All Episodes
Previous Next
Jan. 24, 2006 - Rush Limbaugh Program
36:22
January 24, 2006, Tuesday, Hour #1
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Welcome to today's edition of the Rush 24-7 podcast.
Snerdley, have you been watching these what's supposed to be a committee vote?
The committee votes going on longer than the hearings did.
You know how they always say that mobsters have to go out there and make their bones to mean to earn their keep?
What we're watching here today, the liberals on the Alito hearings, making your bones means keeping your base.
Some of the things that they are saying, and we've got the tape, we've got lots of stuff to do today.
Looking forward to the next three hours.
We're ditto camming at rushlimbaugh.com.
Happy to have you along, folks.
Telephone number if you want to join us, 800-282-2882.
The email address, rush at EIBnet.com.
How about Canada?
How about Canada?
Hey, Conservatives win in Canada.
The Conservatives won in Germany.
The Conservatives won in Portugal, and they won in the United States last year.
Now, this has to upset the libs.
The media all but ignoring this.
They're all but ignoring it.
But the Democrats, Marxist buddies in South America are making gains, and that is something to watch, ladies and gentlemen, as far as the media is concerned.
Those Marxist and communist gains in Venezuela and in South America, that's the thing to watch.
According to the press, all these conservative victories mean diddly squat.
Telephone number 800-282-2882.
Vice President Lindsey Graham was perhaps the stellar Republican today on the well, I don't know what to call them, the hearings?
This is the committee vote, and it's going to be a party line vote, 10 to 8.
Some of the things these Democrats are saying, wait till you hear it.
But Vice President Lindsey Graham was the best one today.
He told the Democrats that if they tried to use Alito as a campaign issue, the Republicans would clean their clocks.
Meanwhile, E.J. Deion Jr. today has a column.
I really, when I say I'm on the cutting edge, I mean, I'm really on the cutting edge.
E.J. Deion Jr. has a column today that basically regurgitates what I've been asking for the last five years.
You Democrats, you know exactly who we conservatives are because we do not hide it.
We run on who we are.
So E.J. Deion Jr. is coming.
Why can't the Democrats beat Karl Rove when Karl Rove comes out and tells them 10 months in advance what the plan is?
It's sort of like the Super Bowl coming up between the Pittsburgh Steelers and the Seattle Seabirds.
You could say, let's say that Bill Cower announces today his game plan.
Let's say here are my first 10 plays.
And the coach of the Seabirds, Mike Holmgren, could game plan for it.
But if Mike Holmgren were a Democrat, he wouldn't be able to.
I'm not dismissing the Hawks at all.
I just, I like that.
Look, the term Seabirds comes from the Hutch.
And the Hutch lives in Seattle, and he's a huge Seabirds fan.
He calls the Steelers the plastic curtain, you know, so we got this little thing going back and forth.
He calls them the plastic curtain.
He's going to call his team the Seabirds, and I'm going to call them the Seabirds.
The Hutch called yesterday, emailed yesterday, said, how about you and I go at it the Friday before the Super Bowl, since his team is the Seabirds.
I say, it's fine.
I said, I don't know much about your team.
They live in the upper left-hand corner of the country and in a place more known for coffee and computers.
But I know you got the MVP running back, Sean Alexander.
Now, you got the bald-headed quarterback whose sister-in-law is on the view.
Beyond that, I'm going to have to do some research on the team, individuals on the team, but I'll be ready for the Hutch on the Friday before the Super Bowl.
Let's go, ladies and gentlemen, to the audio tape.
Oh, the EJD on Junior Cup.
Here you have, you have Rove announcing 10 months in advance what the election plan is going to be, and Deion Jr. is just frustrating.
Why can't the Democrats figure it out?
Why can't they, I mean, the game plan is on the table.
Why can't they, and this has been the case since Rove's been running the show?
Well, here's why.
It's very simple, E.J., I'll tell you, because Rove's electoral plan, the game plan, is to run on your lack, the Democratic Party's lack of commitment to national security.
And since you don't have a position on national security, there's no way you can game plan it because your position on national security, the Democrats' game plan, is not one.
The Democrats' position on national security is to try to impeach George W. Bush.
Okay, so run on that.
Run.
The Democrats need to run an 064 Congress on the impeachment of George W. Bush for trying to protect the country.
Which leads me to Leahy.
Get this.
This is, you may not know this by listening to it, but this is Leahy in his speechifying as his prelude to announcing his vote on the Alito nomination.
The president is in the midst of a radical realignment of the powers of the government and its intrusiveness into the private lives of Americans.
I believe this nomination is part of that plan.
I'm concerned that if we confirm this nominee, we'll further erode the checks and balances that have protected our constitutional rights for more than 200 years.
We have a president who is prone to unilateralism and assertions of executive power that extend all the way to illegal spying on Americans.
Preventing government intrusion into the privacy and freedoms of Americans is one of the hallmarks of the Supreme Court.
There's no assurance that Judge Alito will serve as an effective check and balance on government intrusion into the lives of Americans.
Indeed, his record suggests otherwise.
Anybody going to believe this?
So they're going to set up the fact that we can't get Alito because Bush is spying on Americans.
Can't confirm Alito because Bush is spying on Americans.
Because Alito wants to do that too.
Alito wants to shred the Constitution.
He doesn't care about privacy rights.
He doesn't care about civil liberties.
He just wants to destroy people, like Bush does.
Okay, so you guys can have at it.
E.J. Deion Jr. in his piece says, if Democrats aren't willing to take on this issue of NSA and intercepting calls from Al-Qaeda, what's the point of being an opposition party?
Now, E.J., you know, essentially here is urging Democrats to get into a big, robust debate about national security.
But they can't, E.J., because you just heard their position articulated by Pat Leahy.
As you listen to this, E.J., do you think that anything that Leahy said here that might form the basis or the foundation of a campaign is a winner?
This is lunacy that we're hearing.
This is paranoidal lunacy.
Actually, Leahy just continued to making his bones with the base.
To get too far into this ideologically or intellectually is a wasteful exercise because we've been doing that for 18 years.
These guys are now just trying to make their bones, keep their bones with this mobster lingo with their base.
Leahy was not through.
He continued on.
This president has made some of the most expansive claims of power since American patriots fought the War of Independence to rid themselves of the oppressive rule of King George III.
Oh, man.
This president is claiming power to illegally spy on Americans, to allow actions that violate our values and laws protecting human rights, and to detain U.S. citizens and others on his say-so, on his say-so, without judicial review, without any due process.
This is something I have not seen in my lifetime.
Was Leahy not alive during FDR's internment of the Japanese?
I don't know.
He looks like he could be, old enough.
And of course, the Clinton years with the echelon program.
But beyond all of that, do any of you remember the Hamdi case?
The Hamdi case, the Supreme Court pretty much said, this is a judicial review, by the way, the Supreme Court pretty much said that the 2001 Congressional Authorization for the Use of Force authorized the president to behave in a certain manner in the Hamdi case, which is pretty much what he's doing now in the NSA case.
And as the president said yesterday out in Kansas, and we have the audio of this coming up, hey, if I'm trying to break the law, why would I include Congress in the briefings?
And the audience applauded.
Pure paranoia here comparing George W. Bush to King George.
But I want to go back to this first soundbite we played.
We have a president who is prone to unilateralism.
This is another illustration of the problem, I think the delusional derangement that the Democrats are in.
You go back to Iraq, and we went to the UN, and we went there for 18 months, and we reminded the UN that they had passed, what, 14 or 18 resolutions requiring Saddam to get rid of his weapons, that the UN Security Council didn't want to play ball after 18 months of trying.
We said, okay, U.S. national security at stake here, we're going to go act, and we did, and we put together a coalition despite the UN.
Now we've got Iran.
And the Democrats all said, he's acting unilaterally.
Why he went in without the UN?
Why he went in without a security council vote?
Why he can't do that?
Where are the French?
Where are the Germans?
You remember all that.
Fast forward to the present and Iran.
And lo and behold, if Scarlett O'Hara, Hillary Rotten Clinton, is not out there talking about why we aren't going into Iran right now and doing something, she's demanding unilateral action by the United States into Iran because of their nuke threat.
This from the same party that opposed that same kind of thing going into Iraq on the same pretext.
Now, this is another illustration of why it doesn't matter for the conservatives and Rove to lay out the game plan, because even knowing what it is, the Democrats so discombobulated and disoriented, they can't come up with a plan of their own.
The football analogy, Bill Cower of the Steelers announces his game plan, and in fact, throws out exactly what the first 10 plays are going to be.
Holmgren of the Seabirds says, well, I don't know.
I'm not sure that I, and then doesn't game plan it at all because he doesn't have one of his own.
And that's silly.
It's not going to happen.
But the Democrats cannot take on the national security issue because to say what they want and to say what they believe would be worse than trying to come up with a bunch of lies to cover up what they really believe.
And I think, in fact, Rove giving out a game plan is not that big a deal because we conservatives are no mystery.
We know who we are.
We're happy in our own skin.
We're happy to tell people who we are.
We want them to join us.
And we go out and try to change the hearts and minds of as many voters as possible.
Democrats try to fool as many, and that's the name of the game.
More coming up, my friends.
But first, an obscene EIB profit break back after this.
And after a bunch of bloviating, speechifying, and blowhardism, the vote is in.
And Sam Alito, as predicted, confirmed by, well, voted out of committee, 10 to 8, party line vote.
So now the debate on Alito will go to the full Senate, and they hope to have the vote on Friday.
Democrats wanted to delay the vote to embarrass the president so that he will not have an applause line in the State of the Union speech.
A little bit of news here.
New York Times earnings plunge on charges.
The New York Times company said today that its fourth quarter earnings fell 41% from the same period a year ago, weighed down by charges for staff reductions and an accounting charge.
The Times earned $64.8 million or $0.45 per share in the three months ending in December compared to $110.2 million or $0.75 per share a year ago.
They had fired a bunch of people to pay them off.
What do you got?
The severance packages.
And they had to take an accounting charge.
You want to know why this is happening?
Look at this story.
The president went out to Kansas yesterday, and he did an hour and a half.
He gave a speech, did Q ⁇ A. We've got audio from this.
It is just a terrific performance.
I'm going to, in fact, I'll tell you something.
Last, the week before I went to, I get this two weeks ago, the president was here in Palm Beach for a reception, and I was there.
I was invited to attend.
And at this reception, the president delivered about 45 minutes of off-the-cuff remarks.
And as I have shared with you over the course of many, many years here, now I first met President Bush in 92 in the White House when his dad was there, and it was during that campaign and Ross Perot was wreaking havoc and so forth.
I next spent some serious time with the current President Bush in Texas.
He was owner of the Texas Rangers.
And my friend George Brett was retiring from baseball that year, and the final three games of Brett's career were in Texas against the Rangers.
And so Bush invited me down for the weekend.
And on the Saturday of the weekend, he had a lunch for some people in the stadium club.
He was getting set to run against Ma Richards as governor of Texas.
And in that lunch, where there were potential fundraisers and donors, I saw a confident, no deer in the headlight eyes, no stutters, just confidence, rat-tat-tat expertise on issues, dazzled everybody.
And I've seen that a number of other occasions, too.
And it's in stark contrast when the president is reading a speech or what have you.
And other people have seen it too and have asked me, how do you explain this vast disparity in the way President Bush is in private versus when he's on television and post?
I have no answer for it.
I'm not even going to speculate.
I have my theories, but they're just that.
Well, this 45-minute speech two weeks ago, I wouldn't even call it a speech.
He just got up there and without one note and just, I mean, it reminded me of me.
It was funny.
It was serious at the same time.
It was hard-hitting.
It was confident.
There wasn't one stutter.
There wasn't one lost train of thought.
There wasn't one deer in the headlight look that people claim they see him execute when he's on television doing a speech, prepared speech with text.
Same thing happened yesterday out at Kansas State University.
For an hour and a half, President had prepared remarks, then took questions.
And it was a Baffle performance.
It was tremendous.
And there was a lot of news made in that speech yesterday.
In fact, he spelled out again why this NSA wiretap story is not the story the Democrats are making it out to be.
I mean, they're structuring this as a contemptible lie that Bush is spying on American citizens is not true at all.
And we really just hit home run after home run after home run in this thing.
And what's the New York Times story?
After an hour and a half performance like that, here's the headline, The Rancher in Chief and a Certain Cowboy Film.
President Bush is in the midst of a campaign-style effort to show that he has broken out of his White House bubble.
When three times this month, he's taken unscreened questions from audiences that appear to have been chosen largely at random rather than for their qualities as cheerleaders.
And he goes on to talk about how somebody in the audience said, Mr. President, you're a rancher.
A lot of us here in Kansas are ranchers.
I just want to get your opinion on Broke Back Mountain if you've seen it.
Bush said, I haven't seen it.
I'd be glad to talk about ranching, but I haven't seen the movie.
Nervous laughter as the president added, I've heard about it.
So here's the New York Times after this stellar performance that the president gave, performance of his life yesterday.
They focus in on a question about a gay cowboy movie.
That, I think, and then you read the story, New York Times earnings plunge on charges.
There's more to it than just accounting that's taking place.
One more pet lahey bite from the blabbering before the committee vote today.
Senator Leahy compares the Alito nomination to FDR's attempted packing of the court.
No president should be allowed to pack the courts, especially the Supreme Court.
An overwhelmingly Democratic-controlled Senate stood up to the most popular Democrat ever elected President Franklin Roosevelt.
And we Democrats protected the independence of the Supreme Court by saying that even someone as popular as Franklin Roosevelt could not pack the Supreme Court.
Well, what packing of the Supreme Court's going?
Bush had two nominations.
He's into his, what, sixth year of his presidency now?
He's had two, two vacancies.
And the Democrats are all pairing.
He's packing the court.
He's out there packing the court.
Well, he can't pack the court that way.
We Democrats, we didn't like it when FDR did it.
Yeah, you loved it.
Just got caught up.
By the way, I asked, Leahy said he hasn't seen anything like this unprecedented power grab and violation of civil and human rights in his lifetime.
And, of course, you know, there's FDR, there's Clinton.
If you go back to before any of us were born, Abraham Lincoln, Bush is a romper room kid compared to what Lincoln did during the Civil War.
So I checked it out.
And Leahy was born in 1940.
So he was alive during FDR's presidency, but he may not remember it.
So I can't really accuse him of purposely forgetting something here.
He might not have known it.
All right, there's a lot more of this.
Plus, we have audio from the president's speech and QA yesterday out in Kansas.
So sit tight, folks.
We'll get to your phone calls too at 800-282-2882.
We're coming back right after this.
Don't go away.
America's Anchorman, America's Truth Detector, the Doctor of Democracy.
Talent on loan from God.
Mr. Snerdley, did you see 24 last night?
Did you what?
Oh, I'm not going to tell you.
I think I'm just going to tell you, this show is amazing.
I'm not going to give a thing away if you haven't seen it yet.
But I just, when it ended, I got a tingle up my spine.
I just, I just did.
I haven't had a television show, a fictional TV show hasn't done that to me, and I don't know, maybe ever.
Because I'm not that emotional a guy.
I'm from the old school.
But what?
No, it was not an.
No, It stirred me.
No, there was no.
It's not.
I'm just not going to tell you any more about it.
If you haven't seen it, you want to watch it tonight on your TiVo.
You TVing it in HD?
All right, good for you.
Well, you've got to get HD.
You've got to go out.
You've got to get an HD TVO.
You got to get an HD screen.
And you watch this in HD.
Oh, yeah.
I mean, this is.
I want to expand a little bit more on E.J. Deion Jr. and his column today in the Washington Post.
Because E.J. is missing something.
The Democrats just constantly miss it.
They are just, we set traps and they fall right into it.
Karl Rove, in announcing what the Republican Party is going to run on in 06, ended up provoking the exact response that he wants from the Democrats.
Because the Democrats are now insisting they need to make this election about national security, which is our topic of choice.
So they are playing on our turf.
Just fall right into it.
And especially since they don't have a position.
As I said, their position is that Bush is the problem.
Their position is that Bush needs to be impeached.
That's the national security angle they believe.
And that's particularly their rabid base.
Patrick Leahy, Bush wants to pack the courts.
Once again, we have the Democrats redefining political terms.
Nominations, judicial nominations now are packing the court.
To nominate somebody to the Supreme Court means you want to pack the court.
So we can say that Bill Clinton packed the court with Ginsburg and Breyer.
Bush packed the court with Roberts and Alito, which probably will become the new lexicon in the old media, the mainstream media.
They will now say that Bush is packing the court, picking up on Leahy's lead.
We'll have a whole new change in definition for the word nominate one to court.
You want to hear little Ted Kennedy this morning?
Here's Senator Kennedy delivering a warmed over version of his Robert Bork's America speech.
We face unprecedented claims by the White House for sweeping expansions of presidential power that are grave threats to the rule of law.
We continue to face serious inequalities and injustices in our societies, as demonstrated so clearly by the immense tragedy a few months ago in the Hurricane Katrina.
Come on.
We face new controversies over government's intrusion into people's private lives, from the interference with private medical decisions into new attempts to limit or even deny a woman's reproductive decisions.
We face new attacks on the progress we've made in civil rights.
The signs proclaiming whites only may be gone, but we know that discrimination and bigotry in countless other forms still blight our society and limit opportunity.
Hurricane Katrina!
They bring up Hurricane.
Folks, it's Hail Mary time.
It's just go for the long one and hope your guy catches it.
This is funny to watch.
Speaking of Hurricane Katrina, have you seen the news that's out about Hurricane Katrina today?
The news that's out about Hurricane Katrina is the government indeed had forewarning about Bush knew.
Yeah, Bush knew.
The government, they had a bunch of practice exercises.
They created this tabletop sort of game to replicate what kind of damage would happen in New Orleans.
This was in July from a Category 3 storm, and they figured that what would happen is indeed what happened.
Now, the AP version of this story is fascinating because the story attempts to make the following connection.
Bush knew, therefore, Bush caused it.
If the government, this is the infantile, puerile, insulting attempt by the Associated Press to continue to link whatever the outcomes of Hurricane Katrina were to George W. Bush personally, they actually have as the sub, the whole umbrella under which story is written.
Bush knew government was forewarned.
Government had documents.
Government did tests.
And yet, only 10% of the plan was put into effect in order to evacuate the city and blah, blah, blah.
Therefore, Bush, if Bush knew, if Bush knew that a big storm was coming, then Bush caused it.
That's the attempt that they're making.
And it's, I mean, it's in the stack somewhere.
I'll give you some exact quotes from it here as we move on down the line.
Senator Feinstein is next, summing it up for the Democrats.
It's a very different day and time than when Justice Ginsburg and Justice Breyer was before this court.
There was not the polarization within America that is there today and not the defined move to take this court in a singular direction.
If one is pro-choice in this day and age, in this structure, one can't vote for Judge Alito.
It is simply that simple.
That's not different.
It's no different.
You wouldn't have voted for Ginsburg or Breyer if they were pro-life.
Does she really mean to say now that the period of time when Clinton nominated Ginsburg and Breyer, we were not polarized?
I thought that that was one of the problems that they always had, that we hated Clinton.
They blame me for, they blame me.
I'm on the cover of Time magazine.
1995 is Rush Lindborg good for America.
I was going to destroy the Democratic process.
Me and Talk Radio destroyed the Democratic process.
They were all concerned, the partisanship and the fallout from it.
They were, we've never seen such hatred directed at all wonderful men like Bill Clinton before.
Now she wants to say that it's different today because we are so polarized.
Does she think that the pro-life, pro-choice debate is any less polarized 10 years ago or five years ago than it is today?
This is just mealy mouths wandering in vain for some sort of cogent thought or philosophy that will survive or serve actually as a so-called intellectual reason for her vote, which is plain and simple, and she just said it here.
Abortion.
I mean, I want abortion, and he might overturn Roe versus West, so I can't vote for him.
Kathy in Williamsville, New York, I'm glad you called.
Welcome to the program.
Hey, Rush, how you doing?
Just fine.
You know, I was watching President Bush's speech yesterday at a college.
I think it was Kansas State.
And I think by far it was his very, he was in his element.
He was answering questions.
And a young student asked How he maintains his positive outlook under such character attacks all the time.
And Bush paused for a couple of seconds, and then he said, face family and friends.
And I said, that's right.
And, you know, that is the key.
You know, he talked about how he knows that the American people are praying for him, and that sustains him.
He said, I can't tell you how that sustains me, but it does because I feel it.
And he said, and I take time to read my Bible.
And then at the end of a stressful day, I go home to somebody who really loves me.
And I know my daughters really love me.
And he said, they really do.
And he was, you know, he was, he was absolutely amazing yesterday.
And I wish you'd hear that.
He, you know, to me, when he's going one-on-one answering questions with people in an audience, he really is a great communicator.
He reminds me of Reagan.
When he's reading, I don't think he's as comfortable, but I'll tell you, he really is mainstream America.
And I love listening to him.
I really do.
I saw that, Pat.
Actually, I was reading it on close caption.
It was happening while I was talking to somebody else on the phone.
And as one who can multitask, I was talking to the person on the phone while reading what Bush was saying.
I've always been fascinated by the answer to that question that people in the public eye get.
People, it doesn't matter if it's a politics or whatever, but you take a position on something and you are going to be savaged by somebody.
And depending on your orientation, the savagery might be picked up by the mainstream press and amplified, which is what happens in Bush's case.
And the questioner came, the question came from an ROTC person.
And the guy said, look, you are the leader of the country.
We are future leaders.
You are constantly under attack.
Your character, and he specified character, your character is constantly under attack.
Could you help us, future leaders, who will someday be leaders, understand how you deal with such attacks?
And Bush eyes fell to the podium.
He thought about it for just a few seconds.
He thanked the ROTC guy for the question and said, exactly what you said, faith, family, and friends.
Now, this gets construed by Newsweek as Bush living in a bubble.
This gets construed and reported as Bush is out of touch.
Why, Bush doesn't have us in the White House.
He doesn't bring reporters in like other presidents have done to talk about things.
These journalists think that they are the fourth branch of government, and they do think they have a role in policy.
And Bush is not including them, and that infuriates him because it makes them feel powerless.
And then when they learn that Bush doesn't even care to read what they write, that infuriates them even more.
But it's totally understandable, faith, family, and friends.
I know that he's got a very close circle of friends and that many of them are in and out of the White House all the time.
And that's with whom he feels comfortable.
It makes total sense he would want to hang around with people who love him.
And I'll tell you, like I saw him at this reception a couple weeks ago down here in Palm Beach.
I understand the question that he got was born of, my gosh, how are you putting up with this?
Every day your character is savaged.
And the impression that a lot of people might get is that they transfer themselves, put yourself in Bush's position.
You say, my gosh, if this was being said about me and written about me all day long, well, I'd be a quivering mess.
I'd be depressed.
I'd think nobody loves me and so forth.
And that's not the way he is.
I don't think his confidence, well, I know his confidence on everything he is trying to do in this agenda has not been shaken at all.
He has plans.
He's going to spend the next two years doing them.
What these other people say doesn't matter to him.
He really doesn't matter.
It's like I've told you.
And I think something, Kathy, to help you understand this, you and I, because it's my job and you listen as a result, we can't avoid immersing ourselves in the world that's established by the media every day.
He doesn't.
He does not do that.
Much of this program is devoted each day to smashing the liberal lies and the media misrepresentations that are out there in an effort to educate the American people as to what's true and what isn't, what's factual and what isn't.
I mean, anybody can have their opinion, but you don't get your own set of facts.
There are facts, and if those facts are lied about, then we spend some time talking about it.
Thus, by quirk of fate, we are immersed in the media world.
And one of the reasons I like getting away from this is to get away from that because there's a whole nother world of reality out there where people are not caught up in it each and every day.
And Bush is one of them.
Bush does not decide what policy he's going to do or what he's going to say about something based on, other than his press conferences where he can't avoid it, but he really doesn't live in that world.
And that also results in him getting stories written about him, which accuse him of being in a bubble.
Because to the media, their world is the only world.
They are so narcissistic and self-absorbed that their world is the world.
And they can't believe a president would not live in it and get up each and every day and find, okay, what's in the media today?
What do I have to do to deal with that or promote that?
His job is to lead the country with whatever's on his plate that day and without any other influences, particularly influences.
What are people going to think?
Back after this.
Stay with us.
Ah, my buddy here, Al Wilson, Show and Tell, one of my all-time favorite tunes, definitely in the top 10.
It's not because of the lyrics, because I've never listened to lyrics of songs, folks.
I listen to melody, the production value.
I mean, I listen to the lyrics, but I mean, that doesn't shape whether I'm not one of these mushy, oh, wow.
Listen, that's not how songs affect me.
But if they affect you that way, that's cool.
Here's Rich in Marino Valley, California.
You're next on the EIB Network.
Hi.
Hey, Rush.
Great to talk to you.
I'm honored.
Thank you.
Thank you very much, sir.
Listen, one of the things I learned from you is that it's okay not to listen to the lyrics.
I thought I was the only one that was like that.
I learned that from you years ago.
Thank you, sir.
Moved from Missouri to Sacramento in 89.
Everybody told me about you, and my wife and myself have been with you ever since.
I appreciate that.
The reason I'm calling, and my question after this comment, if you would answer for me, is how far left can these Democrats go before they have to start coming back right?
I mean, they're going so far left that I don't even think average leftists can follow them.
Now, my comment is on Durbin today and the judiciary, the Dick Turbin.
Yes.
Diarrhea of the mouth dust.
Oh, man, what a pip squeak.
Honest God.
I mean, you know, I'm a route man.
I got more dignity.
This guy's a U.S. senator.
He drugged Reagan's name into the hearing by stating that Reagan's administration was looking for someone like Durbin, who wrote the memo in 85 trying to...
You mean Aledo.
I'm sorry, did I say Alito?
No, you said Durbin said that Reagan was looking for someone like Durbin.
You mean they were looking for somebody like Alito in 85.
Exactly.
He was looking for someone like Alito that was against women, you know, and keeping them out through this organization he belonged to, you know, 21 years ago or something.
But see, all of this, like Leahy today, once again brought up the fact that Alito wants to strip search little 10-year-old girls.
All of this stuff was dealt with during the hearings and nuked.
That group, the whatever, the CAP concerned alumni of Princeton.
Look, what you heard today, you asked how far left they can go.
They haven't gotten anywhere near it yet.
I'm a little surprised, too.
But this is just keeping their base happy here today.
I'm going to tell you, the wisdom of invoking Ronald Reagan to try to get people to vote against somebody, did they not remember Reagan's funeral?
All you got to do is say Alito is in the mold of Reagan, and the American people are going to love the guy.
We'll be back after this.
Stay with us.
Now it's Newsweek magazine's turn.
Boys and girls are different.
I kid you not, Newsweek is back now with Boys and Girls Are Different.
▲
Export Selection