All Episodes
Previous Next
Jan. 26, 2006 - Rush Limbaugh Program
36:35
January 26, 2006, Thursday, Hour #1
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Welcome to today's edition of the Rush 24-7 podcast.
You know, on a day like this, I can't help but reflect on all those media wizards who said back in 2000, well, now that Bill Clinton's gone, what's Rush Limbaugh going to have to talk about?
Man, oh man, hey, great to be back, folks.
Great to have you with us.
The fastest week in media rolls on.
Here we are at Thursday.
And we're at the Limbaugh Institute for Advanced Conservative Studies.
Ditto Cam is on.
It'll be TVing, televising the entire three-hour excursion into broadcast excellence today.
If you want to be on the program, telephone number is 800-282-2882 and the email address, rush at EIBnet.com.
Here's just a few things that are on the agenda today.
The Hamas upset win in, let's call it what it is, in Israel.
We have the New York Times.
The New York Times lost it.
The New York Times become totally unhinged.
You can't tell the difference in this New York Times editorial today and one of these left-wing kook websites.
They are demanding a filibuster editorial page, lead editorial, calling these senators on the Democratic Party spineless.
And it's interesting because, in a way, our morning update yesterday did the same thing.
Of course, we have a different take on it than the New York Times does, but literally, this is the idea that, well, there's some people saying the idea they represent the establishment is long gone.
They do represent the Democrat establishment with a kook left-wing fringe.
So we'll talk about that.
Today, there's a key vote in the Republican caucus on who Tom DeLay's successor will be.
And I, ladies and gentlemen, as an honorary member of the freshman class of the 1994 House of Representatives on the Republican side, have decided to weigh in on this with an endorsement.
And so that will come today.
General Motors has announced that they lost almost $5 billion with a B. Almost $5 billion in one quarter.
That's with a Q. $5 billion in one quarter.
And, you know, Kanye West poses as Christ, but doesn't have the guts to pose as Muhammad or Allah, whichever you would choose.
Trying to cause attention to himself.
We also have the judge in Vermont who has raised the 60-day sentence on that rapist now to three years, claiming he did it because he got permission to send the guy into rehab and treatment during those three years.
That's probably not why this happened.
He probably did it in order to stave off all the criticism that he's getting.
And another Democrat's come out, said he's going to vote for Judge Alito.
This is Tim Johnson of South Dakota, announced he's going to vote for Alito to become the nation's 110th justice.
He follows Ben Nelson, Democrat of Nebraska, as the only members of the Democratic Party to announce Senate support.
Then he goes on and says, I'm troubled and I'm troubled and I'm in trouble, but I'm going to vote for him anyway.
Mary Landrew was asked about the possibility of filibuster.
She said, no.
No, no, no, because we have such a full plate of pressing issues before Congress, a filibuster would, in my view, be very counterproductive.
She wants the Senate to concentrate on rebuilding efforts the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina.
She said, we simply cannot afford to bring the Senate to a halt at a time when we need its action most.
The president had a Baffle press conference today, and I learned a new word.
And I thought, well, somebody just misspoke.
And then I said, no, I looked it up.
There was a reporter named Angela near the end of the press conference who asked the president if he had conversated with somebody.
What?
Is it April?
That's April from her.
What's her last name?
April one of her.
Okay, so she's the bomb thrower.
She's the one.
Well, this question was kind of my fault.
I thought the press was kind of mild all day.
David Gregory couldn't even get off the ground today.
And I think that reflects that there's just no confidence.
Richard Cohen today in the Washington Post writes a column reacting to the latest, what is it?
I forget what, maybe it's a Gallup poll.
I don't know what it is, on the favorite Hollywood movie stars of 2005.
And John Wayne's at the top of the list.
And John Wayne hadn't been in a movie in 40 years or 30 years.
And he goes on to say, you know, we Democrats don't have a John Wayne.
And every Democrat running for every Republican running for office looks like one.
And if John Wayne's the most popular movie star in America and it isn't somebody like Tom Cruise or Brad Pitt, then we're in trouble.
I'll share the details of that with you.
Anyway, this conversation, I said, this has to be a misspeak.
And I said, if Bush had used the word, it's all we'd be hearing about.
So I Googled it.
And it's actually in the urban dictionary, Mr. Snerdley.
The word conversated is actually in the urban.
Just go to Google and put in the word conversated, and you'll see the search results.
And there's this thing called the urban dictionary.
I know she was mad when I singled her out, but I mean, these people have to learn that being singled out elevates their identity.
They have to learn what we all have to learn in the public eye, and that is that when you get mentioned, you get mentioned.
But I'm sure April would say she likes to just be in the background as a journalist.
A little bit, here's my first observation on this election.
And I want another phrase in Israel.
I know some people think it's Palestine.
I still think it's Israel.
And I want to phrase this and put this within the context of what I have always called the Limbaugh Doctrine.
The Limbaugh Doctrine, ladies and gentlemen, is very, very simple.
Peace does not come about with words and doctors and nurses and clean water.
Peace follows victory.
If you look at any conflict worldwide in modern history and in recent history or long ago history, period, you will see that peace follows victory.
We didn't get peace with Germany and Japan by virtue of words until after we had defeated them.
Now, this Israeli-Palestinian thing is not going to be any different than any other such conflict.
And in that sense, I think that the Hamas victory in these elections could end up, could end up to be a good thing.
And here's why.
I don't think there's any difference between Hamas and Fatah at all.
They both stand for the same thing.
And that is the elimination of Israel.
Fatah, however, which is Yasser Arafat's old party, the reason Fatah is, and they were defeated, and the reason that I think they posed the greater threat of the two, actually, was because they have the liberal dunces, these elitists in this country and in Europe, fooled into thinking they are a party of peace and that they are a willing partner of peace.
And I don't think that there's any evidence.
I don't think there's any reason in recent history to trust either of these groups when either of them would happen to say, we are a partner for peace.
So in the sense that the side that the liberal intelligenza, the liberal elites and establishment around the world had chosen, Fatah, since they go down to defeat, you know, I get George Mitchell was on CNN today.
He said, well, yeah, President Bush got to be careful what he's looking for here.
He wanted democracy.
Now we got democracy and democracy has produced democracy has produced nothing different than what we had before the elections.
The government hasn't been formed yet, but let me keep.
It's just the libs, you know, be careful what you wish for.
Go out and it just follows from the elitist view that not every people are prepared for democracy.
Not every population can handle it.
And so they feel vindicated here because they think the wacko of the two groups, Hamas, has been elected, which means that Palestinians want war and so forth and blah.
The difference in this case, though, is Hamas and Fatah are identical when it comes to the thing that we should be concerned with most about them, and that is the elimination of Israel.
So now, when Hamas acts out with a terrorist attack or whatever, guess what?
They're a duly elected government.
Now it's not a bunch of fringe wackos attacking Israel.
Israel can say, hey, this nation has just attacked us, and they will have a greater reason to respond or to respond to this and a more justified reason in doing so.
So this is, in one sense, it was clarifying, and it is positive because it will allow the militant group now to have some so-called democratic legitimacy, which makes the Israeli response more justifiable.
Now, Benjamin Netanyahu, the leader of the Likud party in Israel, spoke to the Likud faction in the Knesset today, and there's what he said.
He said, before our very eyes, Hamastan has been established, the stepchild of Iran and the Taliban.
It's in firing range of our airport, our highways, and cities.
This has to be a day of soul-searching because the writing was on the wall.
A policy of giving land for free gave a prize to terror and a winning card for Hamas.
How are Olmert and Perez getting ready for this challenge?
They're moving the fence 500 meters closer to the Jerusalem-Tel Abib highway.
They gave more land to the Hamas site.
Any land given to Hamas or Hamas state and any land given to Hamas will give more of a front to fire upon us.
This is a new and dangerous situation.
Sharon said he wouldn't let Palestinians in Jerusalem vote, but Olmert let them.
Olmert let.
So it's going to be really interesting to see how this shakes out in the next couple of days, but it's pretty predictable to me what's going to happen.
The president was asked about this at his press conference today.
We'll let you hear that.
Lots of stuff on the program today, folks.
As I say, more than three hours worth more than likely by the time we fold in your phone calls.
Sit tight.
We'll be back and get started with all the rest of it right after this.
Everybody thinks there's something wrong with the ditto cam today.
Is your shirt really green?
Yeah, it says that it looks on my monitor just like it should look at when I look at it for real.
Call it lime green or apple green or what have you.
Welcome back.
Rush.
I think it's a great color shirt.
Dawn even liked it.
Well, it looks more, it is green.
What do you mean it looks more green?
It's two-toned.
I'm a radio guy and I'm having to explain wardrobe.
Talk about cutting edge.
All right, folks, I want you to hear what the I want you to hear what the president had to say was asked about the election in Israel today.
Oh, one correction.
I misspoke the House leadership election is not this week.
It snurdle is wiping his brow.
I thought there was something it didn't.
I misspoke.
It's coming up soon, but it's not this week.
But I think it's getting time, getting close to that time where I, as an honorary member of the freshman class of 1994, yes, I've got a choice.
I've got a preferred choice.
Why shouldn't I mention it?
This is a House leadership.
This is key.
You know, one of the problems with the House leadership, you got plenty of conservatives in there, but they're not really governing or leading with their ideas.
They have the ideas.
You don't hear about them.
A couple people still.
Jack Kingston's one who is willing to, and he's not in the race, but he's one of these people willing to lead with his ideas and a couple of others.
We'll get to all that in due course.
President was asked today by the AP's Terrence Hunt.
Mr. President, is Mideast peacemaking dead with Hamas' big election victory?
And do you rule out dealing with the Palestinians if Hamas is the major party?
Peace is never dead because people want peace.
And that's why I articulated a two-state solution early in my administration so that as a vision for people to work toward, the elections should open the eyes of the old guard there in the Palestinian territories.
I like the competition of ideas.
I like people to have to go out and say, vote for me, and here's what I'm going to do.
There's something healthy about a system that does that.
And so the elections yesterday were very interesting.
On the other hand, I don't see how you can be a partner in peace if you advocate the destruction of a country as part of your platform.
Uh-huh.
Uh-huh.
And that's the key.
If these guys all of a sudden go soft, it'll be the first time in world history some of this has happened.
One more bite.
Steve Holland of Reuters, are you cautioning Abbas not to resign?
Will this effect, in effect, aid the Palestinians?
And will you be able to work with Hamas, assuming they take on a large share of the government?
I made it very clear that the United States does not support political parties that want to destroy our ally Israel and that people must renounce that part of their platform.
But the government hadn't formed yet.
They're beginning to talk about how to form the government.
And your question on Abbas was a good one.
And our message to him was we would hope he would stay in office and work to move the process forward.
All right.
So we've clearly stated there, we're not going to work with anybody who still stands up and suggests the destruction of Israel.
Now, that's all Hamas's name.
And Fatat, too.
They're both cut from the same cloth.
It's just that the Fatah people, a little bit more sophisticated.
You know, when Arafat was alive, a terrorist attack would be launched against Israel, and he'd come out in the morning and denounce it in English.
And then later in the day, he'd go on television in Arabic and praise it and celebrate it and have a grand old time.
But, you know, Arafat was the love child of the Clinton administration.
I mean, the most popular guest in there, Clinton, well, unpaid.
I mean, there were a lot of people paid to be in there a lot of time.
But Arafat just showed up.
I mean, so the left-wing establishment really rolled all the dice that they had with Arafat and Fatah.
Since he's gone now, it's even better.
So they've lined up with these guys, and now their side is lost, and they think this is going to be the death of Bush's whole concept of spreading democracy around the world.
George in Windsor, Connecticut, you're up first today.
Going to take your call.
Hello, sir, and welcome.
Hey, Rush, yeah, I have to agree with you that Hamas could be a good thing, but my concern is that if for some reason they toe the line with Israel and the terrorism between Israel and Palestine goes down, then the elites in this country are going to say, see, you can keep a terrorist organization in power and not be afraid.
And they'll use that, you know, again, in a negative way against this fight on terror.
Be very careful with this because two things.
Number one, that is a huge if.
If Hamas, do you realize who's praising them to the heavens today is Iran, this new wacko president over there all over Al Jazeera.
Iran just loves this.
So expecting Hamas to stand down will be the same thing as expecting Iran to stand down to stop its inflammatory statements, to stop its worldwide sponsorship of terrorism, and to dismantle its nuke machine.
It isn't going to happen.
And it's not going to happen with Hamas.
They have been all my life.
The destruction of Israel has been the objective of these people.
And they're getting closer to it now.
Now they can say, see, hey, we were democratically elected to destroy Israel.
Now, wait a minute.
The second point I want to address, because a lot of people might think that you swerved into something great there.
Wow, if the terrorists actually call it all back in and stand down, why it'll prove we can negotiate with terrorists.
Problem with that is, is that it will also prove that democracy works and brings peace.
And the American left is steadfastly opposed to that concept.
They don't think that democracy can work because it's George Bush's idea.
So while they might be prone to say, well, yeah, yeah, yeah, see, see, you can negotiate with terrorists, they'd also have to admit that the reason we can negotiate with terrorists is because we had democracy and freedom.
And they don't win with that.
Yeah, but if Hamas steps out of line, Israel will no doubt take matters into their own hands, which will give them every reason to do it because now Hamas is in the lead doing it and not behind Arafat and the Fatah Party.
Well, yeah, it's because in effect here, you will have a duly constituted government, i.e. a state launching these attacks.
And that will legitimize an Israeli response even more.
I'll tell you something else, though.
What are you shaking your head about in there?
You've been disagreeing with me a lot lately, and it's putting you on some thin ice.
Well, here's that.
Now, Snerdley says, what happens if Hamas doesn't deliver their own people?
Do you mean government benefits and that sort of thing?
So I think before we get to that, Joel Rosenberg has an interesting take on this.
He says that the immediate danger is the outbreak of a Palestinian civil war.
That Fatah just not going to say, oops, we lost.
We go back home.
They're not just going to do that.
In the worst case scenario, Fatah members who have no desire to give up their jobs, their monthly paychecks, their off-the-books slush funds, as well as access to guns and ammo, could simply declare war against Hamas and fight to retain the power that they've just lost at the ballot box because skirmishes between Fatah and Hamas have been going on for months, but it could get a lot bloodier.
Joel says the Mideast peace process, like Sharon, now lies in a coma.
While we wait to see how this shakes out, we'll be back.
Stay with us.
Don't go away.
All right, a little other interesting news that, if true, will not come as a surprise to any of us.
It's also out of the Middle East.
According to the New York Sun today, the man who served as a number two official in Saddam Hussein's Air Force says that Iraq moved weapons of mass destruction into Syria before the war by loading the weapons into civilian aircraft in which the passenger seats were removed.
The Iraqi general, George Seda, makes the charge in a new book, Saddam's Secrets, released this week.
He detailed the transfers in an interview yesterday with the New York Sun.
He said there are weapons of mass destruction gone out from Iraq to Syria.
They must be found and returned to safe hands.
I'm confident they were taken over.
Mr. Seda's comments come just more than a month after Israel's top general during Operation Iraqi Freedom, Moshe Yalan, told the Sun that Saddam transferred the chemical agents from Iraq to Syria.
The Democrats have made the absence of all these weapons a theme in their criticism of the president's decision to go to war in Iraq in 2003.
President Bush himself has conceded much of the point.
You remember in a televised prime time address last month, he said it's true that many nations believe Saddam had weapons of mass destruction.
Much of the intelligence turned out to be wrong.
Bush said we did not find those weapons.
I don't know if we've searched Syria.
Doubt that we have.
The discovery of any such weapons in Syria could alter the American political debate on the Iraq war, and even the accusation that they are there could step up international pressure on Damascus.
That government led by the basher Assad, already facing a UN investigation over its alleged role in the assassination of a former prime minister of Lebanon.
Now, Mr. Seda, 65, and he might pronounce it Sada, I'm not sure, but he told the New York Sun that the pilots of the two airliners that transported the weapons of mass destruction to Syria from Iraq approached him in the middle of 2004 after Saddam was captured by American troops.
I know them very well.
They're very good friends of mine, he said.
We trust each other.
We're friends as pilots.
He declined to disclose their names, saying that they are concerned for their safety, but he said that they are now employed by other airlines outside Iraq.
There were 56 flights in total, Mr. Seda said.
They attracted little notice, little notice, because they were thought to be civilian flights providing relief from Iraq to Syria, which had suffered a flood after a dam collapse in June of 2002.
Saddam realized this.
This time the Americans are coming.
They handed over the weapons of mass destruction to the Syrians.
Now, there was also an article in the fall 2005 Middle East Quarterly that reported that an appearance, in an appearance on Israel's Channel 2, December 23rd of 2002, Israel's Prime Minister Aredul Sharon stated, chemical and biological weapons which Saddam is endeavoring to conceal have been moved from Iraq to Syria.
The allegation was denied by the Syrian government at the time as completely untrue, and it attracted scant American press attention, coming as it did on the eve of the Christmas holiday.
Now, I, I, for one, we've heard this.
This is like third or fourth time I've heard this from somebody who claims to have knowledge of it.
And we still don't have any eyewitnesses to the existence of these weapons in Syria.
Just like Osama bin Laden, I'm from the school of thought that think the guy has been dead for quite a while.
I think everybody knows these weapons existed and they had to go somewhere.
And I'm just saying, it will not surprise me, folks, if they are someplace someday found, particularly in Syria.
Not surprise me at all.
And it could well be a Karl Rofian plot to have these weapons discovered this year after we have known all this time that they are there.
This is what the Democrats will say if this actually happens.
Here's Mike in Shreveport, Louisiana.
Welcome, sir.
Nice to have you with us.
Hey, Russ.
Good to talk to you.
Thank you.
I've got a question for you.
I'd like to get your, well, I guess I'd like to get your thoughts on why Bush takes a stand against Hamas, which I agree with, about not willing to work with the station, a nation that is bent on the destruction of another state.
But he won't take a hard line against Iran.
I've heard Condaleza Rice come out and speak out against the statement, especially when the president of Iran made those statements a while back.
But Bush doesn't seem to want to come out very hard against Iran.
I'm not so sure it's accurate to say that he's not taking a hard line against Iran.
I think he and Condaleezer Rice both are.
They both denounce everything this wacko new president says.
They have both said that a nuclear Iran is not going to happen.
It's a far cry from Hamas to Iran.
You could arguably say that Hamas is not yet a nation.
It's just a group of people that want somebody else's land to call their own.
Iran's a different circumstance, and they've been a power broker and a power player in the Middle East for decades.
And so dealing with them is going to be far different than we'll be dealing with somebody like Hamas, where we have a direct ally, Israel.
And of course, that's affected by Iran, too.
But I wouldn't agree that he's not been as hard line on Iran as he is being on Hamas.
Would you say that he's making two different categories possibly for and I understand that the diplomacy, you need the nuances and everything else like that.
But I don't know if it's just me, but I get the feeling that it's not so much of a double standard, but just an unwillingness.
And I understand it's through diplomacy.
You might not be able to do that as much, but to say that this is categorically unacceptable from any nation to even advocate the destruction of another nation.
Well, but look, the fact that Iran's been around a long time, they have diplomatic ties with other countries.
They're in bed with China.
They are in bed with Russia.
You have to take all that into account in terms of how you publicly deal with them.
And we don't know what's going on behind the scenes, and we never do, totally, in these circumstances.
But I think there's also the domestic politics of this.
If the president, I guarantee you, I guarantee you, if the president were rattling the sabers about Iran today as he was about Iraq, you would have a total meltdown on the left.
Despite ElBaradai and all these other people, yeah, they're six months away from having a nuclear weapons program.
You would have a total meltdown.
So there's got to be a different way of dealing with this.
And look, I think that there's a, you know, these, the president looks at things in a long term.
He's very visionary.
And as I have pointed out, you've got there's a right time to do and say something, right time to do anything, a wrong time to do everything.
You have side by side two illustrations of how to deal with the same problem.
You've got Iraq and you've got Iran.
The president chose the military angle against Iraq after going to the UN for years.
It's not just the 18 months that he tried to get permission from the Security Council to have them join us in a coalition to kick Saddam out.
There were all those years of resolutions after the first Gulf War up until the time we went in.
And the world was not ready to play ball.
The world wanted to go diplomacy.
And we found out that the Germans and the French are primary obstacles in the Security Council had deals with Saran and with Saddam and the oil for food program.
We had all kinds of sabotage going on.
There were people who had invested financially and emotionally in Saddam and Iraq, and they didn't want to upset that apple cart, so they opposed us.
But we finally said, I'm not going to wait anymore.
It's too dangerous after 9-11.
We've got a potential threat.
Preemptive action is required.
We've got this evidence and intelligence from all over the world that this guy is trying to reconstitute his nuclear program and blah, blah, blah.
I don't want to recycle all this, but you remember it.
And the president said, I've spent all the time I can afford here trying to do this the diplomatic way and put together this giant UN coalition, but I got to take action to stop this threat.
Bamo, we did.
At the same time, the international community has been dealing with Iran in its chosen way.
And where have they gotten?
Nowhere.
They've gotten absolutely nowhere.
The European Union and all of these diplomats from these various elitist think tanks all over the world were working with this ElBarada guy that the Atomic Agency, Energy Agency at the UN, to try to persuade these nut mullahs in Iran not to reconstitute, not to expand, not to go weapons grade with their nuclear material.
And while all the talks were going on, while Iran was pretending to play ball, they were going ahead and advancing their nuclear program.
And the elitist establishment, pointy-headed intellectual elitist technique failed miserably.
You take these two countries side by side.
What do you have?
We have an Iraq that no longer poses a threat, and there is no question about it.
They've got a little insurgency going on, and we're fighting terrorists there.
But in terms of Iraq posing a threat to the rest of the Middle East or anybody else, they don't.
They have been taken care of.
Iran still does.
So by the time, and there will be a right time to deal with Iran.
The president's well aware of it.
And when that right time comes, we'll have both techniques on display, which ones work, which ones don't.
And that will give even more impetus and justification for an eventual action if it's necessary to deal with the Iranian nuclear problem.
Quick time out, folks.
Stay with us.
We'll be right back.
Where else are you going to find this kind of sharp, on-the-spot, instantaneous analysis off the top of the host's head without a guest?
Nowhere.
Back in just a second.
Already having more fun than a human being should be allowed to have.
America's anchorman Rush Limbaugh, the cutting edge of societal evolution.
All right.
Today's morning update, many of you see it on podcasts the day before it airs on the radio via video podcast download.
Some of you heard it this morning.
Some of you may not have heard it.
Apparently, it was prescient.
It was a forerunner to today's New York Times lead editorial.
Of course, our update, far better, far more powerful, and far more to the point.
I'll share with you some excerpts here for the New York Times.
And this is a joke when you consider what this paper used to be or what its image used to be.
This was the paper of reasoned establishment types.
It's been taken over totally by the cockamame lunatic thinking of the fringe left wackos folks who have come now to not only take over the Democratic Party in the Senate and the House, apparently they've taken over the New York Times editorial board.
The headline of their editorial, Senators in Need of a Spine.
They can't believe that they're going to get another conservative confirmed in a court.
They just can't.
I told you that this is a thing.
It's going to cause them to wake up and realize that they have lost, that they are not the majority, that they are not mainstream, and they don't have the power to stop this.
And they don't know how to deal with it.
They live in their parallel universe.
They live in their alternative reality.
They live their dreams where despite Republican victories, they still run the show.
They don't.
Judge Alito, whose entire history, listen to this open, suggests that he holds extreme views about the expansive powers of the presidency and the limited role of Congress, will almost certainly be a Supreme Court justice soon.
His elevation will come courtesy of a president whose grandiose vision of his own powers threatens to undermine the nation's basic philosophy of government and a senate that seems eager to cooperate by rolling over and playing dead.
Schadden Freud going on here, folks, reveling and delighting in the misery of others.
And I can just see it inside the New York Times newsroom.
They've got to be beside themselves.
What kind of extremism is this?
Expansive powers of the presidency and the limited role of Congress?
Did they ever have these concerns when Bill Clinton was president?
No, of course not.
They were concerned about the runaway extremism of Newt Gingrich and the boys.
It is hard to imagine a moment when it would be more appropriate for senators to fight for a principle.
Even a losing battle would draw the public's attention to the import of this nomination.
But portraying the Alito nomination as just another volley in the culture wars vastly underestimates its significance.
The judge's record strongly suggests that he's an eager lieutenant in the ranks of the conservative theorists who ignore our system of checks and balances, elevating the presidency over everything else.
He has expressed little enthusiasm.
No, we just read the Constitution and you guys don't.
Well, we read it and like it.
You guys read it and don't like it.
It's plain that liberals and communists would hate the U.S. Constitution.
It defines the freedom of the people.
It limits.
It limits the power of the government.
And the New York Times and other libs just can't come to deal with this.
Judge Alito's refusal to even pretend to sound like a moderate was telling because it would have cost him so little.
They even go after John Roberts here.
He was far more skillful at appearing mainstream.
He's already given indications that whatever he said about the limits of executive power when he was questioned by the Senate has little practical impact on how he will rule now that he has a lifetime appointment.
They're accusing him of lying to the committee.
Senate Democrats who presented a unified front against the nomination of Alito and the Judiciary Committee seem unwilling to risk the public criticism that might come with the filibuster, particularly since there is very little chance it would work.
Judge Alito's supporters would almost certainly be able to muster the 60 senators necessary to put the nomination to a final vote.
A filibuster is a radical tool, but it's easy to see why Democrats are frightened of it.
But from our perspective, there are some things far more frightening, and one of them is Samuel Alito on the Supreme Court.
All right, so that's their lead editorial.
Yesterday is what I said.
The morning update.
And you can see the video of it, by the way, right now at rushlimbaugh.com, because I always do these things a little different when I'm doing them live on the program because there are no time constraints here, as there are when I'm recording these for our great affiliate radio stations.
The nomination of Sam Alito is now before the entire Senate, and the windbags are blowing again.
Senator Kennedy, the head windbag for the Democrat smear campaign, declared the vote to be one of the most important in history, one that would affect America for generations.
Dick Durbin claimed it's civil rights, women's rights, human rights, workers' rights, all at stake.
Senator Turbin called Sandra Day O'Connor the most important woman in America because in the last 10 years she provided a swing vote in 148 Supreme Court cases.
Dianne Feinstein predicted that Judge Alito would overturn Roe versus Wade and undermine liberty, undermine liberty for American women.
Now, according to these liberals, the stakes are higher than they have ever been for millions of Americans, minorities, women, workers, humans.
So I have a question for those of you who go to the polls and put your life and your liberty and your happiness in these Democrats' hands.
If Sam Alito's America is really an America where 10-year-old girls are going to get strip searched, where George Bush will become the unchecked dictator, where the balance of law will be tipped to the wealthy capitalist industrialist pigs at the expense of the poor, the helpless, and the weak, then why aren't the Democrats going all out to stop this guy if he's that bad and if he's going to ruin the country, if he's going to take us down a path from which we'll never recover?
Why aren't you voting again?
Why aren't you going all out to stop him from destroying the country you profess to love?
Why won't you filibuster?
That's what I said yesterday.
Where are your onions?
You have all this talk about what a horrible judge this guy is.
Why it's going to wreck human rights, monkeys' rights.
It's going to wreck civil rights, women's rights, children's rights.
Gay rights, everything's all down.
Everything you've won for 150 years down the tubes.
And you're not willing to go all out.
Stop the guy, right?
I'll tell you why they're not filibustering.
I'll tell you why they don't have the onions.
It's because they're lying about Sam Alito.
He is none of these things.
If he really were these things, they would be filibustering.
They would kidnap him.
They'd do anything to keep this guy from getting on the court.
All this tells us is they're making it all up about him.
It's a fine guy.
Back after this.
What the Democrats ought to do is go to Ruth Bader-Ginsburg and say, hey, Ruth, resign.
And then we can put Alito in her place, convince Sandra Day O'Connor to stay, and the Democrats could win by saying they save the O'Connor seat.
▲
Export Selection