're turning into supporters.
And they have a far more party loyalty requirement than somebody like me would have, and they would be open to such appeals.
So again, we'll just have to wait and see, as is the case with the CIA leak and all that.
It says still more rumors out there about Cheney resigning now to take the bullet.
Supposedly there are two people that are in testifying from Cheney's office that have turned and are providing state evidence.
And it's being spun now that Cheney will resign, take the bullet, and this will open up the vice presidency for Condoleezza Rice that will set her up to oppose Hillary in 2004.
Last night on Hardball, I think we got the sound bites coming up.
Chris Matthews actually said that the White House lied to the New York Times to get us into war.
And I'm watching this, and I'm saying, whoa, we went to war because the New York Times said it was okay.
The New York Times agree there's weapons.
The White House knew that the only way we could go to war is if the New York Times okayed it and went along with it.
Deborah Oren was on the program and had some pretty wise things to say.
We've got all these soundbites coming up as well.
And somebody, it might have even been Chatchworth Osborne Jr., Tucker Carlson was on later who said, you really, Chris, you're going off the deep end here.
Do you really believe that this is all about lying to the New York Times in order to get us into the war in Iraq?
What about the Democrats in the Senate?
What about the Democrats who authorized the war in Iraq and voted for it?
They had intelligence that was far more detailed than what the New York Times had or was being told by the White House.
It's just gotten to the point now that it's absurd.
But here's something else to consider.
We have, it's not just Chris Matthews, there are journalists all over the place that are one of two things happening.
Either they are making it up or somebody's leaking.
And I need to ask you a question.
You need to think about this.
Are all of these journalists, are all of them this capable of making it all up?
Or is it that there are lawyers who represent people who've gone in there and testified, who are now testifying or leaking to the press under the condition of anonymity, and that becomes the sources close to the investigation?
You know, it's interesting to see how this keeps ramping up with nothing official that has come down the pike.
And I ask myself, would all of these, I mean, I can understand a lot of reporters going off deep end and being swayed by their hopes and dreams, but all of them engaging in making something up.
So I think it's probably a little bit of both, but we still, at the most rudimentary level of this investigation, don't know anything.
We don't know anything official.
And then the next question is, how many people outside the Beltway at this stage even really care about it or understand it?
Not you.
I mean, you people who listen to this program regularly are up to speed on it and have a pretty good handle on it.
And I've got to take a break.
I did not mean, I've not forgotten the story on Colin Powell's chief of staff, savaging Cheney and Rumsfeld and so forth.
You've got to hear this.
I'll get to it right after the break, and then we'll get back to more of your phone calls.
Stay with us.
The EIB network rolls on.
Hi, welcome back, Rush Limbaugh, the Excellence in Broadcasting Network, the Limbaugh Institute for Advanced Conservative Studies.
Now, Snurdley sent me what I'm sure he thinks is a brilliant and penetration question here during the break.
He said, boss, I don't understand something.
If Clinton can tell us that he wouldn't nominate anybody, it would overturn Roe versus Wade and Democratic senators can use the same test.
What's the big deal if somebody predicts that she would vote against Roe versus Wade?
Why are we so afraid of that?
I don't think your premise is exactly right.
When Ruth Bader-Ginsburg went up there, she wouldn't answer the question.
And I don't recall Clinton saying he was going to appoint people at Roe versus Wade.
Well, he used those words.
He made it a litmus test.
He did make, he said, I'm never going to put somebody up there that will vote to overturn Roe versus Wade.
Well, you may be right.
She got 90, what, two or 95 votes or something like that.
The Republicans didn't oppose her.
Same thing with Breyer.
We all know in point of fact that that's what the Democrats do.
We all know they go out and find pro-choice, pro-Roe judges and nominate them and give them hand glove treatment, kid glove treatment during the hearings and so forth.
The problem with this is, is that the president, George W. Bush, has said he has no litmus test.
George Bush has not said the opposite of what Clinton has said.
George W. Bush has said, I've not talked about abortion with her.
George W. Bush, I don't know what she's going to do.
We didn't discuss it.
Whether you believe it or not, that's what he said.
Then you have these two guys convening this conference call with the religious leaders, assuring them that they know that Harriet's going to vote the right way on Roe versus Wade, which means that the White House has lost control of the process.
If you have people out there doing private conference calls with religious leaders contradicting what the president has said, you've got a problem.
And then if those people end up being subpoenaed, one of them is the Supreme Court justice of Texas.
State Supreme Court, Nathan, Heckt, if these guys end up being subpoenaed up there, all hell's going to break loose.
And that's the unspeakable ugliness that Novak is talking about.
How do you know she's going to vote for Roe versus?
How do you know she told you about what is it?
Her personal belief or is it a matter of law?
All kinds of hell would break out over this.
It might be fun to watch.
And it might actually tip the balance here.
It might in its own way serve to have this little debate that some of us want to have.
But when the Republican side officially is, look, we've got no litmus test here.
We're originalists.
We're looking for original intent.
We're looking for constitutionalists.
And then to go out and pitch the nominee to religious leaders on the basis of one issue is, you know, it doesn't seem to be that there's any coordination going on here.
It's not, I don't think it's a matter that, you know, we can't do it and the Democrats can.
But I will tell you this.
I do think, thirdly, I do think you have a point because I frankly am getting worn out with a lot of people on our side afraid to be public about what they believe.
If they're against abortion, then say it.
If they think Roe versus Wade is bad law, then say it.
Let us know where you stand on this.
I don't know why it is, and this is, I don't know why it is, sort of one of the things that angers me about this, why it is we have to keep acting stealth, why it is we cannot act like we're leading a movement, why it is we have to pretend that we're not conservative, and I'm not talking about me, why it is we have to pretend that we've got to bring the left into our camp to get them to go along with us before we can get anywhere.
It all offends me.
We're winning elections.
We're the ones out there creating majorities on the basis of what we believe.
And after we win these elections, we sort of power down and start acting like, well, you know, we just had to say that to get our votes.
But don't think I'm one of those crazed right-wingers.
I'm actually a mainstream, moderate-thinking kind of person.
Well, hell with that.
The idea there's something to be ashamed of here, even on abortion, is infuriating.
And so if that's what she happens, why, in fact, why should it disqualify her if she is pro-choice, pro-life?
Why should that be an automatic DQ, folks?
The only reason it's an automatic DQ is because we're still letting the left define terms here, letting the mainstream press define terms.
Why do we turn it around and say pro-life is the default position for a reasonable person?
Or at least it's a position that does not have to be explained.
You don't have to be sent to an insane asylum in a little white coat before you can start answering why you're for it.
So in that sense, it is a bit frustrating.
The only thing about this that is troubling to me is the White House saying something totally opposite what was going on in this conference call.
And if I know the Democrats, they're not going to do what Novak suggests and play this close to the vest.
They're going to try to blow this up to smithereens.
And it may result in the debate we want.
At least over one thing.
Brian in Otisville, New York.
Hello, sir, and welcome to the program.
Nice to have you with us.
Hey, Rush, I first just wanted to say I had a great time at the Broadway show the other night.
I'm glad you were.
I did too.
I fed off the energy of all of you who were there, and I really appreciate it.
I showed up in a lot of the pictures.
I'm wearing a straw hat and the old school Ditto Head t-shirt.
But anyway, Rush, I wanted to say, do you think it might be wise for the conservatives to kind of sit back and allow the Democrats to derail this nomination for them?
Well, I don't know that we have any.
You mean the conservative senators, conservative Republican senators on the committee?
Yeah, the one or two that actually, you know, are wise.
See, now you're touching on the bit of advice I gave to the Democrats the other day.
If the Democrats were smart, which they're not, if the Democrats could just exercise a little self-control, seeing what they're seeing from some of the conservatives in the Republican Party about this nomination, if they were smart, they would treat this woman so kindly and so reverentially with such respect.
They wouldn't get into a bunch of controversial questions with her.
Just ask her deep and detailed historical, constitutional questions based on deep precedent, historical content of Supreme Court decisions.
And if she can answer them, fine.
If she can't, then let it be the Republicans who killed the nomination, not them.
If they were smart, and if that's the way this is going to shape out, then that's what they would do.
But if the Democrats kill the nomination, that would clearly be if it's to be killed.
And I don't want to prejudge this because I'm not so convinced that she's not going to be confirmed.
Most people think she's going to be confirmed, by the way, that I talked to.
But if there's any killing of this nomination, yeah, it would probably be better if the Democrats were the ones to do it, at least in a political sense.
Up against it on time.
Sorry, folks, but we'll be back with much more briefly, shortly, in just a minute, whatever.
Folks, it may sound like I'm having trouble staying focused, but I never lose focus.
Even when we get off on a tangent, we don't lose our discussion on relevance and important things.
And I will get to this speech made by the vice president, well, the chief of staff to Colin Powell.
I will get to that, and I'll do it today.
It won't be tomorrow.
▲
Export Selection