All Episodes
Previous Next
Oct. 27, 2005 - Rush Limbaugh Program
36:37
October 27, 2005, Thursday, Hour #2
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Crackdown theory validated once again.
The crackdown theory as espoused by me on this program in my Wall Street Journal op-ed validated once again, ladies and gentlemen.
The American left knocked back on its heels over this withdrawal by Harriet Myers today.
They thought they had smooth sailing.
They thought they had saved one of their seats on the Supreme Court.
Now they know otherwise.
Greetings.
And welcome back.
It is the award-winning Rush Limbaugh program here on the one and only Excellence in Broadcasting Net.
We're coming to you today for the last time this week from the EIB Northern Command.
Conditions have improved sufficiently so at the Southern Command that I'm going to go home this afternoon.
I want to personally inspect the devastation and the damage.
But we do have full line power and full internet access at the studio complex down in South Florida.
That's not yet the case at my residence.
But if the power is coming on in some parts of the place where we work, that it won't be long.
They're saying November 22nd for everybody in South Florida to get their power back.
But we will be doing Open Line Friday from the EIB Southern Command tomorrow.
Here's phone number if you want to be on the program, 800-282-2882.
The email address is rush at EIBnet.com.
Couple stories here.
There are other things going on out there.
I want to share with you these two things.
We'll get back to the Myers situation because there are some other soundbites to get the left just having a conniption out there over this.
And that's music to my ears too.
When I watch these clowns on television lament the extreme right wing and how they have totally screwed all this up and that just makes me happy.
This is a Reuters story out of New York.
Check this lead.
Just get this.
What box should you check on a job application form, male or female, if neither one is quite right?
This is planet Earth.
And so as yet, animals do not apply for jobs.
These are human beings that apply for jobs, male or female.
But now there's a problem.
We're discriminating against people who may not know what they are.
That's just one of many issues organizers hope to tackle at what they're calling the nation's first trans and gender non-conforming people of color job and education fair slated for early December here in New York.
We at the Limbaugh Letter will have a correspondent or spy at this.
Catherine, you've just been assigned.
Because when Catherine shows up, there'll be no doubt she's a woman.
If it came time to check out the box, she'd check female.
And I want you to, I just want you to go.
The one thing I want to know about this, and here's the name of it again, the trans and gender non-conforming people of color job and education fair.
I want to know, Cath, I want you to do a survey of all the people who show up, how many you cannot peg as either male or female.
Wear your club getmos.
You can attire yourself however you wish.
Absolutely.
Club getmo cap and all that.
But I would just, among other things that happen, I just want a little, you know, informal survey.
How many people you look at and cannot tell whether they're male or female.
And then after that, check out whether you think they're human.
Because now they're giving me names of the guest speakers in there and who they might be.
This is why they don't have microphones that you can hear, folks.
There is a filter on this program, and it's me.
From cross-dressers to people who have surgically changed their sex, transgender people often encounter trouble going to school or getting jobs, organizers said at a City Hall news conference.
Today, I'm a model of stability, but I think back to when I was waiting tables and turning tricks, said Melissa Sklars, 54, an activist and manager at a credit union.
It's time for us to leave the streets and take our place in mainstream culture.
It's time for us to be taken seriously, said Sklars, who was born male.
While there are no official statistics, thousands of people in New York could be called transgender.
It's an umbrella term that refers to people who don't reflect or identify with the gender they were born with, experts say.
Nobody knows.
Figures are meaningless because most people are not out, said Catherine Rocklin, a New York clinical psychologist who specializes in gender identity.
Wonder how much she paid to go to school and for how many years to become an expert in gender identity.
This doesn't seem to be hard.
New York City law prohibits discrimination against transgender people, but employers don't always open their doors, said City Councilwoman Letitia James of the Working Families Party, who is supporting the job fair.
She said, We're limited, or Damien Dominic, a landscaper, said society's two-gender system poses a problem in everything from job applications to driver's licenses to health insurance forms.
We're limited to two boxes, male and female, said Dominic.
24 born female calls herself a trans man.
There's just two options, and I can't put my true identity.
So we have to have a new box here: male-female, both, male-female, former, male-female, other.
Dominic said she would add a third option, a line to describe gender preferences.
So we could make it an essay question to find out really how qualified they are for the job.
Just make it an essay question.
If you can't answer male or female with a check mark, write us an essay on who you are.
Here's the second cultural story.
This comes from Newark, Delaware.
It is an associated press story in Delaware.
This is going to really get you folks.
In Delaware, Newark Haskrule principal Emmanuel Koch says that he didn't know in advance that an assembly Tuesday that featured two pro-football players would include a Christian message.
In a letter that was sent home to parents yesterday, Emmanuel Koch, the Newark Haskrule principal, says the literature he saw before the assembly didn't say that the presentation was non-secular.
Kaulk is apologizing to students and parents.
Who are the players?
Two players from the Philadelphia Eagles, Trey Thomas and Thomas Tape.
They both spoke for about 45 minutes.
Trey Thomas, the founder of Athletes United for Christ, Principal Cook says the school didn't know about that.
The group's website says Thomas is touring schools to promote a rally and concert for high school students next week at the Living Faith Christian Center in Penshawken, New Jersey.
And yet the principal didn't know it.
Even though that's what Trey Thomas's website says.
So two pro football players show up at an assembly.
They mention Christian ideals and the principal sends a letter of apology home to the parents and the students of the school as well.
Let's go to the audio soundbites now.
And oh, oh, wait, before that, try this.
The White House is considering a plan to fund the next phase of the Hurricane Recovery, Katrina recovery, by dipping into existing disaster relief funds to pay for projects like road and bridge building, according to congressional sources.
By borrowing from the disaster relief funds and also seeking other budget cuts, the administration's considering offering a plan that would not require any new allocation of money.
Well, now, are you following me on this, folks?
Let's go back to the aftermath when everybody was in full-fledged, 100% panic mode.
And here's Mary Baby Fat Landrew demanding $250 billion.
Here's all these other people demanding $250 billion, saying it's going to cost that much.
Here we're running over to the halls of Congress to authorize the first $62 billion.
Did anybody say, hey, wait, wait, wait, we've already got money for this?
It's something called the Existing Disaster Relief Fund.
My question is: do we have surplus disaster relief funds?
We must if we can borrow from this fund.
We've already got a fund for this.
Excuse me.
We've got a fund for this.
And yet nobody's thought to say, hey, wait, wait, we've already got this paid for.
We've planned for our rainy day.
Such is the urge to spend money in that town.
Besides, with as many spending programs as Congress has created, who, what one person could possibly remember all that exist?
Be back in just a second.
Stay with us.
And we are back.
It's El Rushboe serving humanity, talent on loan from God.
The Los Angeles Times has an interesting story today.
They say that about the CIA leak investigation, they are lewd.
They say somebody sources are telling them that Scooter Libby's already been indicted and that it's been sealed.
And other work is being done to get closer to other figures.
That's in the Los Angeles Times today.
There are also profiles.
I have one here from the Associated Press on the Special Prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald.
He says, a man who's been bungee jumping, even though he doesn't like heights, federal prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald will go a long way to challenge himself.
As the hard-driving son of a Brooklyn doorman, jets between Chicago and Washington, he's fast becoming one of the country's best-known federal prosecutors.
Fitzgerald says he grew up as part of a typical Brooklyn Irish-American group of guys, but he also attended a small private Catholic hashrul where he studied Latin and Greek.
Matthew Piers, an attorney who's gone up against Fitzgerald, says he's overzealous.
Piers represented the head of the defunct Muslim charity, whom Fitzgerald charged with funneling aid to al-Qaeda.
He says Fitzgerald used an old photo showing his client with bin Laden hyped charges against his client as fear swept the country after the September 11, 2001 terror attacks.
The head of the defunct Muslim charity made a last-minute deal to plead guilty to defrauding his donors, which was not what he was originally charged with.
He is serving 11 years.
So he's the son of a Brooklyn doorman.
And not very extensive profile, but most of the profiles that we've had, Patrick Fitzgerald, have raved about his independent, his raging independent status, his apolitical nature, his hard-driving.
Chuck Schumer said he's the prosecutor's prosecutor.
And I must tell you, I didn't share this with you, but when I heard that, when I heard Chuck Schumer say that he's a prosecutor's prosecutor, I have to tell you, a red flag went up.
First thing, how would Chuck Schumer know?
What is it?
How does Chuck Schumer know about this guy, number one?
Number two, what does he know about him that would make him say he's a prosecutor's prosecutor?
It leads me to believe that Schumer may know more than we do.
He may know what's coming down here.
I mean, it's clear that the Democrats and the left want as many of this administration indicted as possible because they think that'll create another watergate and they'll paralyze the Bush administration and perhaps even lead Bush to resign.
So when Schumer's out there saying he's a prosecutor's prosecutor, what does he know?
Well, what it means is Schumer's saying this guy's unassailable.
Schumer's saying he's beyond criticism.
A prosecutor's prosecutor means don't criticize him.
Don't go down.
This guy is flawless.
This guy's perfect is what Schumer's saying.
Well, okay, all well and good, but how does Schumer know this?
Who does Schumer know that knows Patrick Fitzgerald?
Does Schumer know Fitzgerald?
I don't know any of this, but I mean, what does he know to come out with this?
This is, particularly in this political climate, it seems to me that Senator Schumer may know something that we don't know.
And he may like what he knows, and therefore he wants to go out and provide cover for the special prosecutor because he knows what's coming.
I mean, I didn't share that with you when that happened, but that's the red flag that went up immediately when I heard him say that.
Here is Andrew in Belleville, Michigan.
Hi, and welcome to the EIB Network.
Welcome.
Hi, Rush Dittos from Michigan.
I just, about this Harriet Myers case, I think that there's going to be a further alienation amongst Christian conservatives such as myself and just conservatives, maybe like Ann Coulter or Charles Krauthaumer, who do not represent the views that I have in this.
And I feel like, you know, if I look at George W. Bush and I look at this nomination of Harriet Myers, what I see in the whole thing is that he nominated her because he is a born-again Christian as well.
He had serious problems with addictions to alcohol, and he gave his life to Christ and was changed by that.
And I believe he saw the same in her as he saw in himself.
And that's why I think a lot of Christians like myself who are born again as well feel that way right now.
I do not agree with Ann Coulter and Charles Krauthaumer and a whole bunch of other people who have asked that she resign her resignation and all that.
And I think that this is going to be a further divide between us because I personally feel let down with this right now.
And it just really goes to show, I think, that a lot of the Christian base out there that went out to man the phones like so many people did, such as myself or George W. Bush, who really believed in where he came from because he is a born-again Christian, feel alienated.
That's just what I feel right now.
Interestingly that you interesting you say this.
I had some conversations with people today predicting this very thing because there's a obviously you had many of the nation's religious leaders uniting behind Harriet Myers after they had been assured of her vote on Roe versus Wade, which, believe me, was going to be problematic if we ever got to hearings.
I mean, that would have been, that would have been full of fireworks.
And I said to these people, it's a shame because these nominations are not about one issue, and they're not about one culture.
It's about the Constitution.
And even if we can be assured that her vote on Roe is right, I want to know that, just speaking for myself, I'd like to be assured of why she thinks Roe is bad, not just because it's wrong to kill babies.
There's far more to Roe than that.
I know a lot of people who are opposed to abortion or for abortion and think Roe versus Wade is bad law.
The whole problem with Roe versus Wade is that nine judges, well, seven of them in this case, but all it takes is five, decided that the Constitution grants a constitutional right to kill babies.
And it doesn't.
Now, if they can start that, and they did, and set the precedent that the Constitution says things it doesn't, then it doesn't mean anything at all.
As to the religious aspect of this, I know that there's a feeling of disappointment amongst some religious conservatives today, but I would hope and I would predict that with the next nominee, that everybody is going to end up being back on board and oriented toward the same objective that you were oriented with toward Harriet Myers.
All the other nominees the president has put up have been of the same mind of the Constitution where it comes to Roe versus Wade.
Janice Rogers Brown, Bill Pryor.
There's a great field of people out there.
Don't get caught in this trap thinking Harriet Myers is the only salvation for Roe versus Wade because that's not the case.
But it goes beyond Roe versus Wade.
Something I also said in the Wall Street Journal op-ed that I wrote.
My prediction to you is that by the time all the dust settles here and we get the next nominee, you're going to be just as happy.
And you'll be even happier because there'll be unity behind the nominee.
And this nominee will still be of the constitutional mindset that will please you and satisfy you where this issue that matters so greatly comes down.
So mark my words on this.
Don't give up the ship yet.
The ship's just now leaving.
That's the point.
Make sure that you are on it.
Mark in Orlando, Florida.
Hi, I'm glad you waited.
You're on the EIB network.
Mega indictment, gravitas, ditto.
Thank you.
You're welcome.
I'd like to be blunt about Harriet Myers.
On my take, I just don't feel what we know of her.
She was qualified for the job.
I don't know what running a law firm means, you know, running a lottery system.
I don't know what that job qualifies you as a Supreme Court justice.
To me, the John Roberts nomination was a no-brainer.
He was highly, highly qualified.
I was surprised by George Bush, which I am a very conservative Republican.
I was surprised at this nomination.
I'd like to hear your take on it.
I really haven't heard a lot of people saying that.
Well, you know, I think this is not the day to start bashing Harriet Myers.
I just want to say again, I have not joined the chorus that's bashed her.
A lot of people have.
I haven't, and this is, I'm not going to start doing that today.
I think she's done a pretty noble thing here out of loyalty to the president.
And we move forward now.
And that's where the focus needs to be.
You're listening to Rush Limbaugh on the Excellence in Podcasting Network.
Oh, man, I love you people.
I just checked the email.
Rush, don't chicken out just because you're talking to a Christian.
Don't say it's not time to criticize Myers.
Tell him the truth.
What do you mean?
Yeah, I know.
It is like that.
It's like, you know, when you score a touchdown, act like it's not something unusual.
But look, for those of you, let me do this.
All right.
People think, Rush, you're chickening out just because you're afraid of not making some members of your audience.
And I'm not chickening out.
I'm just trying to move forward.
But let me take a step back here and address the last call.
Well, who was the last call?
It was from Orlando, is that right?
Yeah, Mark, I know you're still out there, and I'm sure that you represent a body of thought that is in the Christian conservative community.
You should know that the Washington Post uncovered a speech and published excerpts, which then led people to see the whole speech earlier this week.
It might have been yesterday.
She delivered this speech 10 or 12 years ago down in Dallas.
And if you read the speech, maybe we can get it and post it on the website just to further your understanding here.
It shows, I'm really uncomfortable with this, folks, because the woman has done an honorable thing here.
I have tried not to pile on and join the chorus of people who've made this personal about her throughout all of this, but I don't want anybody laboring under any misconceptions here either.
I know this speech is 10 or 12 years old.
There could have been changes since then, but since there's not much else to go on, I mean, people looked at this yesterday and got very concerned about it, even some who were really holding down the fort in her camp and still trying to rally support for her.
The speech shows that her views on abortion are troubling.
They were of great concern to a lot of people, not just non-Christians, but some Christians as well.
There were also a lot of Christian leaders like Gary Bauer and others who opposed the nomination.
The whole of the conservative Christian conservative community was not united on her either.
And don't make the mistake of thinking so.
The issue here is how somebody approached their role and how they interpret the Constitution, and that's the bottom line.
It doesn't matter whether it's abortion or illegal immigration, a war on terrorism, or property rights.
If you don't have a properly functioning federal government where each branch respects the other, then liberty itself is endangered.
And you have to have people on the court that understand what its limited role is if we are to change the role that the court now plays in our society.
Doesn't it bother any of you?
I was thinking about this last night.
I was on vacation once back in the 90s.
And I was out in my adopted hometown of Sacramento.
Some abortion case came down to lunch.
Some Supreme Court decided some peripheral abortion case.
And somehow the local TV stations knew that I was in town, even though I was not working.
I was on vacation, and somehow got hold of me.
And one of them is, would you grant us an interview?
I said, okay.
And they asked me what I thought of the decision.
I don't even remember the specifics of the decision.
But that was the instant for me that I began to realize this is just a political decision.
And they're asking me, a political figure, what I think of this decision.
I think it was something I favored, but that's when the thought struck me.
What is the court's not supposed to be the final arbiter of political and social issues in this country?
That's Congress.
And the president, the elected representatives of the people decide these things, not these members of courts.
The fact that so many people have gradually just accepted over time, because it's happened slowly, that the Supreme Court's the final arbiter.
Of course, the left has long glommed onto that because they're winning.
They've got more judges on the court than we do, and they're instituting their personal policy preferences, and liberalism is being instituted as law by judges, and thereby takes it out of the arena of ideas and debate.
That's got to stop.
The idea that the people look at the Supreme Court, let's say, of a controversial issue, make it up, something besides abortion, or use abortion in your mind if that works best.
We're going to say that the U.S. Supreme Court's the final authority, once they decide, issue's over.
Sorry.
That's not the role of the court as proscribed by the founders.
Read the Federalist Papers or the Constitution itself, and you'll find that's not the case.
It's just evolved that way.
Well, that's got to change, and that's only going to change with the right people on the court who understand how this bastardization has occurred and are eager to roll it back and return the court to its original function.
If you have somebody who's really good on, say, the abortion vote, and you want to put her there because she's going to do the right thing, fine and dandy, but what about her understanding of all the rest of this?
Because even when the court, if it ever does, overturn Roe versus Wade, I have news for you.
It's still going to be legal in this country.
All that's going to happen is the states will pick it up and debate it.
It's going to be legal in some states and illegal in others.
Eric in Nebraska City, you're next on the EIB network.
Hello.
Hi, Rush.
How are you doing?
Fine, sir.
Never better.
Thank you.
Great.
Hey, didn't we just teach the liberals on the proper way of dissent?
They're not teachable.
But what do you think we showed them?
Well, we exercised our constitutional rights of free speech, told our senators, told the president that we didn't like this nominee, and guess what happened?
Well, you can look at it that way.
The lesson that I want to treat the left is defeat.
You know, I don't care if they learn how to dissent or not.
I don't think they're ever going to learn.
They're not going to change the way they dissent.
They're going to try to still blow up buildings and shut down progress and tear things up and so forth because they can't win like we do going to the people.
They've proven that, folks, don't you understand?
Cindy Sheehan bombed out, Bill Burkett bombed out.
George Bush is still in the White House.
You understand what their whole purpose has been since 2001 has been to get rid of George W. Bush and everything they've tried.
Everything they've tried has failed.
Now the CIA leak.
And I'm going to tell you again, I have this dreaded fear that this whole CIA thing is actually a coup hatched by the CIA to take Bush out at best and at worst to, or at worst, and at best to discredit the whole policy, the war on terror and the war on Iraq.
I really do.
If you look at it carefully, you can find that why was Joe Wilson sent over there and how did that happen?
And who was he?
And what was the purpose?
And you look at all the lying and misstatements he made coming back.
Now we've got these indictments coming down politicizing a policy dispute.
I mean, Rove and Libby had every right to try to discredit Joe Wilson.
He's out there trying to destroy the presidency.
What the hell are they supposed to do?
Sit around?
Is he infallible?
Whatever Joe Wilson says, you've got to bend over and grab the ankles and take it.
Sorry.
Now we're going to criminalize this, if indeed that's what happens.
The left has been, this is what they've been shooting for ever since Bush was inaugurated, folks.
And they have failed.
They've failed at doing it.
Now they're going back to their tried and true method, and that's using a legal system, same as they've done with Delay, same as they did with Nixon, same as they're trying with a whole, they've tried it constantly.
And this is the one fallback that they have.
They fail when they try to change the minds and hearts of the American people.
So what I want to teach the left is defeat.
I want them to taste it.
I want them to choke on it.
I want them to throw up defeat.
I want them to get so stuffed on defeat that they need Pepto-Bismol to deal with it.
And then I want them in the bathroom 24-7 getting rid of defeat.
I want them tasting it so much that they don't want any more part of it ever again.
I want to just flood the zone with defeat.
That's what I want to teach them.
I couldn't care less how they dissent.
David Nokloma City, welcome to the program.
Nice to have you with us.
Hello, Rush.
It's a pleasure speaking with you today.
I want to give you a father of 10 conservative Christian dittos.
Thank you, sir.
I think this is a home run, not just for conservatives, for Christian conservatives as well.
I think we're going to start seeing conservative ideals and principles continue to win the day and to win the argument, just like the other day with Tom Coburn and his proposing of the spending cuts and more reasonable spending.
I think we're going to start seeing these ideas like the flat tax and the spending cuts and responsibility in government come to the forefront.
All right, I like this.
I like this.
Now, some of you are saying, oh, come on, get real out there, David.
Uh-uh.
I like this optimism.
This is the exact kind of thinking that we need.
This is the energy that we need to propel this kind of thing.
And you can't do it when you're not unified.
And when the Myers nomination came along and caused this little split, exactly as I said was going to happen, conservatives started debating things, advancing principles.
And look what happens today.
Unification energy optimism.
Bring it on.
That's exactly what I knew was going to happen.
Quick timeout.
We'll be back and continue after this.
I know, I just, I can't believe I ever used to really listen to this.
Who is this?
This is Devo, right?
Sometimes you hear music that makes you wish you'd lost your hearing earlier.
Because I can only recognize music that I knew before I lost my hearing.
David, New York City.
Hello, sir.
Welcome to the EIB Network.
Hey, Rush, how are you?
Good, thank you.
Good.
Question for you.
I wondered if there's a lesson that we've learned here in terms of nominating someone who's not a judge.
As you recall, Chief Justice Rehnquist said it was valuable to have experience outside the judiciary.
Yeah.
But is it a wild card to select someone without a track record?
And will that follow up the nomination process?
Well, you know, I think this whole business of nominating a non-judge, the most recent utterance of this brilliant philosophy came from Dingy Harry.
Harry Reid told President Bush, I think it's time for a non-judge.
We need to get rid of these.
In this case, let me say the opposite.
I've got nothing against non-judges and their qualifications.
But I think in this case, going to the non-judge is a setup and it is a misdirection trap play.
Because we are at a stage here.
This battle for regaining control of the court, stocking it with originalists, has been waged for 40 years and really intensely in the last 25 or 30.
And we've gone out, we've won elections, and we've educated people, and that's why we've won elections.
And here we are.
We've got a Republican president, Republican Senate, and a Republican House, all that's irrelevant for these nominations, confirmation process.
So you've got a Republican Senate, Republican President.
This is not time to play games.
We have got judges, appellate judges and circuit judges whose opinions are widely known.
They have been written.
They have ruled.
These people have been practicing the law as lawyers and judges.
They have written opinions.
There's no question who they are.
The stakes at this point are pretty important.
It's not necessary to go out and blaze a new trail of a non-judge right now if you don't know what the philosophy of that non-judge is.
It's all about knowing somebody's philosophy.
And not only that, because we've been stung on that.
After you know somebody's philosophy, how long have they stuck with it?
And how many attacks have they endured?
And how many attempts for them to moderate and change have been made?
and yet they've stood tall and they've took the slings and the arrows and they've bled and yet they've hung tough.
I think at this point, there's no reason to play games.
There's no reason to try to be too smart by half.
There's a great qualified list of people out there who fit the criteria for exactly what is called for now as we, the majority, see it.
We won the election.
It's our prerogative to do this.
Well, the president's prerogative, he won the election, but his supporters are the ones that cast the ballots.
And so I think here that you've got any number of...
Look at any of these judges that withstood the filibuster.
Bill Pryor, Janice Rogers, Brown, Priscilla Owen.
I'll guarantee you this, Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Stephen Breyer are not going to get hold of those people and change their minds.
And Michael Ludig is not going to have his mind changed once he gets to the Supreme Court when the libs on the Supreme Court try to gang up on him.
And these people are not going to have their minds changed or their core philosophy changed because of what the Washington Post or New York Times editorial page might say.
And they're certainly not going to have their opinions watered down because they're not invited to the right cocktail parties.
I mean, this is fundamental, folks.
There's a reason why you look to somebody's past and their work output to determine what their philosophy is and how rock solid it is.
And this pick and the one after it are crucial.
I don't care whether you're a conservative Christian or care only about abortion or whether you're just a mainstream population member, you're worried about the Kilo decision or whatever.
The judicial philosophy of the nominee has to be known.
It has to be understood and it has to have been tested.
And there are so many people that qualify based on all that that it would be silly to look elsewhere and just say, hey, you know what?
We need to shank up court.
We need a non-judge.
Now, I realize what you're saying here is, is it wise to pick a non-judge given what we've learned in this case?
No, it's not wise to pick a non-judge in this case.
Let the libs pick the non-judge next time they win the president after we've already got control of the court.
Let them go out and experiment.
Let them play around.
Let them put their, let them tell, let them do what they're telling us.
Denji Harry, next time you win the White House, you go pick the non-judge.
You know, keep your attitude.
Keep your ideas to yourself.
We don't believe that you have the slightest desire to help us out.
When Deny Harry or these Democrats go up and talk to the president and give him their ideas, not one person on my side of the aisle believes they're trying to be helpful.
And go ahead and have them up there if you want, and go ahead and listen to what they say.
But when they leave, laugh at them as they're on the way out.
But don't listen to what they say because it's just like when I hear all these journalists or liberals talk about, oh, I'm so worried about the conservative movement.
What does it do?
They're not worried.
They'd be happy for us to implode.
They'd be happy if we didn't exist, just like we'd be happy if they didn't as a major political force.
This idea that people, you know, I really want to help the president.
I want to help him do the right thing.
B.S.
These people want to do one thing, and that is destroy this president.
And perhaps now he'll stop helping them.
Who's next on this show?
Peter in Long Island.
Glad to have you with us.
Hello.
Hey, Mega Dittos from Long Island, Rod.
Thank you, sir.
Hey, listen, the best way for the Democrats to taste defeat is to let the indictments come, whether it's Scooter Libby, Karl Rove, what have you, but stand by them and say, this is all Joe Wilson's doing.
This is all the CIA's doing.
And I'm not going to let them resign and then watch the Democrats fall into a complete meltdown.
That would be cool, except the president's already pretty much laid the groundwork that they'll have to quit.
He can say he does.
But look at the same thing can be.
Let me tell you what's going to happen.
Short of the president keeping them on board and really saying, okay, try this, Democrats.
What's going to happen is if those two guys are indicted, if you think you have seen conservative anger at the American left to date, you don't know what anger is.
There will be hell to pay on this because the American people are not going to sit by and watch the Democrats try to take out another administration on something as baseless and phony as this is, and it's going to be well documented how baseless and phony this whole thing is.
This ain't Watergate anymore where Dan Rather and Walter Crankett, whoever else can define the news every day and that be the end of it.
It ain't those days anymore.
So if they're indicted, President may have to get rid of them, but it's not going to be easy.
For those who want to get rid of Roven Libby or the president, mark my words.
Back in just a second.
Time for a pop quiz, ladies and gentlemen.
What countries most tried to block the removal of Saddam Hussein?
Question number two, what countries got the most kickbacks from the oil for food scandal?
Answer to pop quiz question number one, France and Russia.
Answer to pop quiz question number two, France and Russia.
Well, I'll be darned.
The countries that most tried to block the removal of Saddam also got the most kickbacks from the oil for food scandal.
One more question, pop quiz question.
Who do the left want us most to get along with?
Well, I'll be damned.
It's the same two countries, France and Russia.
Thank you, Senator Kerry.
And you people really want to entrust foreign policy to these numbskulls on the left?
I certainly hope not.
Sit tight.
▲
Export Selection