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.
You missed it again.
There's that wacko judge in Vermont making excuses for his 60-day sentence in 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 brilliants, 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 and the majority decisions that occur in life to be made because too many Americans are simply unable.
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 what they have to do.
And Snerdley said, well, but you know, big government, big government, 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 go to work to 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, the 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, the American Thinker had a great piece yesterday, New York Times stories in 1999.
Fact, let me find that here.
It's just a, now I got to remember what stack I put this in.
It's not in this 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 Echelon and, well, it's not in this stack either.
The point is the New York Times totally supported 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.
Well, it's part of the NSA, but it's worse than this particular scandal is being alleged to be.
It takes everything, emails, everything, whatever's in the air out there in the ether, bam, goes into echelon and they keywords search it and they come up with their profiles.
And the New York Times say, oh, this is a brilliant program.
Few would disagree.
We have to engage in this kind of surveillance in order to catch terrorists and drug dealers and whoever else.
And so 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.
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, the government doing this, the National Security Agency.
Big government spies on people.
Big government can't be trusted.
They're killing themselves with one of their own legs of the stool.
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 is liberalism is governments, 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 have to include our buddies at Fox in this.
I was watching one of the episodes of 24, the new season.
This has been a hectic.
This is getaway week for me because I got leaving for Palm Springs and the Bob Hope Chrysler Classic on Sunday.
And this week has just been jam-packed with things that I have to do.
And so I had to do a clothes altered yesterday afternoon, haircut.
And I had to be home because these people come to my house.
I had to go home and be there for that.
It's just schedule jam-packed.
One's there for a half hour, another one's there for another half hour.
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 8 o'clock.
So, well, I was going to watch the DVDs last night.
I couldn't do that.
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 and get ready for the dinner.
So I plopped in the first DVD of season five of 24.
And I'm watching this.
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 was riveted.
This, to me, 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 an email about Alito's wife crying about 6 o'clock.
And I don't have TV.
Well, TV is I'm going to 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's 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 roundtable discussion.
Not just Fox, but all of these pundits analyze this 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 voters?
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 the human aspect of this did not reach these people.
A woman, the wife, 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 try to blame Lindsey 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 got to get used to this.
That's what the, well, that may be, but I was livid when I heard about it before I had seen anything.
I was livid.
I got so mad at these that this is the bottom of the barrel.
These people are absolutely inhumane.
I had a riff yesterday about how Alito is 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.
This is inexcusable.
There's no reason for this kind of assault on a decent person's reputation and 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 around.
I got CNN on.
And there's my friend Wolf Blitzer.
And he's got his two guests on there, Jeffrey Toobin and Jeff Greenfield.
And 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, not 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 the detachment here was just stunning to me.
So anyway, after I got all bent out of shape about it, and I had to go up, 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 got back after dinner, got back about 10, 10.30 and DVDs.
So I watched them all, watched them all.
I was up watching until about 1.30, 2 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 timeout here, folks.
We will be back.
We will continue in mere moments.
Stay with us.
Hey, it's your birthday, right?
This is the Beatles.
And we are here on the Excellence in Broadcasting Network.
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 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 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 from 60 Minutes, February 27, 2000, to air or to describe the echelon program.
The Times defended the existence of Echelon when it reported on the program following 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 not 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.
The Times is fabulous.
Echelon, it's absolutely great.
By the way, research has found out, you know, we've got all these secret prisons.
We're supposedly flying these terrorists all over the world.
That program is called Rendition, and it's finally finally 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, to secret locales, other countries, where they could be interrogated, if you will.
And of course, that was never, ever criticized by the media during the 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, Mr. President.
Thank you.
I was reading the online blurb from Dick Morris the other day, linked on Drudge, and they're saying the country's turning towards the left.
I saw that.
I got it here from the archives in preparation for your call.
Title of his piece is America is Shifting Leftward.
How did you read it?
What did you take from it?
I didn't think I disagreed.
You didn't think you disagreed?
Pardon?
You didn't think you disagreed?
You disagreed.
No, I disagreed.
You disagreed, yeah.
And I'll tell you why.
Okay.
When things are tight, it seems that the country becomes conservative.
When the economy's down, 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 that's a good idea.
Yeah, I have a lot of money in my pocket every night, but Fridays are cool, too.
Pardon me, folks.
I'm having food on my birthday today.
Cut me some slack.
Let me get in because I'm glad you brought this up out there, John, because there's 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 swollen to a 13-point Democratic edge while Bush's job approval hangs in the 40s, and his advisors are relieved it's no longer a lot lower.
Why the leftward move?
By the way, his number's at 49, I think.
The latest poll is, they're not reporting it.
His approval number is at 49 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 attack since 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 has 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 have all the respect in the world for Dick Morris's upholster, 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 going to have people that oppose him.
So the unnamed and these generic ballots.
You prefer Democrat or Republican?
I don't put a lot of stock in it.
But look, this is talking about Republican Party versus Democrat Party.
And that to me is not liberalism versus conservatism.
You know, Republican, 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 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, I don't call it political science, but recent history is a good teacher.
But let's look at health care.
Dick Morris says that health care is a Democrat issue.
And 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, healthcare.
All right, fine.
The Democrats have been running on health care long as I can remember.
John Kerry ran on health.
Well, if anybody remembers what he read.
But you heard 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, Mohamed Al-Baradai and the Europeans.
But regardless, 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 just don't.
Forgive me, but I think there's a lot of fear built in, and I think 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 assigned host duties flawlessly here on the Excellence in Broadcasting Network.
Can I draw you a little comparison here?
I don't know how many of you people remember the debate between Rick Lazio and Hillary Rodham Rodham during her first campaign for Senate slash president 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 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.
It was horrible.
What was he thinking?
How could 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 Mrs. Alito crying.
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.
We're not getting any.
New York Times put the picture on page, I think, A27, a little thumbnail picture in the lower left-hand part of the page.
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 cry.
She was crying because she had endured all of this abuse.
She had heard all of these attacks on her husband.
And Graham's line of questioning, the AP reporter, Lindsey Graham, made her cry because Lindsey Graham accused her husband of being a bigot.
Here's how it actually went.
I'm not any kind of a big adult.
No, sir, you're not.
And you know why I believe that?
Not because you just said it, but that's a good enough reason because you seem to be a decent, honorable man.
I've got reams 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 going to drive good men and women away from wanting to sit where you're sitting.
Judge Lido, 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 it was during that that she teared up and left the hearing room and the AP said, he made her cry.
Lindsey Graham made her cry.
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 latter, but make no mistake.
So last night on the big show with John Gibson, interviewing Senator Charles Chuck Schumer at 5.55, this is when I was watching the first episode of season five of 24.
Gibson said, so just your reaction, apparently, Ms. Alito broke down in 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 out of bounds in any way.
The Alito family seems like a very nice family.
Well, yeah, it's a very condition.
They seem like a nice family to me for a bunch of jerks and a bunch of bigots.
I mean, they come across well for a bunch of racists and pigs.
I don't know who was out of bounds.
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, Katie Courick says, when South Carolina Republican Lindsey Graham apologized for the Democrat attacks on 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 become too aggressive, perhaps too personal?
Well, Katie, I wasn't in the room at the time, and I've never said anywhere near that.
I know you put my picture up on the screen.
Never said he was a bigot, never questioned that 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.
And the fact is that 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 nominee's statements, debate what the nominee said, debate with the nominees' cases, and just have a flat debate.
Do you people, do you need me to remind you of the absolute, I don't know, outrage, idiocy, duplicitness, 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 people.
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 strike you if you had, if you did hear it, this may be the first time you're hearing it, is your reaction, it 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 got to do, just let us go out and tar and feather these people.
To hell with giving them a chance to respond.
Let's just go make these scurrilous charges, forgetting 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 this is the investment vehicle in which Alito was involved in 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 here is what Senator Kennedy said today.
We've all made mistakes, and 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 it just said it was a mistake, it wasn't on the list.
I should have 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 the computers.
I wasn't told by my clerks.
We had all of those statements, and so this was what troubles many of us.
I want to thank our chairman for the fair and dignified way that he's conducted the hearing.
And I thank Judge Alito for your willingness to serve.
And thanks to your family for being here and for the support they've given throughout these hearings.
Oh, my heart bleeds.
Go grab the Mandovani music and start playing the violins.
Yeah, I know.
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 to the campaign of 2000, the presidential campaign of 2000?
Remember, during Clinton's last days in office, he did something.
I forgave him, signed something or didn't do something about mercury levels or lead levels or some such arsenic.
Oh, yeah, arsenic in the water.
That's what it was, arsenic.
And all during the campaign, or not after the campaign, was it after no, it was right after inauguration, the first trick the Democrats started was Bush is poisoning our water.
The first thing he did, it poisoned.
First day, 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 anything but satisfying big corporations.
And the second thing you have to glean it, the EPA, as far as these libs are concerned, no government agency ever screws up.
National Security Agency, CIA, FBI, they never screw tortures in the military.
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 10 years.
Here's Al Gore saying this in the White House briefing room.
White House logo is right behind him.
This is 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, 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, Judge Alito's interrogation, inquisition is over.
It wrapped up about an hour ago, 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 Dujack back.
Made that plea yesterday to the Democrats.
Please bring in Stephen Dujak so make his statements.
But that's the next thing.
We get all these liberal groups now to come in there and start tarring and feathering the guy.
We'll take a break here.
We'll be back.
Got 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 great to have you on the program today.
Thank you.
Oh, thank you, Rush.
And 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 do.
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.
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 try and protect our children from liberal predators love you, Rush.
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?
Wait a second.
Yeah.
I'm not going to say she's dumb, but I don't think that she's anywhere near the smartest woman in the world, which is the image they crafted for her.
Well, exactly.
I think she'd be lost without her husband and lost without her advisors.
She couldn't be worse.
She wouldn't have gotten elected anything if it weren't for Monica Lewinsky.
She had to run as the wronged woman who hung in there like Tammy Winnette.
Well, stood by her man, suffered debt 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 have always felt very sorry for her husband.
I always have.
I believe he's living his hell on earth right now.
But anyway, as you know, she's magnificent at utilizing whoever and whatever she can to gain power.
The woman is extremely power-hungry.
And 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.
Put your pants on one leg at a time like every other guy.
There's no reason to have 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 going to whitewash everything and promote her.
And for example, your question is, what is your real question about this?
My question is, will she go ahead and vote to confirm Samuel Alito, Judge, very wonderful judge?
Because she wants to, of course, sit in the White House in 2008, as everyone knows she does.
You know what?
I'm not trying to be insolent because you've been very nice.
I don't care.
I'm sorry.
I'm not saying this to be disrespectful to you.
I know you're a New Yorker.
I've lived there and I totally relate to what it's like.
I go to Connecticut.
I run into Republicans there.
Life is hell on earth.
I mean, I understand it.
You live in a blue state and you're a Republican and you listen to Hillary being praised and treated like a god.
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 she 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 talking about this yesterday, but don't go nuts out there.
▲
Export Selection