All Episodes
Previous Next
Jan. 10, 2006 - Rush Limbaugh Program
36:16
January 10, 2006, Tuesday, Hour #1
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Welcome to today's edition of the Rush 24-7 podcast.
All right.
Quick, by the way, uh what a quiz a quick question here for those of you watching the Alito hearings.
Just what was the first subject brought up by a Democrat senator today?
Were you watching Snerdley?
Well, what was the first subject Pat Lahey brought up?
It was the Al Qaeda Bill of Rights.
Greetings, folks, and welcome.
It's the Rush Limbaugh program.
We are here raring and ready to go, feeling a little bit better today.
The Z Pack that uh the prescribed for me yesterday to get this uh this this this bronchial infection, whatever it is, I think is starting to work.
So uh back in the saddle here, not on Brookback Mountain, of course, but still raring and ready to go.
Here's the phone number, 800-282-2882.
The email address is rush at EIBNet.com.
The thing that what there aren't any fireworks.
Well, the the let me the the thing that surprised me the most yesterday about the hearings um was that Alito uh had had the audacity to actually make an opening statement.
Uh well, I mean it.
I mean to the left and to their kooks uh in and out of the uh the media, the Alito confirmation hearings are not supposed to focus on him.
Uh they may be called the Alito confirmation hearings, but they're not about Judge Alito.
These hearings are to focus on liberal issues, liberal talking points, liberal fear tactics, and of course, liberal fundraising.
And instead, this this upstart here, this this man who disrespects these liberals, just Judge Alito guy, he had the nerve to make an opening state.
He spoke for 11 minutes.
He spoke for 11 minutes, and the senators, the Democrats senators only got 10 minutes each.
But he spoke for 11 minutes.
And furthermore, he had to insult these Democrats by telling everybody what he believes.
What is what Judge Alito believes have to do with the Alito hearings.
I mean, that's that's the way these things have been structured.
This is not even about this guy.
This is not even about the Supreme Court.
This is it's not about well, it is in a disguised fashion.
Here I've got a headline in the Chicago Tribune today.
Democrats under pressure to show aggressive stance.
Liberal groups say some went easy on Roberts in the White House.
As he faced the Senate Judiciary Committee on Monday, Judge Samuel Alito began his Supreme Court confirmation hearings with a bit of a deficit.
He's not as naturally charming as Chief Justice John Roberts, who was confirmed in September, and he didn't quite wow Senators during his round of private meetings the way Roberts did.
Roberts, of course, picked up 22 Democrat votes for his confirmation, a fact that infuriated liberal interest groups and could work to Alito's disadvantage.
Do you believe that?
The fact that 22 senators on the Democrat side voted for Roberts, and this angered the left-wing kook blog machine out there, like moveon.org, may now penalize Sam Alito.
The message from those activists of Democrats said Rutgers University of political scientist Ross Baker is you owe us.
The feeling was that they didn't stand up to the administration, Baker said.
So as a consequence, I think that many Democrats will say we have to stand fast in the ranks against Alito, even though it appears that the mathematics of the situation is against them.
So we the Wackos want some action.
The Democrats in the Red States, though, are up for re-election.
That's going to be a problem.
Red State Senators from Montana, West Virginia, South Dakota, Louisiana, Arkansas, and other Republican voting states all gave Roberts the nod and may well feel pressure to do the same thing for Alito.
Then in the Washington Post today.
Despite advocacy, Alito is not on public's radar screen.
Remember, yesterday, ladies and gentlemen, when I in the at the start of the third hour, and it's painful for me to relive this.
But at the beginning of yesterday's third hour, I apologized to those of you for what I thought was a subpar presentation and performance yesterday.
I just I just didn't feel that I was meeting and surpassing expectations.
And even during such times, it turns out that I was better than I thought.
Well, it turns out that my instincts were exactly right.
One of the reasons that I'll be honest with you, no one of the reasons that I felt yesterday's program was subpar was because I violated one of my one of my golden rules, and that is if I don't care about it, don't talk about it.
Well, I don't care about these hearings.
I didn't care about them yesterday, and yet I was talking about them.
And that always makes I f I felt guilty.
I'm violating one of my cardinal rules.
The show's got to be boring.
I don't care about this, and it's got to be boring to me.
Listen to me talk about it.
Well, it turns out that my instincts are right on par with all of you.
Unlike Senate Judiciary Committee Arlen Specter, or until he gaveled the confirmation hearings for Alito to order yesterday, the battle over Alito's nominee should have been a shouting match between partisans.
Whether it ever engages the public now depends on the effectiveness of Alito and his Democrat interrogators.
To the advocates on both sides, the battles described in drastic terms.
Judge said Senator Biden, this may be one of the most significant or consequential nominations that the Senate will vote on since I've been here in the last three decades, which is all hyperbole.
But the story goes on to say that the public doesn't care about this.
The public's not into this.
The public is not wired into this.
And my instincts yesterday, well, I'm not either.
So look at what all I had in common with you yesterday.
The public didn't care and I didn't care, and yet I was talking about it and I felt bad about it.
But today I don't feel so bad about it, because knowing I'm on the same page with you people about this.
So here are these gonna the most important nomination in 30 years.
What about Bork?
What about Clarence Thomas?
This is absolutely absurd.
There is a there's a guiding principle here as I've watched these hearings this morning.
I'm watching Ted Kennedy stumble through his questions.
You know, everybody jokes about how Bush can't articulate things.
Why is there never any criticism of Ted?
He can't say this judge's name right half the time.
Thinks that uh Barack Obama is Obama Osama.
Uh and yet Kennedy, even today was start talking about how a uh a young ten-year-old girl strip search will be scarred for life.
You know, I'm sitting there and if I'm Alito, I said, well, Mary Joe Copecny's not here to comment on that.
I mean, I I I just I th I think this is absurd.
It's the theater of absurdity.
What governs the Democrats, I can tell you this, folks, we'll get into specific analysis here in mere moments.
Arrogance.
The liberals on this committee and their staff.
I I think the staff, they write Senator Kennedy's questions.
In fact, Alito interrupted one of Kennedy's questions, which was not a question, it was a it was a statement and a recitation of things.
And Kennedy looked up like, how dare you speak.
I'm speaking.
Who are you?
These are not about you.
These hearings are not about you.
And and and uh almost expected CNN to flash a graphic up there while Kennedy was being interrupted that said, Alito speaks, exclamation point.
How dare he?
Alito interrupts Kennedy.
And Alito was correcting something that Kennedy said.
That's not an apt statement, Senator.
That's not-you're not having this in the right context.
See, Kennedy's lost because he's only reading the questions his staff has written for him.
Well, uh, we'll move on.
Well uh move on other things.
Judge Judge Alito.
Judge uh Alito.
Well, there's more to comment on this as uh as time goes on, which we will do.
We will have some audio sound bites uh as well.
But sit tight, folks, it's all straight ahead.
We are Ditto Camming.
Ditto Cam's up and running today, Rush Limbaugh.com for those of you with the foresight to subscribe.
We'll be back and roll right on in just a sec.
All right, let's go to some audio sound bites to set up some of my expert commentary, which is uh soon to come, ladies and worth waiting for.
First up, um, this is uh Judge Alito answering uh the first question from Arlen Specter.
Specter was obsessed totally with abortion, and then uh after after he spent most of his time on that, he went on to the National Security Agency uh wiretaps without warrants and so forth.
Well, one of Spector's questions was Judge Alito, do you accept the legal principle articulated in Griswold versus Connecticut that the Liberty Clause in the Constitution carries with it the right to privacy?
Senator, I do agree that the Constitution protects a right to privacy.
And it protects the right to privacy in a number of ways.
Uh it the Fourth Amendment certainly speaks to the right of privacy.
People have a right to privacy in their homes and in their papers and in their persons.
And the standard for whether something is a search is whether there's an invasion of a right to privacy, a legitimate expectation of privacy.
All right.
Now, this is gonna be troubling to some of you because there's no specifically articulated right to privacy in the uh Constitution, but Griswold found it.
Griswold found it by inference, and and it's become the law of the land, and that's that's one of the building blocks of Roe v.
Wade and abortion, as we've discussed.
Uh But in this case, Alito's given the Dems what they want to hear here.
He's that he's he's making himself a smaller target.
Let's listen to how Judge John Roberts answered the uh same question from Senator Spector.
Uh in fact, Spexer's question was almost identical.
He said, Do you believe today that the right to privacy does exist in the Constitution?
Senator, I do the right to privacy is protected under the Constitution in various ways.
Um it's protected by the Fourth Amendment, which provides that the right of uh people to be secure in their persons, houses, effects, and papers is protected.
Uh it's protected under the First Amendment, dealing with prohibition on establishment of a religion and guarantee of free exercise, protects privacy in matters of conscience.
Uh so you see, the uh this is where Bork got into trouble.
Bork said no, there's no right to privacy in the Constitution, despite what Griswold says, it's not stated there.
Uh and that j that just caused an uproar.
These two guys have uh obviously learned their lessons here.
Uh next soundbite.
Spector says, would you agree with Justice Harlan that the Constitution embodies the concept of a living thing?
I think the Constitution is is a living thing in the sense that matters.
And that is that it it is it sets up a framework of government and a protection of fundamental rights that we have lived under very successfully for two hundred years.
And the the genius of it is that it is not terribly specific on certain things.
It sets out some things are very specific, but some it sets out some general principles and then leaves it for each generation to apply those to the particular factual situations that come up.
As times change, new factual situations come up, and the principles have to be applied to those situations.
The principles don't change.
And the Constitution itself doesn't change.
But the factual situations change, and as new situations come up, the principles and the rights have to be applied to them.
This is a brilliant answer, and I he's he's running rings around these guys all day, particularly the Democrats, and they don't know it.
Maybe they do, but I don't I don't think that they have figured it out.
I don't think that Leahy understands how absurd he appears to people.
I know Senator Kennedy doesn't know that.
Uh that's one thing these people don't have.
They don't have any empathy.
They have no sense of understanding how they appear to people, how they sound.
But this this is a classic answer.
Okay, you want me to say that the Constitution lives and breathes?
Okay, I'll tell you it lives and breathes, but the principles that underlie it don't.
The principles and the rights are consistent and they are consistently applied.
And of course, I'm sure this this may have confused some of them because these remember, these people live in a playbook, folks.
These people are not talking about the liberals now.
The liberals do not engage any of this in the matter of thought.
This is not an intellectual pursuit for them.
This is a series of questions that equal nothing more than a checklist to determine whether this guy is fit or not fit to be among them.
This is not a this is not a thought exercise.
It says Bork called it, it's not to them and uh an intellectual feast.
They don't have the capacity for that.
They're they're they're not interested in growth or expansion of their minds.
These are very closed-minded people, and they want to try to find others who are of similar bent.
So Alito gave them what they wanted here, but didn't betray the proper understanding of the uh of the Constitution.
Here's more from Senator Specter.
Let me let me come now to the statement you made in 1985 that the Constitution does not provide a basis for a woman's right to an abortion.
Do you agree with that statement today, Judge Alito?
Well, that was a correct statement of what I thought in 1985 from my vantage point in 1985, and that was as a line attorney in the Department of Justice in the Reagan administration.
Uh today, if the issue were to come before me, if I am fortunate enough to be confirmed and the issue were to come before me, the first Question would be the question that we've been discussing, and that's the issue of starry decisis.
And if the analysis were to get beyond that point, then I would have to I would approach the question with an open mind.
All right.
So you can you can wipe that one off the table now as far as that answer being a target for the uh for the Democrats.
In order to be critical of this, they're gonna have to accuse him of lying and subterfuge, and I urge them to do that.
I mean, I I I I want them to treat this guy like they treat Bush.
He's lying.
This guy thinks he's smart, but he's not fooling us.
He knows that what he really wants to do is overturn Rover so we can go back and play the bite.
We'll be able to counter what they say.
This is the thing they still don't factor in is that there is uh an opposition that has media access now that can expose their fraud and deceit.
Now, well, let's go to Democrats.
Let's go to Patrick Leahy.
He's the uh the ranking Democrat on this committee.
Uh we put together a montage of Leahy's questions and comments.
The first thing, the first thing that Leahy brought up related to his endorsement of the Al Qaeda Bill of Rights.
Leahy is questioning Alito about the president's power to assert his authority as if Alito represents the president as a justice of the Supreme Court, and he wants Alito to say that Congress has more power than the president.
And that and and uh uh in a sense, Spectre went in that direction as well.
But the first thing Leahy brought up is the rights for terrorists, according to the U.S. Constitution.
We've seen outlawing the use of torture.
The President had the power to override laws, outlawing torture.
So the president could override these laws, outlawing torture.
They tried to redefine torture.
They seemed to say that the president could immunize people if they violate our laws and torture.
Now, what Leahy was trying to do throughout his whole period of questioning was to get Alito to defend presidential power in the torture context so as to convince McCain to vote against him.
Because I am I'm I'm telling you the constant use of torture, uh, and Kennedy did it too.
Kennedy brought up the fact that McCain had authored this torture bill, and they went and talked about Bush, and we mentioned this last week, issued a signing statement, which is the president's interpretation of every bill he signs, and the president said basically, screw this, I have to protect the country, I'll do what it takes to protect the country.
The Democrats and McCain are in a tizzy over this because Bush was essentially saying if I have to, I'll ignore this law using my inherent constitutional authority.
So Leahy wanted Alito to defend presidential power in the torture context.
They were trying to get Alito, and he's too smart to be tripped up this way.
They were trying to get Alito to say, oh, yeah, the president has every right to say to sign whatever he wants in that signing authority.
He can ignore any law he wants, Senator Leahy.
That's what they wanted him to say.
And the reason that Leahy was doing this, and this is this is this is the politics of this.
The reason he led with torture, he's aiming at McCain.
He hopes that this judge will slip up to the point that McCain will vote against him.
Because if McCain will vote against him, five or six followers and sycophants of McCain in the Republican side of the Senate might do likewise.
Now, this other otherwise, this is political suicide, folks.
The public isn't gonna care about any of this nonsense more than likely until they hear about it.
But here you have the first Democrat taking up arms for Al Qaeda in essence, by demanding that this judge, this nominee, allow that he will defend their rights against the president, that the rights of terrorists not to be tortured or whatever Leahy wants, the right to a counsel or whatever constitutional right that the Democrats want to bestow on these enemies, that Alito will support them.
If Alito trips up and says, no, no, Senator, I'm I'm for the president on this, then that is a that was a trip and or a trap, and it was it was sorely and and poorly played because as I say, these guys think they're smarter than Alito.
And that's all we folks, when you go into a conversation, a d uh a negotiation, a game, a contest with anybody, start thinking you're smarter than your opponent.
It's over for you.
And these guys are so arrogant and so condescending, they think that simply because this guy's a Republican and they're liberal Democrats.
And and Republicans are racist, sexist, meanest, homophobes, and and they're and they're stupid.
I mean, they're they're you know they walk around like apes.
They're just idiots.
And that's and they think it's gonna be easy to trip the guy up.
And it's just the exact opposite.
Alito, short, direct, get in, get it, get out to the point answers, answering every question they asked, not hedging.
These guys wax on and on and on with their statements.
But this effort was designed.
This leahy effort was designed to try to bring five or six Republicans with him in voting against Alito.
Other th I mean it otherwise, this is political suicide to be the first Democrat in these confirmation hearings, have a chance to ask questions, and the first subject you broach is how do we protect the rights of our terrorist enemies?
That's political suicide.
Once the people of this country find out about it, which of course they just did.
Uh back.
Thank you, uh ladies and gentlemen.
We'll continue in a moments.
A little note about this Washington Post story, which uh shared elements of it uh with you moments ago.
Despite advocacy, Alito is not on public's radar screen.
Celinda Lake, a Democratic pollster said that three factors have helped defuse what many experts thought would be a huge fight.
Yeah, it's getting a point.
Whatever the experts say, be they environmental, be they sports, just go the other way.
Be they economic, go the other way.
The odds are much greater you win the argument.
Or you'll make a better prediction.
Cinder Lake said the three factors that have helped defuse the Alito controversy are the holidays, the dominance of other issues, and the lack of an effective and overarching argument against Alito by Democrats.
Now that is quite telling, because it's not that they haven't made any arguments.
If she says here that there's a lack of an effective and overarching argument against Alito by Democrats, it means something important to me.
It means that their standard playbook textbook opposition doesn't work anymore.
Well, this gonna be barefoot pregnant and women in the kitchen.
Uh, turn back the clock on civil rights, uh old people will lose social security.
Oh, what else have we said?
Um hostile to workers, uh blacks will be born to the back of the bus, uh slavery in South Africa, blah blah blah.
Whatever.
Uh hate voting rights, yeah.
One man, one vote, all these things.
Those things, they've said all those things.
They've run television ads.
They're left-wing interest groups have been out there saying all the things that they've said about Bork that they said about Clarence Thomas, that they uh they they've said about any number of conservative nominees, but they just don't stick anymore.
Well, what I've been trying to tell you is the case about a lot of liberalism just doesn't stick.
This is because an educated and informed public is more attuned now, just like the seasoned citizens of this country.
They've been hearing for all my adult life.
You elect Republican A, you lose your Social Security.
They don't just want to cut it, they want to eliminate it.
They want to take away your home.
Well, Republicans keep winning elections, and none of that happens.
Social Security benefits go up.
Now we got a new Medicare benefit.
The seniors don't even want it, but they got it.
Uh all these are just, you know, false charges that ring hollow after a while.
Washington Times, Democrats dig into Alito's opinions on guns and race.
But they don't have anything.
They found nothing.
Republicans quickly circulated details of at least four such cases in which Judge Alito ruled in favor of minorities.
This is after Ted Kennedy yesterday.
And by the way, that that thing is that that was not even those were not opening statements.
Those were those were those were.
I think it was.
It was an indictment.
It was just a bunch of different Democrat indictments against Alito as a man, as a judge, as a conservative, as a Republican, as a human being.
Or any opening statements.
It was just, it was it was pathetic.
And one of the things that Ted Kennedy said was that in an era when America is still too often divided by race and riches, Judge Alito has not written one single opinion on the merits in favor of a person of color alleging race discrimination on the job.
Four cases in which Alito ruled in favor of minorities were quickly found and distributed.
Any student in his third week of law school would know this stuff.
It has to be intentional.
I don't it may be intense, meaning they mean to say this kind of stuff, even though it's not true, must be intentional.
That's what I'm wondering.
I I I go back to the arrogance fact.
I think the the the great unsung personages on all this are the staff.
Uh Senator Kennedy is the walrus out there that's reciting the words that have been written for him.
But I mean, he's an old guy now.
He doesn't have a whole lot of energy.
Happy hour, five o'clock, the staffs work until midnight every night.
Questions are written out for him.
And I think it's possible.
And I know some of you are going to think this is a stretch because you think these Democrats are they're smart, boy, they're cagey.
Well, they understand strategy.
I don't see how you can make the case in either scenario.
How can you say they're smart if they think they can get away with a lie like this?
It is not 30 years ago.
It's not 1985, where there's nobody that's going to respond to the lies.
How many Dan Rather type episodes of a liberal's going to have to undergo to understand they can't get away with this anymore?
The second scenario is they don't know that he actually ruled in favor of minorities on four cases because he's a conservative and can't possibly favor minorities.
You don't think that's possible, Mr. Snerdley?
You think they know it?
You think that I remain unconvinced.
I know too many of these people, Mr. Snerdley.
You they are not as informed as you think.
I yeah, I relish all these conversations I have with liberals.
All it takes is one sentence, maybe two sentences or sentences from me on whatever issue we're discussing.
And I can see that they have never in their lives heard such a thought or considered such an idea.
Well, I don't care what it is.
Take your issue.
I can't pull one off top of my head, but I can see they don't know what to do with it.
They really live in a buttoned-down world where their institutions and where their instincts are right, and they don't allow other views to permeate other opinions.
I think it's possible that they don't know that Alito has ruled in favor of minorities in four different cases.
It's it's yeah, you could say it's almost like they live in a bubble.
Now, Snerdley doesn't think this is even possible.
That's because you continue to overestimate these people.
You don't understand their arrogance.
They're arrogant they didn't get everything they didn't get what they wanted out of the lie because it's not true.
The problem, Snerdley's telling me they got everything they wanted out of that lie because every Democrat in the world's repeating it.
It's not true.
You do not win on lies, and that's the whole problem a Democratic Party has.
They are built today on a foundation of lies.
And you can see every lie that they believe being uttered by these people.
They uh it's you know, truth will always win out in the end.
Just be patient.
These guys are not going to prevail with this.
Not in this climate, it's not 30 years ago.
They can't get away with this.
I don't think they realize it's not 30 years ago.
I think they think that they're still trying to prove the power they had 30 years ago still exists today.
Same thing with the people in the media.
They're still trying to prove they have the ability to move a nation.
That's what this whole Iraq business trying to make it Vietnam is all about.
That's what make this whole NSA thing trying to make it about Watergate's all about.
Journalists are obsessed with being able to have that kind of power again to shut down a war, to get rid of a president.
Democrats are aligned with them on the same basis.
So they go out and tell a lie about this that's so easily fact-checked and refuted that a kindergartner can do it.
Well, you say, are they this dumb to think if it one of two ways they're dumb.
They're dumb in if they think they can still get away with it, or they're dumb if they actually don't know that it happened.
I am willing to consider.
I understand anybody who would doubt me on this.
But I am willing to consider that the people on this on the staff, Senator Kennedy or himself included, do not know.
That Judge Roberts actually ruled in favor of minorities four times because Alito, Alito, because in their minds he's a conservative, and it's not possible he would favor a minority.
It is not possible.
It simply isn't possible.
He's a racist, he's a conservative.
He's a white guy.
He can't possibly favor minorities.
They probably think that the four cases of Republicans dug up are lies.
They probably think the Republicans just wrote the cases themselves, assign them some case number, some imaginary judge in court.
They probably don't believe it still to this day.
Can't possibly be.
He's a Republican, he's a conservative, he's a racist.
That's their thought process.
Anything that challenges that sends them off into never never land.
And they, unlike Johnny Depp can't find it.
I mean Leahy's comments that during hit during his during his his um question period were outrageous.
And Alito were just toying with him during the whole time.
Leahy said that spying on Americans without a warrant.
That's not what happened.
He's misstating the facts.
Americans were not spied on without a warrant.
He throws up straw men.
He's rambling incoherently near the end of his period, starting to talk about Quakers, starting to talk about his grandparents as they were discussing whether a 10-year-old girl can be strip searched.
I mean, it got to the point here that um that that it was.
Sir, folks, I'm just gonna tell you something.
Based on what I've seen, not just in this hearing, but in the last hearing as well.
The liberals on this committee and the liber the liberals everywhere do not have, they simply do not have the intellectual firepower to take on our best.
So they have to make up these scenarios, they have to make up these lies.
They lie about what the president's doing, they lie about torture, they lie in defending Al Qaeda, they lie about supposed rulings that the judge Alito has signed off on.
They lie, they lie, because they can't compete intellectually.
They haven't been prepared for it because they haven't had to.
They ruled the roost for all these years.
If somebody dissented, they were simply slapped down and destroyed by the mainstream press.
Or they weren't hired at the university.
Or they weren't invited to play golf with Tip O'Neill.
But other than that, they've never had to engage.
Now they have to engage, and we're seeing what 50 years of conservatism in the minority has wrought.
It's wrought a bunch of people.
Roberts is one of them, Alito is another.
A bunch of us are laboring in the basements, doing everything we can to try to convince as many Americans of our principles and our beliefs to join us.
We've done a great job of it so far.
We're winning elections on that basis.
We're not doing such a hot shot governing, that's another subject.
But we have still convinced the American people of conservatism's a far better bet, far better way to live than liberalism is.
The liberals, during this 50 years, thought that they never had an enemy they'd had to worry about.
We were just a bunch of gnats swat us away with whatever mechanism they wanted to use.
And as such, our guys can run rings around these people.
It's not even an intellectual contest.
They don't have the intellectual firepower.
They got faux intellectual firepower.
I'm looking at a faux intellectual right now, Biden, Mr. Winbag, bib they just whack on, say he'll probably go 25 minutes in his first question before Alito says anything.
I haven't seen him stop yet.
Ted Kennedy, intellectual firepower.
Come on, folks.
Pat Leahy, it's not, it's not even it's not even really a contest.
I gotta go quick time out.
Stick with us, my friends.
We've only just begun.
Get hold of Cookie and get her to get that bite if you just Roberts just shredded.
I'm sorry, Alito just shredded Joe Biden.
Just shredded him.
So get Cookie to get that bite.
You know, uh, folks, it I've been I've been talking about this for the um the longest time.
Uh the Washington Post story.
Why why aren't people care about this Alito nomination?
Why don't people care why this is about the Supreme Court?
Said it the other day, the Democrats, everything's a scandal.
They they've just thrown too many scandals out there.
The public's tuned out.
This this phony NSA scandal sucked up a lot of the media print, a lot of the media airtime sucked up a lot of the oxygen.
If you look at the Democrats, everything is a scandal.
Every nominee is a monster.
Everything that happens in the country is a crisis.
People don't want to hear it all the time.
And especially when the Dow just hits 11,000 and the economy's roaring along, and the news coming out of Iraq is good with the elections and so forth.
People just don't want to hear that because it doesn't ring true.
Plus, what happens is their emotional tank empties.
You can only I remember one at one prominent time this happened back in the 80s.
Apartheid was in South Africa, became the cause celeb.
I mean, it was the only thing going on out there.
And one university after another was in a race to see who could divest from South Africa first.
And then companies started, and it's all anybody talked about.
The sessions of the South African Congress, whatever it was called, led by Peter Borta, were televised in this country.
So everybody could see what a monster this guy was.
This was the man keeping Vandal and After a while, people didn't care anymore.
They couldn't.
The emotional reservoir emptied.
And that's what the Democrats have done.
Everything's a scandal.
For five years, every statement George Bush has made is a lie, is a scandal, is a statement, every nominee is a monster.
A terrorist of the good guys, Bush is the enemy.
I'm telling you, they've worn out their wealth, and people simply don't have the capacity to believe all this stuff.
After a while, you start saying, as they're saying now, come on.
I mean, it's it's nothing can be this bad.
No person can be this big a monster.
Besides real world experience, and my life tells me it isn't as bad as you say.
It'll only be as bad as you say if we elect you.
That's what's happening out there.
And they don't even see that.
Bill in Charlotte, North Carolina, welcome to the program, sir.
Great to have you with us.
Hey, thanks, Rush.
Um Ditto's on the show, but I need to challenge you uh about Leahy committing uh political suicide by defending uh terrorist rights.
Uh well, go for it.
Okay.
Um he's he you know, he's been re-elected how many times?
And he may continues to make statements that are outrageous.
So there's a certain element within the country, and he represents that element that continues, no matter what he says, if he's a fringe kook, they're still gonna uh re-elect them.
That might be, I don't know, maybe that's Vermont heritage, I'm not sure.
Well, I mean, if if if I'm I'm not speaking about just Leahy, when I say committing political suicide, he's speaking for the party.
He's defining the Democrat Party.
This is political suicide for these people to sit up there.
The first question, are you gonna make sure we defend the rights of our enemies?
Yeah, that's political suicide.
Once people hear about that, which they now have, thanks to moi, a little French lingo there.
I know he's safe.
I know he can be a reelected if he's dead up in Vermont.
But who gives a whiff about Vermont in this circumstance?
He's representing a Democrat Party here, and as such, he is speaking for them, and he's doing this because that's what their kook base wants to hear.
And I'm telling you this stuff is suicidal for them.
Andy in Westchester, New York.
Nice to have you on the program, sir.
Hey Rush, good to be able to talk to you.
Long, long time listener, and I'm glad I finally got through to you.
You're a great American.
Thank you.
All right.
Uh, just in regard uh playing right into what you were saying about Senator Leahy, uh, when the question came up about the ten-year-old girl being strip searched and all this, uh just the arrogance and the out of touch uh came into play.
He just had to throw in.
Well, I was in law enforcement for eight years, and I never would have thought of doing that.
And I mean, anyway, first off, who cares?
Second off, who uh, you know, how much uh drug dealers did he have to bust up in Vermont, you know, where he had a situation like that.
I have a prosecutor friend of mine who had to strip search a four-year-old girl because her family was using her to carry drugs.
It's not uh they're called mules.
Some of some some families make the kids swallow them in condoms.
Some of them stick them in bodily orifice.
This is absurd.
This whole thing is absurd, and I I'll t I'll tell you uh the reason this is happening.
Again, I have to chalk this up to to arrogance.
And you can say that stupidity is a is a uh uh an equal player when when somebody is arrogant.
But they think they they see buzzwords, strip search, ten-year-old girl, conservative, hates women, violates civil liberties, uh pervert.
That's what that's their thought process.
And they think all they've got to do is you agreed with strip searching, a defenseless little tenure, and the country is gonna get outraged over what kind of a monster has been nominated here.
It's not how it plays out.
They don't they think that they can get away with these characterizations that are smears, because they have in the past.
They haven't updated, folks.
We're still looking here at liberalism version one.
Conservatism's version 25.a, we got a new beta version about to come out.
They're still at liberalism V1.
There have been no updates, no upgrades, no modifications whatsoever.
And the system is about to shut down permanently.
You know, the ACLU types that are writing these questions for people like Kennedy and and uh and and uh what's his name, uh Leahy, actually want people to believe that that that Alito would say, okay, yeah, go ahead and strip search that 10 year old just for the fun of it.
In fact, can I be there?
You know, that that's that's what they that's the message they're trying to convey.
It's assinate.
▲
Export Selection