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, 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 Leahy 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 ZPAC that prescribed for me yesterday to get this bronchial infection, whatever it is, I think is starting to work.
So back in the saddle here, not on Brokeback 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 there aren't any fireworks.
Well, the thing that surprised me the most yesterday about the hearings was that Alito had the audacity to actually make an opening statement.
Well, I mean it.
I mean, to the left and to their kooks in and out of the media, the Alito confirmation hearings are not supposed to focus on him.
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 upstart here, this man who disrespects these liberals, this 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 the way these things have been structured.
This is not even about this guy.
This is not even about the Supreme Court.
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, the Democrats, said Rutgers University 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 the Wackos want some action.
The Democrats in the Red States, though, are up for reelection.
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 Publix radar screen.
Remember yesterday, ladies and gentlemen, when I, 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 sub-par presentation and performance yesterday.
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, and I've got to be honest with him, one of the reasons that I felt yesterday's program was sub-par was because I violated 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 felt guilty.
I'm violating one of my cardinal rules.
This 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 nomination had 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 battle's 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.
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 guys.
The most important nomination in 30 years.
What about Bork?
What about Clarence Thomas?
This is absolutely absurd.
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 Barack Obama is Obama Osama.
And yet, Kennedy, even today, would start talking about how a young 10-year-old girl strips her shall be scarred for life.
You know, if I'm sitting there and if I'm Alito, I said, well, Mary Joe Kopeckny's not here to comment on that.
I mean, I just, I think this is absurd.
It's the theater of absurd.
And 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 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 statement, 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 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, we'll move on.
Move on.
Judge Alito.
Judge Alito.
Well, there's more to comment on this as time goes on, which we will do.
We'll have some audio soundbites as well.
But sit tight, folks.
It's all straight ahead.
We are Ditto Camming.
Ditto Cam is up and running today, rushlimbaught.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 soundbites to set up some of my expert commentary, which is soon to come, ladies and gentlemen, worth waiting for.
First up, this is Judge Alito answering the first question from Arlen Specter.
Specter was obsessed totally with abortion, and then after he spent most of his time on that, he went on to the National Security Agency, wiretaps without warrants and so forth.
One of Specter'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.
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 going to be troubling to some of you because there's no specifically articulated right to privacy in the Constitution, but Griswold found it.
Griswold founded by inference, and it's become the law of the land.
And that's one of the building blocks of Roe versus Wade and abortion, as we've discussed.
But in this case, Alito's given the Dems what they want to hear here.
He's making himself a smaller target.
Let's listen to how Judge John Roberts answered the same question from Senator Specter.
In fact, Specter'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.
It's protected by the Fourth Amendment, which provides that the right of people to be secure in their persons, houses, effects, and papers is protected.
It's protected under the First Amendment, dealing with prohibition on establishment of a religion and guarantee of free exercise.
It protects privacy in matters of conscience.
So you see, 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.
And that just caused an uproar.
These two guys have obviously learned their lessons here.
Next soundbite.
Specter says, would you agree with Justice Harlan that the Constitution embodies the concept of a living thing?
I think the Constitution is a living thing in the sense that matters.
And that is that it sets up a framework of government and a protection of fundamental rights that we have lived under very successfully for 200 years.
And the genius of it is that it is not terribly specific on certain things.
It sets out some things are very specific, but 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.
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 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 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.
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 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 may have confused some of them because remember, these people live in a playbook, folks.
These people are not, and I'm 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 thought exercise.
It's as Bork called it.
It's not to them an intellectual feast.
They don't have the capacity for that.
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 a proper understanding of the Constitution.
Here's more from Senator Specter.
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.
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 approach the question with an open mind.
All right, so you can wipe that one off the table now as far as that answer being a target for the Democrats.
In order to be critical of this, they're going to have to accuse him of lying and subterfuge, and I urge them to do that.
I mean, 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 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 ranking Democrat on this committee.
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 in a sense, Specter 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'm telling you the constant use of torture, 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 sign whatever he wants in that signing authority.
He can ignore any law he wants, Senator Leah.
That's what they wanted him to say.
And the reason that Leahy was doing this, and 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, otherwise, this is political suicide, folks.
The public isn't going to 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's the rights of terrorists not to be tortured or whatever Leahy wants, the right to a council 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 for the president on this, then that was a trip and a trap, and it was sorely 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 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 Republicans are racist, sexist, meanest, homophobes, and they're stupid.
I mean, they walk around like apes.
They're just idiots.
And that's, and they think it's going to 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 ask, 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.
I mean, 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.
Back.
Thank you.
Ladies and gentlemen, we'll continue in a moment.
A little note about this Washington Post story, which shared elements of it with you moments ago.
Despite advocacy, Alito is not on Publix's radar screen.
Celinda Lake, a Democratic pollster, said that three factors have helped defuse what many experts thought would be a huge fight.
It's getting to 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 may barefoot pregnant women in the kitchen.
It's going to turn back the clock on civil rights.
Old people will lose Social Security.
What else have we said?
Hostile to workers.
Blacks will be born to the back of the bus.
Slavery in South Africa.
Whatever.
Hates voting rights.
Jazz against 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've said about any number of conservative nominees, but they just don't stick anymore.
What I've been trying to tell you is the case about a lot of liberalism.
It 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.
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, those were not opening statements.
Those were – 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 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.
It may be intent, 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 go back to the arrogance fact.
I think the great unsung personages on all this are the staff.
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, 5 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 that a liberal is 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.
They are not as informed as you think.
I relish all these conversations I have with liberals.
It takes one sentence, maybe two 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 the 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.
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.
Their arrogant, 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 is 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.
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 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.
It's so easily fact-checked and refuted that a kindergartner can do it.
Well, are they this dumb to think if one of two ways they're dumb?
They're dumb 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 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's not possible.
It simply isn't.
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 the Republicans dug up are lies.
They probably think the Republicans just wrote the cases themselves, assigned 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-neverland.
And they, unlike Johnny Depp, can't find it.
I mean, Leahy's comments during his question period were outrageous.
And Alito was 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 It was, sir, folks, I'm just going to 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 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 that conservatism is 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 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. Windbag, just whacks on, says 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 even really a contest.
I got to go.
Quick timeout.
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, folks, I've been talking about this for the longest time.
The Washington Post story.
Why don't people care about this Alito nomination?
Why don't people care about this?
It's about the Supreme Court.
Said it the other day.
The Democrat, everything's a scandal.
They've just thrown too many scandals out there.
The public's tuned out.
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 prominent time this happened back in the 80s.
Apartheid was in South Africa, became the cause celebrity.
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 Boe, were televised in this country.
So everybody could see what a monster this guy was.
This was the man keeping Mandelbrid in.
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.
The terrorists are 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, 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.
Ditto's on the show, but I need to challenge you about Leahy committing political suicide by defending terrorist rights.
Well, go for it.
Okay.
He's been re-elected how many times?
And he 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 koop, they're still going to re-elect him.
That might be, I don't know, maybe that's Vermont heritage.
I'm not sure.
Well, I mean, 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 going to 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 re-elected 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 talk to you.
Long, long time listener, and I'm glad I finally got through to you.
You're very good.
Thank you.
All right.
Just in regard, playing right into what you were saying about Senator Leahy, when the question came up about the 10-year-old girl being strip searched and all this, just the arrogance and the out of touch 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, first off, who cares?
Second off, who, you know, how much 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, they're called mules.
Some families make the kids swallow them in condoms.
Some of them stick them in bodily orifices.
This is absurd.
This whole thing is absurd.
And I'll tell you, the reason this is happening, again, I have to chalk this up to arrogance.
And you can say that stupidity is an equal player when somebody is arrogant.
But they think they see buzzwords, strip search, 10-year-old girl, conservative, hates women, violates civil liberties, pervert.
That's their thought process.
And they think all they've got to do is, you agreed with strip searching a defensive little 10-year, and the country is going to get outraged over what kind of a monster has been nominated here.
It's not how it plays out.
They think that they can get away with these characterizations that are smears because they have in the past.
They have it 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 what's his name, Leahy, actually want people to believe.
that Alita would say, okay, yeah, go ahead and strip search at 10-year-old just for the fun of it.
In fact, can I be there?
You know, that's the message they're trying to convey.
It's asinine.
▲
Export Selection