All Episodes
Previous Next
Jan. 12, 2006 - Rush Limbaugh Program
36:34
January 12, 2006, Thursday, Hour #2
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Look at that.
It looks like she's going to a New Year's Eve party.
Ah, you missed it again.
There's that wacko judge in Vermont.
Making excuses for his 60-day sentence and a rapist.
Hey folks, great to have you with us.
Welcome back to the award-winning Rush Limbaugh program, a program that meets, except for Monday, that meets and surpasses all audience expectations on a daily basis, except for last Monday.
Great to have you along.
The telephone number, if you'd like to join us is 800-282-2882.
The email address is rush at EIBNet.com.
So Snerdley when I went through again another series of brilliance.
Hey, the Democrats, their best chance is to go out and be honest.
You know, what do they believe?
They believe in big government.
They've got to go out and start making the case that government is the best place for all of the decisions or the majority decisions occur in life to be made.
Because too many Americans are simply unable.
And we must help them.
Whatever it is they believe, they've got because faking it and lying and trying to destroy your opponents without an agenda of your own, without any optimism, without any positive.
I mean, for crying out loud.
Rush, do you really think they should be honest about not wanting us to win the war?
Yes.
Yes.
That's what they've got to do.
They've got to go try to convince the majority of people to agree with them and their kooks.
They got a base.
Now they got to go out and expand it.
That's that's that's what they have to do.
And Snurdly said, Well, but you know, big government, big government.
That that the Democrats' new message is that big government's bad.
I said, see.
And I thought that I addressed that earlier this week.
This is an example of just how tripped up they are.
This is the party.
I mean, ever since FDR and the new deal, all the way up to Clinton's raw deal.
Big government was Messiah.
Big government was the message.
And people bought into it.
People bought into it to help the poor and to help the disadvantaged, and to help themselves if they didn't want to, you know, go to work to, you know, find enough money to go to college, borrow it from your neighbors via the government.
If you don't want to pay for your own band-aid when you went to the doctor for your boil, get your neighbor to pay for it through the government.
Oh, people ate it up and loved it.
So they were out there.
Big government, big brother government knows best.
But now during the NSA spy scandal, Democrats are saying essentially big government can't be trusted.
They'll spy on you.
Even though Clinton started this whole thing and created echelon, uh the American thinker had a great piece yesterday.
New York Times stories in 1999.
In fact, let me find uh let me find uh find that here.
It's just a it's a it's a now I gotta remember what stack I put this in.
Uh it's not in the stack, it's this one.
And it's better if I read this to you than try to paraphrase it.
They went out, they looked at 1999 New York Times about uh echelon and uh and well, it's not in this stack either.
The point is the New York Times totally supportive echelon, said that few will disagree with the notion that we must engage in this kind of surveillance, which is far worse than what the NSA does.
We might well, it's part of the NSA, but it's worse than this particular scandal's being alleged to be.
Because that's it takes everything, emails, everything, whatever's in the air out there in the ether, bam, goes into echelon and a keyword search it and they come up with their profiles.
And a New York Times said, Oh, there's a brilliant program.
Few would disagree if we have to engage in this kind of surveillance in order to catch terrorists and drug dealers and whoever else.
Uh and so uh it it's it's when they're in charge of it, everything is okay.
But the bottom line is with this, they have been out there telling people you can't trust big government.
Now I know you think that what they're saying, you're disagreeing with me if you are you well.
No, they're saying Bush, Republicans can't be trusted to run the government.
No.
That's what they think they're saying, but what they're doing, the government.
I know they're trying to say Bush spied, but people is the government doing this, the National Security Agency.
Big government spies on people.
Big government can't be trusted.
That's the they're they're killing themselves with their one of their own uh legs of the stool.
You know, every every movement has three or four legs in the stool that prop it up.
You lose one or two of the legs, the stool falls over, you can't sit on it anymore.
One of the legs of the big stool that that it is liberalism is government, great governments, huge.
They're tearing it down.
They got a saw and they're sawing off one of the legs because big government can't be trusted.
I got another observation.
And I I have to include our buddies at Fox in this.
I was uh I was I was uh uh uh I was watching one of the episodes of 24 of a new season.
Hey, uh this has been a hectic getaway week for me because I got you know leaving for Palm Springs and the Bob Hope Chrysler Classic on Sunday.
And I've this week has just been jam-packed with things that I have to do.
And so I had to do a I had a clothes altered yesterday afternoon, haircut.
You know, it's I and I had to be home because these people come to my house.
I had to go home and be there for that.
Uh it's just schedule jam-packed that there one's there for half hour, another one's there for another half hour.
And I and then I had these DVDs at 24, and some friends wanted me to take me out to a pre-birthday dinner last night at uh at 8 o'clock, so well, I was gonna watch the DVDs last night.
Oh, couldn't do that.
Uh because I chose to go to dinner.
But I did have a few moments in there between the time I got through with the haircut and then had to go up to the shower to get ready for the dinner.
So I plopped in the first DVD of season five of 24.
And I'm watching this, and I am you know, I just took a 10-minute gander at it here yesterday just to make sure it was there, stuck it in a computer DVD drive.
I put this thing in there, I just I uh was riveted.
It this to me, they may be one of the best seasons ever.
But at any rate, during the middle of that, I had the mistake of having a computer on.
So I occasionally glance at the computer, here comes the email about Alito's wife crying about six o'clock.
And I don't have TV.
Well, a TV's I'm gonna watch in 24.
So, oh, what the hell happened?
So I stopped the DVDs.
What happened?
And I said, well, the best thing I can do here is turn on Fox.
It's about 6.02.
So I turned on Britt Hume show.
And they're talking about it in this most detached way.
When to me it was one of the most human moments we've had in one of these kinds of hearings.
The wife of the nominee forced to tears and walks out of the hearing room.
And I'm listening to the round table discussion, not just Fox, but all of these pundits analyze this in a in in the most detached way.
Well, what will the impact of this be and how will it affect tomorrow's hearing?
How will it affect the ultimate vote?
Nobody that I heard, now it may have been discussed, I didn't have a chance to watch a whole lot of it.
Just enough to what the the human aspect of this did not reach these people.
A woman, the wife of a decent, harmless.
We don't know much about her, but you can tell looking at her, she's her husband too.
They're just decent, normal Americans, and they're being brought to tears by the behavior of Democrats.
And the first thing I saw was the AP trying to blame Lindsay Graham for it.
Then I watch all this detached commentary on TV as though it just happened.
Well, this is and some of them even say, yeah, well, this is what these hearings are.
You know, this is this is you gotta get used to this.
That's what they're well, that may be, but I was livid when I when I heard about, before I had seen anything, I was livid.
I got so mad at these, this is the bottom of the barrel.
These people are absolutely inhumane.
I made it, I had a riff yesterday about how Alito's being forced to endure torture the way Durbin defines it.
Well, I didn't know how right I was.
There was real torture going on with his family and him yesterday.
There's this is inexcusable.
There's no reason for this kind of assault on a decent person's reputation in life when it's especially a pack of lies.
But nobody's talking about it this way.
And then, just a moment ago during the break, I'm scanning her, I got CNN on, and there's my friend Wolf Blitzer.
And He's he's got he's got his his two guests on there, Jeffrey Tubin and and and uh uh Jeff Greenfield, and they're they're asking themselves, they're speculating why are the Democrats so tame today.
And Wolf said, well, maybe it's because they don't want to make Mrs. Alito cry again.
As though uh not that that he was disappointed at that, but maybe they don't want to make maybe because they have figured out they acted like a bunch of reprobates yesterday.
Does nobody think that the behavior that led to her being brought to tears is worth criticism?
Oh, it's just part and parcel of what goes on.
This is where they're so out of touch with the average American watching this stuff.
The average American learning about this and then seeing it, becomes outraged and livid.
This is not what these hearings are supposed to be about.
So this this i i th the detachment here was just stunning uh to me.
So anyway, after uh I got all you know bent out of shape about it, and then I had to go up uh take shower to get ready to go to dinner while I was up there, decided to try on some clothes I haven't worn in a while, and lo and behold, fit into them.
Hubba Hubba, feeling good again.
And then uh got back uh after dinner, got back about what 10, 1030, uh, and DVDs.
So I watched them all.
Watched them all.
I was up watching a little about one thirty, two o'clock, and then I converted them to my iPod.
I got the first four episodes of next season on my iPod, my iPod video.
Anyway, quick time out here, folks.
We will be back.
We will continue in mere moments.
Stay with us.
Hey, it's your birthday, right?
This is a Beatles.
And we are here on the Excellence in Broadcasting Network.
Here's this here's this American thinker piece.
The controversy following revelations that U.S. intelligence agencies have monitored suspected terrorist-related communications 9-11 reflects a severe case of selective amnesia by the New York Times and other media opponents of President Bush.
They certainly didn't show the same outrage when a much more invasive and uh indiscriminate domestic surveillance program came to light during the Clinton administration in the 1990s.
At that time, the Times called the surveillance a necessity.
And Steve Croft, if if you made a phone call today or sent an email to a friend, there's a good chance that what you said or wrote was captured and screened by the country's largest intelligence agency.
That's some 60 minutes, February 27, 2000, to air uh or to describe the the uh echelon program.
The Times defended the existence of echelon when it reported on the program following uh revelations by the Australian government about the existence of the program.
Few dispute the necessity of a system like Echelon to apprehend foreign spies, drug traffickers, and terrorists.
The Times article quoted an NSA official in assuring readers that all agency activities are conducted in accordance with the highest constitutional legal and ethical standards.
Of course, that was May 27, 1999, when Bill Clinton and George W. Bush was president.
Even so, the article did admit that many are concerned the system could be abused to collect economic and political information.
Times is fabulous.
Echelon, it's absolutely great.
By the way, research has found out, you know, we got all these secret prisons.
We're supposedly flying these terrorists all over the world.
That program's called rendition, and it's finally fine, it's leaking its way in there to the mainstream press.
That rendition was created by the Clinton administration.
And utilized countless times to send prisoners, terrorists, whoever, uh, to secret locales, other countries where they could be interrogated, if you and of course that was never ever criticized by the media during the uh Clinton years.
John in Augusta, Georgia, you're next on the EIB network, sir.
Great to have you with us.
Hey, it's nice to talk to you again, Professor.
Thank you.
I was reading the uh online blurb from uh Dick Morris the other day.
Uh linked on Drudge.
And they're saying the country's turning towards the left.
Yeah, I have I I saw that.
I I've I've I got it here from the archives in uh in preparation for your call.
Uh title of his piece is America is shifting leftward.
How did how did you uh read it?
What did you take from it?
I didn't think I disagreed.
You didn't think you disagreed?
You didn't think you disagreed, you disagreed.
No, I disagreed.
You disagreed, yes.
And uh I'll tell you why.
Okay.
When when things are tight, it seems that the country becomes conservative.
When the economy's down, when uh when we're threatened as we are now, when things are fat and everybody's happy, then all of a sudden, just like everybody else, it gets paid on a Friday night.
You've got a lot of money in your pocket, and you're feeling very expansive.
Yeah, I don't think.
Yeah, I have a lot of money in my pocket every night, but uh Fridays are cool too.
Um but me, folks.
I'm having food my birthday today, cut me some slack.
Let's let me get in, because I'm glad you brought this up out there, John.
Uh, because there's a uh some interesting stuff in Morris's piece.
His piece America is shifting leftward.
Now I'll tell you why he says that.
The generic party ballot for Congress, for example, has now swallowed into a 13-point democratic edge while Bush's job approval hangs in the forties, and his advisors are relieved it's no longer a lot lower.
Why the leftward move?
By the way, his numbers at 49, I think.
The latest poll is for they're not reporting it, his approval numbers at 49, I think in one of these CNN or ABC polls, but regardless, a big part of the reason for the leftward move is the success the Bush administration's had in solving and hence diminishing the importance of the Republican agenda.
Taxes have been cut.
We've not had a terror attacks at September 11th.
This is your point out there, John, and trial lawyers are on the defensive.
The issues that remain energy, environment, health care, social security, usually are democratic and liberal.
Then you have the drip, drip, drip of Iraqi casualties isn't helping Bush any.
Tom Delay's done more to hurt the GOP than any Democrat has.
But the fundamental reason for the liberal drift is the salience of issues normally defined with the left.
To reverse the situation, Bush has three options.
Fight the Democrats on issues that are already in play but have a Republican skew.
B, raise new issues that have a built-in skew right.
Look, I I have all the respect in the world for Dick Morris as a pollster, and I think that's what this is the result of polling.
Generic ballots, I don't think mean anything.
I hear about these polls that say Senator Foghorn against an unnamed opponent.
The unnamed opponent always wins.
How can you vote against nobody?
But somebody's name on the ballot's gonna have people that oppose him.
So the unnamed of these generic ballots you prefer Democrat or Republican.
I don't put a lot of stock in it.
But look, this is this is talking about Republican Party versus Democrat Party.
And that to me is not liberalism versus conservatism.
In the Republican Party, I said earlier, the Republican Party has a lot to do with its fortunes.
It's not going to be up to the Democrats or the Liberals imploding.
They need to get back fast tracking the conservative agenda.
They really do need to do this in all regards.
That's how they're going to win.
That's how they always have win.
One.
And when they when they start ignoring it, start listening to the critics of the left and starting to mollify them, that's when they get in trouble, and that's what's happened here.
It really isn't difficult.
It's not they call it political science, but but recent history is uh good teacher.
But let's look at health care.
Uh Dick Morris says that health care, big Democrat issue.
And uh the Republicans can't compete.
Democrats, because that's what people are going to care about because we're now secure.
Taxes have been cut, the economy is rolling.
Ah, health care.
All right, fine.
The Democrats have been running on health care as long as I can remember.
John Kerry ran on health care.
Well, if anybody remembers what he ran.
But do you hear what Kerry did?
Kerry is in India.
John Kerry's in India warning people about the threat posed by Iran's nuclear program.
And he said, if they don't watch it, we're going to have to go to the UN Security Council.
Now, he said it in India, so in his mind he didn't say it.
Because he didn't say it here.
But just keep a sharp eye on that.
Now he wants to go to the UN to deal with it, which is where we have been dealing with it, Mohammed Al Baradai and the and the and the Europeans.
But regardless.
I everybody thinks health care is a winning issue for the Democrats.
I don't see it.
I don't see the Democrats winning in the last five years.
I I don't I I just don't I forgive me.
But I think there's a lot of fear built in, and I think there's a lot of there's a lot of trust in some of these traditions that I think evolve and change, voting patterns, identity issue, identity with certain parties and so forth.
I hear in the State of the Union speech that one of the president's initiatives is going to be health savings accounts.
Well, all right, fine.
That's excellent.
If that's true, if that happens, health savings accounts is the only way we're going to get started on reducing the astronomically outrageous costs of daily health care.
And that's not a and the liberals are going to oppose it.
They want big government health care.
People don't want big government.
I don't care what the economic circumstances are, and we can make hay on that.
And we're back executing a signed host duties flawlessly here on the Excellence and Broadcasting Network.
Can I can I draw you a little uh comparison there?
I don't know how many of you people remember the debate between Rick Lazio and Hillary Rodham Rodham during her first campaign for uh uh Senate slash president uh in New York.
Remember during that debate, Lazio proposed that they both refused to take certain kinds of campaign contributions, and out of his jacket pocket he pulled a piece of paper, and he dared.
He dared walk over to the podium behind which Mrs. Rodham Rodham was standing, and asked her to join him in signing it.
And for weeks thereafter, we heard about what a brute he was.
He was almost like a predator stalking her.
He was horrible.
What was he thinking?
How can he be so insensitive?
You don't do that to the girl.
Right.
And we saw pictures of it.
We saw video instant replay for weeks in that campaign.
What's the one thing missing in the Martha Alito?
I know that's not the name she uses, but the elite of Mrs. Alito crying.
They're not showing, they're not showing us the pictures.
I mean, you've seen a couple of them, but they're not on the daily video loop on any network.
You're not seeing it.
And without the picture, I don't know really how powerful the impact will be and how lasting.
To me, I don't need a picture.
I was so outraged by it, you know.
I was practically spitting, but it's interesting.
And we're not getting any New York Times put the picture on page, I think A twenty seven.
A little thumbnail picture in the lower left hand part of the in the lower part of the page.
Uh so we're not getting the picture associated with it.
But here, ladies and gentlemen, is the moment that it happened.
This is what made her tear up.
It was the praise for her husband and their kids from Vice President Graham, not the attacks from Democrats that made her um uh cry.
The the she was she was crying because she had endured all of this abuse.
She had she had heard all of these attacks on her husband.
And Graham's line of questioning, the AP reported Lindsay Graham made her cry because Lindsay Graham accused her husband of being a bigot.
Here's how it actually uh went.
I'm not any kind of a bigot on the.
No, sir, you're not.
And you know why I believe that?
Not because she just said it, but that's a good enough reason because you seem to be a decent honorable man.
I've got reins of quotes from people who have worked with you, African American judges, glowing quotes about who you are, the way you've lived your life, law clerks, men and women, black and white, your colleagues who say that Sam Alito, whether I agree with him or not, is a really good man.
And you know why I believe you when you say that you disavow those quotes because the way you have lived your life and the way you and your wife are raising your children.
Let me tell you this guilt by association is gonna drive good men and women away from wanting to sit where you're sitting.
Judge Leto, I am sorry that you've had to go through this.
I am sorry that your family has had to sit here and listen to this.
Yeah, and uh it was during that that she teared up and uh and and left the uh the hearing room and the APC.
He made her cry, Lindsay Graham made her cry.
Um you have to bastardize this to come to that conclusion.
You have to say her tears were tears of appreciation and happiness, as opposed to stress and disappointment, probably the uh the latter, but make no mistake.
So last night on uh the big show with John Gibson, interviewing Senator Charles Chuck Schumer at 555.
This one I was watching the first episode of season five of twenty-four.
Gibson said, So just your reaction apparently, Miss Alito broke down an emotional reaction to Senator Graham's apology for some of the things that have been said about her husband over the last couple of days.
What'd you think of that?
What'd you think of that?
I don't know anything about that.
I think the hearings have been very fair.
And you know, when you want a nomination to the highest court of the land, you want to learn everything about a nominee.
I can't think of anyone who questioned who was uh who was uh out of bounds in any way.
Uh the Alito family seems like a very nice family.
Oh, yeah, it's a very con they seem like a nice family to me for a bunch of jerks and I think uh a bunch of bigots.
I mean, they they come across well for it was a bunch of racists and pigs.
Uh I I don't know who loves out of bounds of it.
Senator Kennedy.
Oh, come on, nobody in our caucus takes Senator Kennedy seriously.
Everybody knows it's just the role he's got to play.
No, they don't know it.
On the Today Show today, Joe Biden.
Um Katie Couric says, when uh South Carolina Republican Lindsey Graham apologized for the Democrat attacks on uh Judge Alito, his wife, as you saw, left the hearing room in tears.
What was your reaction to that, Senator Biden?
And did it make you wonder, Senator, perhaps the questioning has uh become too aggressive, perhaps too personal?
Well, Katie, I wasn't in the room at the time, and I've never said uh anywhere near that.
I know you put my picture up in the screen, never said he was a bigot, never questioned at all.
As a matter of fact, in my opening statement that got a lot of coverage yesterday, I pointed out I didn't think he was.
Um and the fact is that uh I think what's happened here is the system's kind of broken.
Now, this next is interesting.
Senator Biden, who has been one of the many who has taken the wrench and dismantled the system, is now whining and moaning that it's broken.
And Katie said, Well, what's the alternative?
The alternative is just to vote on the Senate floor.
Just go to the Senate floor and debate the the nominee's statements, debate what the nominees said, debate with the the nominees' cases, and uh and just have have a flat debate.
Do you people do you need me to remind you of the absolute I don't know, outrage, idiocy, duplicity, deceit of this statement.
This is fabulous.
Here we have Senator Motormouth saying we should just have up or down votes on the judges.
No hearings.
Let's just go into the floor of the Senate and have debates.
Well, we could have been doing that if you people hadn't been filibustering a bunch of nominees, preventing any debate or vote whatsoever.
Have you heard of Charles Pickering?
Have you heard of Miguel Estrada?
Have you heard of Janice Rogers Brown, Bill Pryor, Priscilla Owen?
How many of these people were nominated for a number of years?
Could not get a vote, Senator Biden, because your party was filibustering the nomination.
Couldn't get a vote, couldn't even debate these two.
We were debating the process, not their confirmation, not their qualifications.
But to just close the hearings.
Now, when you heard that, aside from the real interpretation, the real analysis I just gave you.
Did it did strike you if you had if you did hear it, and this may be the first time you're hearing it, is your reaction sounds like they're giving up.
No.
No, no, no, no.
He's saying we could have destroyed this guy if it weren't for him.
All we gotta do is just let us go out and tar and feather these people.
The hell was giving them a chance to respond.
let's just go make these scurrilous charges for getting any evidence, and then let's vote.
The system's broken.
And this guy thinks he's brilliant.
This guy thinks he's going on television and make himself out to be one of the smartest guys in Washington.
Now, Ted Kennedy today brought up this issue of Vanguard, and and this is the investment uh uh vehicle in which Alito was involved, and all kinds of ethics people have looked at it.
He didn't have to recuse himself from the case.
Of course, none of that matters to Senator Kennedy, but it's because it's all about trying to still make a serious charge without any evidence.
And uh here is what Senator Kennedy said today.
We all uh made mistakes in all of us, and I've certainly made more than my share.
But when we have a statement on this, I think we could have cleared this whole up in the very beginning.
If we just said it was a mistake, it wasn't on the list.
I should have had been on the list as we're saying now.
We would never have had to get all this, but they go through this.
But we've had a series of explanations.
The light not going off when I looked over the vanguard case, the computer glitches, the changes of of the computers.
I wasn't told so uh by my clerks.
We had all of those statements, and so this was what troubles uh many of us.
I want to thank our chairman for the uh fair and dignified way that he's conducted the hearing, and I thank Judge Alito uh for your willingness to serve.
And uh thanks to your family for being here and for the sport they've given throughout these hearings.
Oh, my heart bleeds.
Go grab the Mondovany music and start playing the violins.
Um, he started calling him a bigot again after that, started down the whole road, and let's go to one more bite here, Diane Feinstein.
Can I take you back um to the uh uh campaign of 2000, the presidential campaign of 2000.
Remember during Clinton's last days in office.
He did something, I forgave signed something or didn't do something about mercury levels or lead levels or some such some arsenic.
Oh, yeah, ars arsenic in the water.
That's what it was, arsenic.
And all during the uh campaign, or not after the was it after no, it was it was uh uh I guess right after inauguration.
The first the first trick the Democrats through was Bush is poisoning our water.
The first thing he did, it poisoned the first thing he didn't connect the dots on 9-11, and then after failing to do that, then he put arsenic in the water.
Well, listen here to Diane Feinstein today talking to Judge Alito.
Under the Safe Drinking Water Act, the EPA ordered the chemical company to clean up the discharge to reduce the concentration of ammonia to a level that wouldn't threaten the health of the community.
The chemical company challenged this EPA decision.
You cast, as I understand it, the decisive vote to overrule the EPA, permitting the company to leave more ammonia in the aquifer, despite the EPA's determination that this level of ammonia would continue to endanger the water supply.
Okay, what's the message here?
The message here is if Alito is confirmed to the court, your kids will drink poisoned water.
Alito will poison the water for your kids because Alito doesn't care about about anything but satisfying big corporations.
And the second thing you have to conglean at the EPA, there's a far these libs are concerned.
No government agency ever screws up.
National Security Aids, uh, CIA, uh FBI uh they never screwed tortures in the military, uh they never screw up.
EPA, whatever they say is gospel.
But they're even dredging this back up.
Alito will poison your kids.
Alito doesn't care about polluted water.
You talk about recycling the old playbook.
How old is this?
We can go back ten years.
Here's Al Gore saying this in the White House briefing room.
White House logo is right behind him.
This from my TV show archives during Earth Week in 1996.
He's talking about the Republican Congress omnibus appropriations bill.
If this bill ever became law, our drinking water would be dirtier, would make more people sick, and would kill more people.
There you have it.
Vice President Al Gore in 1996 Earth Day, claiming Republicans were going to kill more people.
And they are still going back to that well, so to speak, in their old playbook.
By the way, uh Judge Alito's interrogation Inquisition is over.
Uh wrapped up about an hour ago.
Yep.
Forty 45 minutes ago or so.
The last question wrapped up.
Don't know what their last question was, don't know who asked it, don't care.
Now we get these exciting panels.
We hope they bring Dojack back.
Made that plea yesterday to the Democrats, please please bring in Stephen Dojack so he can make his uh his statements.
But that's that's the next thing.
We get all these liberal groups now come in there and start tarring and feathering the guy.
Uh we'll take a break here.
We'll be back at uh a lot of your phone calls to get to as we continue, so sit tight.
Let's go to Rockland, New York, as we go back to the phones.
This is Eileen, and it's uh great to have you on the program today.
Thank you.
Oh, thank you, Russian.
Really, what an honor and a privilege, not just to speak to you, but on your birthday.
Thank you.
This is spectacular.
I appreciate that.
I know you too.
And I hope your staff sings for you, you know.
But anyway, I just wanted to let you know.
New York, as you know, has two.
If they start singing, I can unplug the implant and I won't hear a thing.
They love you.
We who love America, love life, and and try and protect our children from liberal predators.
Love you, Rush.
Um You know New York and our situation here with our senators that are so full of themselves and liberalism.
You know, we're in dire straits, but we have hope.
We have you know, a lot of hope.
But as you know, Senator Clinton is not a dumb woman at all, okay?
And I uh I uh wait a second.
Yeah.
I'm not gonna say she's dumb, but I don't think that she's anywhere near the smartest woman in the world, which is uh the image they crafted for her.
Well, exactly.
And um I think she'd be lost without her husband and lost without her advisors.
Absolutely.
She couldn't be worse.
You know, you really she wouldn't have gotten elected anything if it weren't for Monica Lewinsky.
She couldn't she she had to run as the wronged woman who hung in there like Tammy Winnett.
Well, here stood by her man, suffered that abuse, stuck in with that reprobate, and it's her time to be rewarded because she was the brains behind the white house anyway, so went the image.
I have never bought it.
Well, I always felt very sorry for her husband.
I always have.
I believe he's living his hell on earth right now.
But anyway, um uh as you know, she's m magnificent at utilizing whoever and whatever she can to gain power.
The woman is extremely power hungry.
And uh she's a dangerous woman because she's probably so far left.
No, she's not.
She's not I mean, she's no dangerous than any other liberals, puts your pants on one leg at a time like every other guy.
This well, there I there's no reason to have this uh this inordinate extraordinary amount of fear about her over anybody else.
I think the reason Hillary fears people more than anything else is not just who she is, but the fact that the media is gonna whitewash everything and promote her and for example.
What your your question uh is is what what is your real question about?
My question is, you know, will she go ahead and vote to confirm you know Samuel Alito, Judge, oh very wonderful judge, because uh she wants to, of course, sit in the White House in two thousand and eight, as everyone knows she does.
Uh you know what?
I and I'm not trying to be insolent, because you've been very nice.
I don't care.
You know, I I'm sorry.
I'm not saying this to be disrespectful to you.
I know you're a New Yorker.
Uh I've lived there, and I I I totally relate to what it's like.
I go to Connecticut, I run into Republicans there.
Life is hell on earth.
I mean, uh I understand it.
You live in a blue state and you're Republican, it's and you listen to Hillary being praised and and and treated like a like a like a god, all the I understand all that.
I don't care how she votes, because her vote is not going to determine anything.
The question about her vote is will she distance herself with a kooks or will she vote with a kooks?
I don't know.
I don't care.
What's more interesting to me about Mrs. Clinton today than anything else is guess who she's meeting with?
Harry Belafonte, who just called George W. Bush, the world's worst terrorist.
She's meeting today, or did yesterday with Harry Belafonte.
And is going to be calling him a great American.
Now that's more instructive than if he votes for Alito or not.
Will you be back, folks?
Don't go away.
People are wondering how do you have DVDs of season five of 24 when it hadn't even started yet?
I'll explain.
Some of you must not have heard me uh talking about this yesterday, but don't go nuts out there.
▲
Export Selection