All Episodes
Jan. 17, 2006 - Rush Limbaugh Program
35:34
January 17, 2006, Tuesday, Hour #3
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
You know, I've had a lot of build up for this segment.
We've been hyping this the entire program, but in this case, I think the hype is going to be matched by the reality.
I'm joined right now by Mary Madeline, past and present advisor to both Presidents Bush, Vice President Shaney, top Republican strategist, pundit, and all around uh you're kind of a renaissance woman, aren't you?
Oh, and you're don't spin a spinner, Mark.
All right, I won't.
I I won't.
Mary Madeline is here because you're gonna plug something in a minute, and I'm actually intrigued by what it is that you're plugging.
I think it's kind of interesting.
But I've got some questions I want to ask you.
It's one of the many things I'm working on, so I'm here to say hello.
Well, it's nice to hear from you again.
Happy New Year.
Uh I think it is a happy new year because what happened last week in Washington, the Senate Judiciary Committee was I ought absolutely sensational.
The American people got to see President Bush's nominee for the Supreme Court, Sam Alito, and saw a very intelligent, reasoned man, a person who is going to be a credit to the Supreme Court, a brilliant person, and they saw I felt the true colors of the Democratic Party in all of its pettiness, judgmentalism, and viciousness.
I think that this played absolutely terribly for the Democrats.
Do you agree with that?
It it did, and uh it's almost laughable.
I mean, Kennedy has become a caricature of a parody of himself to call Alito a bigot based on a satire written by somebody he never saw.
I mean, not they're incompetent, in addition to being impotent, but I am a you know, glass half full person.
I was saying to my friends, particularly the ones that worked on both Judge Alito and Judge Roberts'nominations and confirmations, they have contributed by getting these two stellar men on the bench, not only to the country today, but for generations to come.
These are two outstanding justices, and that's what leadership in the presidency is about.
So I I'm finding the Democrats and the and the Liberals so laughable these days that otherwise you get mad, you get too angry.
I'm I'm Well, I think you get ma you get angry when you think that it's working what they're doing.
But it's not working.
That's my point.
It clearly isn't working.
I mean, you've got Joe Biden.
In 30 minutes, he asks five questions, one of which ran on for about 11 minutes.
The point man that they make on ethics is Kennedy.
I mean, if the Republicans wanted to script this thing to make the Democrats look stupid, they couldn't have done a better job.
I you know, it's completely true, but I talked to my dad and who's from the great Midwest, as you know, and I get so exercised on my calm down if th they wouldn't be as as bad as they are if they had anything to say, had any agenda, had any arguments to make.
You know, the country could use some uh positive opposition if there is such a thing, if that's not an oxymoron, but they're so bereft of ideas and they don't even know what their own philosophy is that they're reduced to in every case.
I don't care if it's Alito or Roberts or whoever it is, it's they're if Bush did it, it's bad.
Bush is an idiot, Bush is a dope, Bush is a liar.
Bush is now, you know, they're trying to impeach him.
El Gore was an absolute again, a caricature of a parody of himself yesterday.
Well, the American people are going, who are these people?
They're putting up good justices, they sh in the uh which is the president's prerogative.
Of course the president.
If someone is receiving or extending a call to a and terrorist number, why wouldn't the president want to find out or have his national security agency find out who it is?
It's all common we're we're doing what the Republicans are doing, or conservatives or President Bush are doing.
Resonate as a common sense way to govern, and and what they're doing is a Saturday night live.
Let me talk a go about the Republic and I think a lot of what's happening here with the Democrats is they have a base that's rather kooky that's so far out that so despises Bush, and they have to play to that base at least a little bit.
Well, let's talk a minute about the Republican base.
Right.
The fact of the matter is is that Sam Alito was the nominee because the conservative wing of the Republican Party stood up and objected to President Bush's first choice.
And I believe they served the president well.
They did.
By objecting, it is because the base Rose up.
It is because the base was sufficiently independent of the President and w that they said we can do better.
There are great people out there, Mr. President, choose someone else.
And I think that the Republican base, which is so often portrayed by the media as extreme right wing wacko nut jobs, acquitted itself very well here.
You are correct.
You are correct.
And you know what people who don't follow politics or don't aren't activists need to understand is that conservative activists, and I say that have this conversation with my dad all the time too.
I'm not a Republican, I'm a conservative.
And if you've been an activist and you've devoted your life to it, you you do it for ideas for a philosophy, for uh an agenda that's for America.
It's not about President Bush one or President Bush two or Allen, George Allen or John McCain, Brennan about a set of principles and and some of which I think we're violating right now.
And if the conservatives, a Republican majority does not do what they were elected to do, conservatives will do them a favor as they did President Bush in the in the Supreme Court fight and vote them out.
We are we don't need all this pork.
That's what we voted out.
It's not a culture of corruption, but there is there is too much spending, uh the unnecessary spending.
We're not against spending, but we're for some spending that makes sense for effective government.
And that's where we voted in a majority, and that's what's going to keep the majority, and they would be well advised in this leadership fight to pay attention to what conservatives across the country are complaining about.
Yeah, I mean the term is uh that you've heard, I'm sure, is going native, where very, very well intentioned conservatives come to Washington and they buy into this culture, they get tight with too many lobbyists, uh the uh Bramoff types, and end up forgetting what they believed in in the first place.
And I don't know that it's so much that they are making policy decisions that turn on their base, but they're making decisions with regard to spending money that has turned them into the very thing that they used to recoil against, which is spend, spend, spend, spend, spend because it's going to make someone out there happy.
And I think that there is a fair amount of frustration over it.
Well, ironically, it's not making will not make their constituents happy.
Constituents want what they need, but they generally conservative constituencies want a well-run, efficient and not a wasteful government.
And they're not, let's be clear about this.
Abramoff is a scumbag.
There's no particular party of the province on scumbags, and the system works that he's going to spend a lot of time in jail and has to re pay a lot of restitution for this.
But lobbying is one of the three professions protected by the Constitution, along with the clergy and the press.
You know, petitioning the government is a is an obligation of the citizenry.
Bribing the government should be punished, will be punished, and it's no province of either party.
But that we specifically ran and won against that sort of wasteful spending or we didn't, you know, we're not or not.
It was the Kip One.
It was the tip one Jim Wright Congress that these Republicans were elected to replace, and in some respects they are morphing into it.
I do think they have the ability to save themselves, though, with new leadership and a return to the ideas that I think their base once again the base is right.
Just as the base was right with regard to Alito as opposed to Harriet Myers, the base is screaming out at them, we don't want all this spending, we don't want all this pork.
We got want you guys to be true to the things that you say when you come back home and you talk to us.
You know, Mark, you keep saying the base and you're right, but I think the majority of the country, at least the plurality of the country, which would not consider themselves part of the conservative base, are for what you're describing.
They're for these common sense principles that are best reflected by a Republican party that's governing conservatively.
It's common sense conservativism.
And it it's not even a base operation.
I I doubt that, you know, a majority of the country would consider them cons themselves conservatives, yet they absolutely support the president on this it is not domestic spying.
It's called signals intelligence, which we have done since the civil war, which the president has constitutional authority to do, and he would be mouth easy not to do.
How can he say that given that the administration he served in did the same thing and a deputy attorney general testified in front of Congress that Jamie Garelic that you could that you could do this?
How it I mean, does El Gore, is he living in an alternate reality in which he doesn't remember that he was the vice president to Bill Clinton for eight years?
He I feel whenever you listen to him, that's what I'm saying.
It's a parody of a caricature of a parody.
It's like he's a thespian.
It's like he's trying out this voice, this loud booming voice, so he can string together a bunch of pejoratives on the president, completely fully forgetting that the it was Jamie Garelic who argued quite well and forcefully for the inherent authority in the Constitution for the President to be able to work for our security, who wiretapped without warrant, Alder James, the the spy, and we were all happy for it.
I mean, no, that this is the same with John Kerry.
They it's not just that they run against us, they run against themselves.
I mean look how effective and how quickly effective it was for the president when and the vice president Don Runso when we went on the offensive on Iraq to all we had to do is use their own words.
Why they supported take a regime change in the first place, which was the Clinton era uh policy initiative, and why we're in and using their own words, why he was a threat, why he's a threat in the threat in the region, why we all thought he had WND, all of that.
You just use their own words.
It's not just us that Democrats are running against.
They're running against themselves because they're running around in circles without an agenda without any principles.
We're joined by Mary Madeline.
Uh you're the editor-in-chief of Threshold Editions, which is a book publisher that is going to try to give voice to conservative books, and I want to ask you about that, and I'm crafty enough, Mary, that the only way I can ask you about that is if you stick around after the break, because I knew you'd be very interested, so this is my con job to make sure that you'd stick around through the breaks so we can talk so we can talk.
So we can talk I know, but it's just my nature.
Um so we uh You're so good at it.
Yeah, I learned from I I learned from past presidents.
Uh my name is Mark Belling sitting in for Rush.
Mark Belling sitting in for Rush Limbaugh.
We're joined by Mary Madeline, prominent Republican strategist and now editor in chief of Threshold Editions.
Tell us what that is, Mary.
You know, I love the new media, and we I'm quite confident that the conservative ascendancy is largely dependent on the new media.
But I love ancient the most ancient distribution system of ideas, which is books.
So I jumped at the idea of doing a stay-at-home mom job, which is cheaper conservative books for Simon and Schuster.
And of course the one I'm selling is the one that's first out, our first book, and we'll have many more to come, lots of conservative thinkers.
But this one is called Think, Why Critical Decisions Can't Be Made in the Blink of an Eye, which is, amongst other things, an answer to Blink, the power of thinking, which you know everyone's loved when he flipped the list because people think they can blink their way through life and they can't.
And why?
Uh, as all conservatives know, it takes a long time to understand philosophy and policies and the and the practice of getting them put into effect.
And it takes a long time and critically it's difficult to tr teach your kids and and educate your kids.
And it just I love this book.
Michael Legault is a uh I don't know, he's a he's not a liberal, he's sort of a libertarian conservative, but he's a he's an academic, but it's a it's exceptionally accessible book.
He's been on TV, you'll see more of them.
So the types of books and authors you're going to look for are primarily conservative.
There but there's a as you said, Mark, at the outset, there is a uh not amongst conservatives, but uh the public perception that there's one only one kind of conservative is there's a whole spectrum of conservatives from and we love to debate and discuss and move ideas from libertarianism to main street to economic conservatives to religious conservatives, social conservatives.
So all kinds of books like that.
Um the thing the thing is, we're gonna publish Ed Gillespie.
The thing that strikes me as interesting about this is this is Simon and Schuster.
This is a division of Simon and Schuster.
It seems to be an acknowledgement by the publishing industry that there is a huge market for conservative thought.
It used to be prior to Russia's first book, which I think changed everything, Rush wrote his first book, which became this monster seller, and suddenly there was a realization on the part of the publishing industry that people actually want to read conservative stuff out there, but by and large, a lot of these books ended up being done by a smaller publisher, Regneri did a lot of them.
Are we reaching a point in which this one arm of the mainstream media, large publisher, does recognize that there are a whole lot of people out there who do have an interest in reading conservative material?
Absolutely.
They they completely understand that I love when liberalism uh accedes to and concedes to capitalism.
But what's what I've seen it happen at the other big publishing houses is they start a conservative line and then it morphs into you know uh uh mainstream, if not liberal line.
But why as long as I'm there and Louise Burke's there, who's my colleague in in New York, it will be a conservative line.
But a thinking conservative line in the sense that these ideas, it's worth ruminating on.
And you know, I love the blogs, I'm a blogger and all that.
I love to sit with the book and read the same page over and over and over and think about it, put it down.
So that was the next question I was gonna ask you.
Everybody now has a blog, including a lot of pretty good people.
Victor Davis Victor Davis Hansen is great.
There are some brilliant people who do blogs.
Will blogging displace the book market.
No, it can't, and I don't think they want to, but it certainly is displaced uh having no information.
It's it I love it.
I I love them, I read them all.
Why is it not a threat then?
But they can nothing can ever replace a book.
Television didn't replace books.
Right n you know, it's all of a piece, but to be fully informed and and enjoy learning, you can use all these dis different forms.
And you know what else?
TV's not gonna go away.
Uh, you said the other day, I don't just want to c try to convert you, uh, that you're not a fan of twenty-four.
Twenty-four is the smartest TV.
It uh it's the smartest TV I've ever seen.
It's completely riveting, and it does tell a story of counterterrorism people in government.
We only hear the bad stuff, or we only want to hear what people who are against President Bush leak.
There are so many so many doggedly good counter terrorism people out there putting their lives on the line.
And I don't know how Joel Cerno and and Cochrane capture that.
That's really smart TV.
And you know what what they're proving to the T V to the audiences out there that people will work.
They'll work at books, they'll work at TV shows, they'll work to find this information on the blog, they'll work to listen to you and Rush for three hours a day, because they want the information because they want to make good decisions about their life and and their kids' futures.
Well, Mary, if you tell me twenty-four is that good, I'll give it another try.
I tried it for twenty minutes and I didn't like it.
I don't even watch TV.
This is this is I'm I told my kids and my husband, if anyone talk it's an my Maddie, my oldest girl is like obsessed with it too.
If anyone talks to us, you know, during the time that 24 is on, you mentioned your husband does he like the show?
James has ADHD, so anything that's more than twenty-four seconds is beyond.
Well, that that's that's my problem.
They say this is the fastest-paced show that there that there is, and I man, you gotta watch this for t twenty-four weeks just to get through one day.
I don't know that I can handle it.
Oh, it just give it a try.
All right, enough shilling for that.
We allowed you to show for the publishing arm, which I'm intrigued by, and I should be nicer.
I should be nicer about it because I know, see, you know, maybe I could submit a book.
No, Mark, here's what I'm shilling for.
It's it's the same concept with Rush.
No one thought this would work, and it's worked for how many decades now?
That who's gonna sit and listen for three hours a day, that people don't have the span of concentration for ideas.
Of course they do.
I'm not thank you for letting me show for all that stuff.
I don't have a dog in 24.
I'm just saying I'm shelling for smart.
And that one of the Democrats' worst uh things about them that I can't stand.
They think people are stupid.
Oh, they're not gonna understand Social Security, they're not gonna understand Medicare reform, they're not gonna understand tax reform, they don't know how to take care of themselves.
We have to do everything for them.
It's it's insane, it's nonsense.
And that's so I'm an advocate for anything that's of accessible to the public that is smart, from blogs to TV to radio to books.
Let me ask you one last question here.
Is there any presidential candidate that's caught your eye that you really like?
Republicans.
Yes.
I'm as always very proud of our whole team that's lining up.
Yeah, I asked about one in particular.
I like George Allen and I like it, although I I don't want to tinge him or hurt him or jinx him or anything, right?
I am not formally a part of any campaign, but he is a con he is a really great, consistent conservative Jeffersonian conservative.
Senator from Virginia who's shown an ability to win in a swing stage.
Well, not only that he was previously a governor of this state.
And I think those those skill sets, the executive skill sets are critical for what I've seen both President Bush's and President Reagan do in office.
You gotta have the kind of management skills that go to governors more than senators.
So I like all of our guys.
I love Mayor Julian, I love him and can't love them all, but I Senator Allen is and he's a he's a visionary and he looks forward.
Okay.
Great.
Thanks, Mary.
Mary Madeline, new editor in chief of Threshold Editions and all around uh fascinating Republican strategist uh has been with me.
When we come back after the break, the Democrats are saying they will allow a vote on Alito, but just not quite yet.
And Teddy Kennedy is giving up his membership in the Owl Club.
I'm Mark Belling sitting in for Rush.
Mark Belling sitting in for Rush.
The Democrats now say they will allow a vote in the Judiciary Committee on Judge Alito January 24th, one week from today.
In the meantime, Ted Kennedy is announcing he's going to quit the Owl Club.
I've got to give you the background of this.
During the Alito hearings last week, the Democrats, particularly Senator Kennedy, pressed Judge Alito over and over and over again about his membership in an alumni group from Princeton.
Judge Alito, of course, attended Princeton.
He was apparently a member of, at least for a very brief period of time after leaving Princeton, an alumni group that included in one of its publications a satire about the number of minority and female students at Princeton University.
There was no indication he was ever a member of the organiz, an active member of the organization that he went to any meetings, that he was a ringleader of it, but he apparently did send in a check that allowed him to be a member shortly after he graduated.
And Kennedy was pressing on this and pressing on it and pressing on it, suggesting that they needed to subpoena documents from the organization to see just exactly how active Alito was a member in this organization, because after all, it would be terrible for a justice of the Supreme Court to be part of an organization that would hold views like this, even though the only views that Kennedy criticized were part of a satirical piece written better than twenty years ago.
As it turns out, Senator Kennedy, who makes this enormous stink about Alito, who was a very brief member of a group that Kennedy didn't like, this very same Senator Kennedy has for years been a member of a Harvard University organization called the Owl Club.
The Owl Club is limited to men.
So you've got Kennedy carrying out about Alito's membership in an organization that he apparently hasn't had anything to do with for two decades, while at the same time he's a member of a club from Harvard that is part of its bylaws does not allow women to join.
In fact, this organization, the Owl Club is what it's called, is so politically incorrect that it was booted off campus by Harvard twenty years ago.
When asked about this, Kennedy says, Well, it's just the social club.
It's like a fraternity.
But Harvard says it's not a fraternal organization.
It's a part of the institution that they could not abide because of its views.
So last night on WHDH TV in Boston, Kennedy was interviewed by Andy Hiller and says, quote, I joined when I, 52 years ago, I was a member of the Owl Club, which was basically a fraternal organization.
Then asked whether he is still a member, Kennedy gave the following response.
And I am not making this up.
This is Kennedy's response to the question, are you still a member?
I'm not a member.
In the same sentence, he says he's no longer a member, but then acknowledges that he continues to pay the membership dues of 100 a year.
So he's not a member, but he sends in his membership dues.
He now, of course, now that he's been called upon this blatant hypocrisy says he's going to quit the club, quote, as fast as I can.
In the meantime, the Democrats, as I indicated, have delayed the vote on Judge Alito for one week in the Judiciary Committee.
Here's what's going on.
Their base is so appalled at the selection of Alito that they are begging the Democrats to not allow this thing to go through.
The problem, of course, is that there are more than enough votes to confirm Alito.
There's no real desire on the part of the Democrats to filibusty this thing, so they just want to buy some time on the clock and call a couple of timeouts so they can find something, anything, to try to dredge up in the next week or so to use against Alito.
So far, they've found absolutely nothing.
The only two things they've been able to run with were Judge Alito's participation in a case involving the Vanguard Mutual Funds and this organization that he was part of, briefly, after he left Princeton University.
That's all they have.
Aledo's life is so clean and so straight that there is nothing there.
But they're going to run around and spend the next week trying to find it.
They're probably calling Anita Hill right now.
You've met Judge Alito, haven't you?
Are you sure he didn't sexually harass you?
They're looking for anything, rather than allow the judge to go through.
At this point, there doesn't appear to be anything that's going to stop Judge Alito from being confirmed.
Page one of today's New York Times report, issued breathlessly.
The FBI, apparently, was getting all sorts of bad leads from the National Security Agency based on the wiretapping, domestic wiretapping that the NSA was doing.
The story goes on to suggest that FBI director Robert Mueller raised concerns about the legal rationale for the program, and that FBI agents were spending all sorts of time chasing down bum leads.
Well, of course most of the leads were bad.
Ask any cop about what a law enforcement investigation entails.
You're always chasing down leads that don't pan out.
Eventually something does.
As for Mueller questioning the legality of this, yeah, that's what he did.
He asked, is this legal?
The Justice Department rendered an opinion that it is, and he was fine and he was okay with that.
They're still on this thing, however.
The ACLU is now filing suit in federal court to stop domestic spying by the Bush administration, to stop the surveillance.
They claim that it is illegal.
The ACLU was totally silent on this question during the Clinton era, when President Clinton and his administration engaged in wiretapping and physical searches of Americans without warrants, when national security was at stake.
In the meantime, Al Gore, who's living in his own world and denying his own past, is saying that President Bush violated the law, quote, repeatedly and insistently.
Through the domestic spying program, Gore says that the president's actions were disgraceful.
Quote, a president who breaks the law is a threat to the very structure of our government.
Really?
A president who breaks the law is a threat to the very structure of our government.
He was the vice president of a president who was impeached for lying under rose.
Suddenly Al Gore is appalled at the notion of a president who breaks the law.
Well, when did that start?
When did Al get religion about being bothered by a president who may be breaking the law?
As for whether or not President Bush broke the law.
Did Gore's boss and patron President Clinton break the law when surveillance was conducted on Aldrich Ames, who was suspected of and later convicted of selling secrets of the United States to Israel.
Gore apparently wasn't bothered by that.
I think what it's come to is these guys are now just willing to say anything, whether it's Teddy Kennedy carrying on about Samuel Alito's membership in an organization when he Kennedy himself belongs to an organization, far less acceptable.
Now Al Gore carrying on a President Bush's surveillance program, when Gore was part of an administration that did the exact same thing.
They are grasping at straws and willing to say anything, even if it contradicts their own past, even if it's in direct contradiction with their own backgrounds.
My name is Mark Belling, and I'm sitting in for Rush Limbaugh.
I'm Mark Belling sitting in for Rush Limbaugh.
It really is infuriating when you see the President of the United States so determined to protect us from another terror hit such as occurred on nine eleven.
And following through and not only doing something which is logical and good, following up on information that the NSA gets about potential terror contacts here in the United States, but then to see another political party demonize him and pretend that didn't support the same tactics.
When the Clinton administration did the same thing and no one was bothered by it, when by the way the stakes were a lot less, the Aldrich Ames case, he was someone who was selling state secrets.
In this instance, you are talking about an organization that has already succeeded in killing thousands of Americans.
Las Vegas and Kevin.
Kevin, you're on Russia's program with Mark Belling.
Hello, Mark.
Thank you for having me on.
A greater mind than mine will have to follow up on this.
I pray someone's listening to discuss it with either you or Rush.
But when the FISA court was set up, my question is was that possibly an unconstitutional usurpation by the legislative branch of executive powers given to the executive branch by the Constitution.
The President is allowed under the War Powers Act for signal intelligence and many other such things.
A Democratic Congress, I believe, is the one that passed this FISA court deal.
Well, it was passed a long time ago, and it's been in place for a long time, but it has never been deemed to be exclusive.
I suspect the reason why this constitutional question wasn't raised is because until now, there was never a demand that every single time that there was going to be domestic surveillance that you would have to go to this court and obtain a warrant.
Clinton didn't, the first President Bush didn't do it.
No one has President Reagan didn't do it.
It hasn't there's never been a there's never been a suggestion that you have to go that route until the New York Times ran its story based on leaks a couple of weeks ago.
So I think the answer is the question was never raised before because no one has ever presumed that this court was the place that you had to go.
It was always deemed that there were instances in which you could move without a warrant because the information had to be acted upon immediately or other concerns were at place.
But whether or not that court is constitutional or not, doesn't change the fact that the process that President Bush used was the same process that was used by President Clinton, the administration that Al Gore served in, and for him to get up and use the kind of rhetoric that he used yesterday, saying that President Bush is threatening the structure of our government, when his own administration did the same thing, is just infuriating.
You want to ask them at some point, do you not have the need to be consistent here, particularly since we are talking about protecting our country?
Well, my hope is when Alito gets in, hopefully the Supremes might review the whole thing.
I think you might find that the move itself was unconstitutional.
It's one of those inalienable rights belonging to a particular branch of our government.
Well, you are right.
The president has the sole authority to conduct foreign policy and was given further authority by Congress after nine eleven to wage the war against Al Qaeda and with Iraq with whatever means he felt to be necessary, and if following up on conversations that Al Qaeda is having with potential terrorists in the United States does not fall under that umbrella, nothing does.
But I believe the Democrats know this.
I think it's just another opportunity that they're taking to take a shot at President Bush.
As for the ACLU, which is now as predictably as you could possibly imagine, coming In and filing a lawsuit.
Does this mean that if the president stops acting as aggressively as he has been on this type of information?
And God forbid we are hit again.
Can we all turn around and sue the ACLU for preventing the president from protecting us?
It's very, very easy to take these cheap shots and to file these lawsuits.
The president, however, has been given the responsibility of trying to protect us against an organization that has proven its ability to hit again and again and again and again.
This is the last thing over which we ought to be playing games or taking cheap political shots.
Let's go in onto Virginia and Margaret.
Margaret, it's your turn on EIB.
Oh, hi.
I was just uh listening to you talk about the vote being delayed on delete uh Alito.
And I don't know if you've noticed or not, but that now is going to be held exactly one day after the annual March for Life that's held every year in Washington on the uh the anniversary of the Roe v.
Wade decision.
I was not aware of that.
And so it seems to me that that probably is just one more way that they can say, you know, from the nose that Bush.
He always talks to the crowd uh by telephone at least.
He doesn't always come over.
He can't come over.
But he talked to the crowd by telephone, and this is they will now he will now not be able to make a make a uh announcement that he has made another appointment.
Yeah, I I think what this is all about with the Democrats is they realize they can't stop Alito.
They're all going to vote against him, all but two or three will vote against him, but there's no political advantage for them to try to filibuster him.
They just want to buy some more time, hoping that one of these interest groups can dig up something that they can use to derail the nomination.
But I think they realize that they've got nothing else out there.
What happened last week to the Democratic Party was an absolute rout.
Judge Alito came across as professionally as you possibly could, and the Democrats came across looking ridiculous.
When Teddy Kennedy becomes your point man on an ethics question, and a few days after carrying on about Alito's membership in a group, has to quit an organization himself that is worse.
You can't run anything worse than the Democrats have right now.
I think they just want to give up on Alito at all that this one week delay is their last desperate hail Mary hope that if they buy another week, somebody's going to find something that would knock Judge Alito out, and it's not going to happen.
Thanks, Margaret.
My name is Mark Elling sitting in for Rush.
Mark Belling's sitting in for Rush Limbaugh.
You want to hear a beautiful story?
This one really is.
1969, 26-year-old guy named Alan Poster from New York has his Corvette stolen.
It was a 68 Corvette, which of course has gone on to become an American classic.
His car was stolen on the streets of New York, and I was the lad he reported it stolen.
Nothing ever came of it.
He gets a phone call a couple of days ago.
They found the car.
Thirty-seven years later, they found the car.
It was to be shipped to Sweden, customs agents did a routine check of all of the cards that were being shipped on this particular shipment to Sweden.
This car and its VIN number, vehicle identification number, was red flagged as having been a stolen car.
They went back and traced it back, and indeed the car was reported stolen in New York City in 1969, and the guy is going to get his Corvette back 37 years later.
This stuff doesn't happen.
There is now hope for me.
At some point I'm I'm going to get all my pens back.
Everything that was ever taken from me.
This would be like my mother calling me up and saying, Mark, believe it or not, I found all the baseball cards I thought I threw away.
Paul W. Smith is going to be here the next couple of days, and Dr. Walter Williams on Friday.
Thank you for joining me.
My name is Mark Bellingberry.
Export Selection