Rush Limbaugh Program - February 2, 2006, Thursday, Hour #1

All Episodes

Previous Next

Feb. 2, 2006 - Rush Limbaugh Program

36:22

February 2, 2006, Thursday, Hour #1

Large

Audio Only |

Scroll

Time	Text
	Welcome to today's edition of the Rush 24-7 podcast.
	Yeah, it's on.
	It's on.
	Don't worry, you've got an hour before I'm going to need it.
	Don't panic.
	Greetings.
	Hey, folks, how are you?
	We're getting close to the big day.
	Super Bowl extra large on Sunday.
	And a reminder that tomorrow, I don't know what time, but we're going to have the Hutch, who's a big Seahawks fan. On the air from Seattle as we discuss the game.
	That is tomorrow.
	We've got a lot of stuff to do today, though, nevertheless.
	Ditto Cams on.
	Welcome to all of you who are watching the program today as subscribers at rushlimbaugh.com.
	And I, you know, I don't pump this up much because I don't like being a huckster for my own stuff.
	But I'll tell you, it's an incredible deal.
	The subscription rate, multiple levels of pricing, and what you get for it will astound you.
	I mean, it literally will.
	It's an online encyclopedia with live content, both audio and video, of the program, each and every day.
	It's at www.rushlimbaugh.com.
	Our telephone number is 800-282-2882, and the email address is rush at EIBNet.com.
	All right, I need to put the brakes on something here, my good buddies.
	The media is just excited.
	They're beside themselves.
	They just can't stand it.
	New Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito broke ranks with the court's conservatives late on Wednesday, refusing to allow Missouri to execute a man convicted of kidnapping and killing a Kansas City teenager 17 years ago.
	This, according to CNN, although they've all reported this by now, Alito sided with the majority in a 6-3 vote, rejecting a last-minute request to allow Missouri to carry out the execution of Michael Taylor, who's now 39 by lethal injection at midnight.
	Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas supported allowing the execution to proceed.
	Earlier on Wednesday, the court rejected Missouri's bid to immediately lift a stay of execution for Taylor.
	Alito didn't take part in that decision, the court order said.
	Here are the last two paragraphs of this story.
	Alito replaced Jeff Sassandra Day O'Connor, a moderate conservative who had been the swing vote in a series of 5-4 decisions on social issues.
	Alito was expected to align himself with the court's conservative bloc and could affect the outcome of votes on key social issues.
	So the media is going, all right, we dodged a bullet.
	All right, they're all excited, and they're especially happy that you conservatives will be down on the dumps and upset and feeling betrayed.
	And we did a little research on this.
	And my instinctive reaction to this when I heard it last night was, hey, hey, hey, hey, put the brakes on.
	Hold on.
	This could be nothing more than the fact that Alito's not yet familiar with the case and is not going to vote on the basis of hastening an action here if he's not certain about it.
	Then we did a little more research.
	And we found that during the hearings, Sam Alito actually said that he favored review of death penalty cases and even said that he would provide the fifth vote as a matter of judicial courtesy if that situation were to arise.
	He's actually doing something he said he would do during the hearings.
	Now, as I understand it, and we're still checking this out, but as I understand it, when these requests come to the Supreme Court to Execute somebody from a state if there are four justices who want to hold off, and the result would be 5-4 in favor of allowing the state to execute.
	Traditionally, the Supreme Court has not wanted these votes to end up 5-4 because life is at stake here.
	And so they've always, not always, but in many cases, they have practiced deference if there are as many as four of the nine justices who want to put on the brakes and allow another review or appeal.
	And it could well be that Alito is simply doing that as well.
	And we're going to, Mr. Snerdley vividly remembers this when he was watching the hearings.
	I find it curious that none of this has been reported that Alito said this during the hearings.
	But I guess I'm not surprised by it because what Alito said in the hearings was really irrelevant.
	Nobody was paying attention to that in the media.
	And on the left, they were paying attention to Senator Kennedy and Senator Turbin and Senator Leahy and all the Democrats who were trying to gin up some sort of scandal about the man.
	I remember even making jokes during the opening statements after the Senate Judiciary Committee members all made their opening statements, Alito dared to give his.
	I said, what does he think this is?
	He's not supposed to speak.
	You can see how upset Senator Kennedy was that Judge Alito dared to even speak and receive or recite his opening statement orally.
	And so what he said, really throughout the course of the hearings, what Judge Alito said was inconsequential in most cases.
	And so I want to double check and make sure that it's not that I doubt Mr. Snerdley is just, you know, we here at the EIB network, we don't like to do anything until we have eight sources.
	Now, Snerdley counts for three because he's so good at this stuff, but three is not enough for us here at the EIB network.
	And we'll continue to check into this.
	But I don't think anybody should take the media spin on this, that this is a split and that Alito has betrayed anybody, certainly the president or conservatives or what have you.
	All right, little preview of what's coming up.
	We told you that Bush, President Bush yesterday speaking.
	Where was he yesterday?
	I've already forgotten.
	It was at the that's right, the Grand Oloprian National.
	He was on a roll, and I had many email comments about it yesterday.
	And we have some audio prepared from that.
	An amazing interview on ESPN between one of their website reporters, Michael Smith, and Philadelphia Eagles quarterback Donovan McNabb, who really takes out after Terrell Owens in this interview and eventually says that Owens, by suggesting that the Eagles would go undefeated if Brett Favre, the quarterback, was essentially engaging in black-on-black crime.
	That's what McNabb said.
	And there's something everybody's forgetting about this.
	I'm stunned that everybody's forgetting it.
	Owens didn't say that.
	Owens did.
	He was being interviewed by Michael Irvin.
	And Michael Irvin said, well, what do you think if Brett Favre were the quarterback?
	Oh, we'd be undefeated.
	Now, clearly, Owens' trying to get under McNabb's skin, but he didn't bring it up.
	Michael Irvin brought up the, and of course, who is it that's making race out of all this?
	ESPN and McNab.
	And so they're all upset here because Owens supposedly suggested a white quarterback, and that really, that really burned McNabb, because that's black on black crime.
	Owens suggested nothing.
	He was responding to a question posed by Michael Irvin, who's a black guy who has all this identify everybody's race and all this.
	It's just, this is laughable to me.
	I mean, ESPN bringing up race, McNabb bringing up race, Owens sort of subtly involving race by deigning to answer the question.
	And everybody getting the quotes wrong, and everybody is missing the story.
	I mean, here's McNabb doesn't even know what he's talking about in this case because Owens was just sitting there answering a question that was posed to him by a reporter.
	Now, if Owens had sat there and said, who would you like to be quarterback and had himself said Brett Favre, then McNabb might have a point, but I thought race didn't matter to any of these people anyway.
	I thought we were long past that.
	John Danforth, who spoke at my high school graduation, he was there, and I'll never forget his, well, I do forget his speech, but I don't remember much about high school graduates who wanted to get out of there.
	But I just remember that he delivered the, what do they call it, commencement address?
	It's been so long since I've been to one of those.
	He has a piece today in the Washington Post.
	Jack Danforth says it's time for the GOP Center to take on the Christian right.
	It's time the GOP Center took on the Christian right.
	And what we have here, another hit piece on conservatives who are Christian, who dare to participate in the political process like liberals who are Christians, who dare to stand up for their beliefs when they're under attack by the left and the courts.
	Danforth says, I just wish these conservative Christians would go away.
	That way liberal Republicans and Democrats could return to power.
	I want to spend some time on this because it's instructive, patently absurd.
	Walmart has been sued for not selling something this time, for not selling something.
	You know, the most dangerous place you can be is between a liberal woman and her morning after pill.
	I mean, you don't, that's more dangerous place to be than between Chuck Schumer and a television camera.
	You don't want you, when a liberal woman gets pregnant, you do not want to be anywhere near her morning afterpill.
	We'll have details on this.
	And lots of stuff.
	We're loaded today on the EIB network, as always.
	We'll come back and we'll resume with all the rest of today's program right after this.
	Where is it?
	What did I do with?
	Ah, here it is.
	Yes.
	All right.
	I was right.
	Snurdley was right on this Sam Alito business.
	Here's a little blurb.
	Summary of coverage.
	Samuel Alito on the final day of hearing.
	It ran the Associated Press on January 13th on the subject of the death penalty.
	Senator Patrick Leahy, Democrat Appletree, Vermont, asked Alito whether, as a courtesy, he would sign on as the required fifth person if four other justices vote to stay in execution or hear the case.
	Alito said that that seems to be a very sensible procedure because I think we all want to avoid the tragedy of having an innocent person executed.
	So, and then there was more back and forth with fine gold on this.
	And Alito got far more detailed than he looks and look.
	Sometimes I'm going to uphold and sometimes I'm not.
	It's going to depend on the specifics of the case.
	So the bottom line here is that this was not unexpected.
	In fact, it was predictable.
	And this was not a split.
	Well, you could say, I mean, technically, I guess you could say it was a split because Scalia and Thomas and Chief Justice Roberts voted one way and Alito didn't join them.
	But that's because there were enough votes on the other side.
	There were five votes to delay the case.
	And so this is this is in fact, he said, as I said during hearings, he said he favored review of death penalty cases.
	He even said he would provide a fifth vote as a matter of judicial courtesy if that situation were to arise.
	Judicial courtesy, meaning if there are four justices that don't want to throw the switch or pull the plunger on the hypodermic, out of courtesy, he'll delay it just to keep reviewing it.
	So he's done, he's done exactly what he said he would do.
	Nothing unexpected whatsoever.
	All right, here's the money soundbite from the ESPN interview with Donovan McNabb and ESPN.com's Michael Smith.
	He was asked, McNabb was, for his reaction to the comment made by Michael Irvin and agreed to by Terrell Owens that the Eagles would be a winning team if they had Brett Favre instead of McNabb.
	It was definitely a slap in the face for me.
	It was a slap in the face because, you know, as deep as people won't go into it, it was black on black crime.
	I mean, you have a guy that has been criticized just about all his career.
	And now the last criticism was that I'm selling out because I don't run anymore by an African-American.
	And to say, you know, if we have Brett Favre, you know, that could be, you know, okay, if you had, you know, another quarterback of a different descent, ethnic background, that will be winning.
	It's different to say, well, if we have Michael Vick, or if you say we had Dante Colepepper, Steve McNair, Aaron Brooks, Byron Lethbich, but to go, you know, straight to Brett Favre, you know, that kind of just slapped me in the face, like, wow.
	Now, let's review this.
	Again, you have to remember that there's something that needs to be specified.
	Owens did not bring up the name Brett Favre.
	Michael Irvin did.
	Michael Irvin brought up Brett Favre.
	I don't know that he did it because Brett Favre's a white guy.
	Brett Favre happens to be right reputation, the best quarterback in the league, who is still playing.
	Not as evidenced by this current season, but as evidenced by his Hall of Fame statistics and credentials.
	So you can't just say, well, they brought up Brett Favre because he's a white guy.
	I brought up Brett Favre because he's a good quarterback for crying out loud.
	When we get to the point where you can't bring up a good quarterback to replace a failing quarterback simply because he's white and the failing quarterback is black, then you've got a lot of hypocrisy and roadblocks.
	But let's also remember this.
	After my analysis on ESPN, in which I said that I thought McNabb was not as good as everybody else thought he was, that he was being propped up by a socially conscious media, which has this desire for black quarterbacks to do well, he had a press conference.
	McNabb had a press conference that he didn't know why I had to bring up race.
	He thought we were all past that.
	It confused him.
	He said he didn't view himself as a black quarterback.
	Then he made it to the Super Bowl last year.
	The Iggles went in there to play the New England Patriots.
	And McNabb kept bringing up Doug Williams' name as the only black quarterback to win the Super Bowl.
	And they said he clearly saw himself last Super Bowl as a black quarterback.
	And he clearly sees himself as a black quarterback now and sees Owens and Michael Irvin engaging in black on black crime.
	Black on black crime.
	We're talking about criticism here.
	The other thing I have to, you know, I know what Donovan McNabb seeks to do professionally, and I don't criticize this at all.
	He wants, he's patterning himself after Michael Jordan.
	He wants that kind of aura and ability to sell products, be a spokesman, be a leader.
	That's the athlete he's patterning himself to happen, which makes this agreement he did to do an interview yesterday all the more confusing and mysterious to me.
	Why, when you're trying to establish yourself as a man of the people, go out and get yourself involved as a victim in a made-up racial controversy.
	But the third thing I want to point out here is, note, this took place on ESPN.
	The subject was just totally race.
	Totally race.
	We can't have that on ESPN.
	We're not going to put up.
	It's just, it's funny.
	John in Philadelphia, you're up first today.
	Nice to have you on the EIB network.
	Thanks, Rush.
	Giant Dittos from Philadelphia.
	Thank you.
	I believe that this is a PR crime.
	I'll try not to commit a hate crime here in discussing the issue, but I think they need to hire you, as you mentioned before, as their PR agent.
	Donovan just has to shut up and not talk about this.
	Here in Philly, now the focus is going to be back on him performing T.O., same thing.
	He could have won the PR battle, had he just, his mouth gotten out of his way, and his PR agent said, look, you know, I just want to play hard and I just want to win.
	These guys, it's a PR crime, what is going on, that they would pay that much to have someone do their PR.
	Well, what we didn't have in the audio on this, and this makes this even more interesting or puzzling, is that I, you know, I, by quirk of fate, happened to see this last night.
	I'm watching Sports Center because of the Super Bowl want to see what's going on with the Steelers.
	And I saw the first part of the interview.
	And McNabb says in the interview that he first heard Owens make this Brett Farf comment when he was about to get in bed.
	It was late one night, and he and his wife were lying in bed.
	And he said he started laughing when Owens made that comment.
	And he said his wife looked at him and said, that makes you laugh.
	Oh, yeah, it just made me laugh.
	It's just silly.
	It's absurd.
	I couldn't stop laughing, McNabb said.
	Then it didn't take two minutes before it became what you heard.
	So obviously it didn't make him laugh.
	Obviously, it's bugged him.
	And I can totally understand it.
	There was a challenge to McNab's leadership in the locker room, his ability to perform on the field.
	The Philadelphia media to this day is writing.
	There was this story earlier this week that he's got a lot of work to get his reputation back.
	And I thought they were totally unfair to the guy.
	He's trying to play this past season with a sports hernia, but he was out there trying to make a go of it for his team because without him, they were going nowhere.
	Owens was out lifting weights in the front yard while shooting hoops.
	But I'll still offer to broker the piece here.
	I don't think my offer will be taken up, but you've got a good idea out there, John.
	Somebody needs to tell these people how they're coming across because they have no idea.
	I was just telling Snerdley and the gang on the other side of the glass in there.
	First, the only thing that surprised me about this McNabb interview is that my name didn't come up.
	And then I understood why.
	There is a gag order on my name being uttered at ESPN because it's too racially explosive and controversial.
	What a bunch of just self-serving hypocrites this whole crowd has turned out to be.
	Just could have predicted it.
	All right, Jack Danforth.
	Hey, I have to tell you, he's a friend of extended members of my family.
	This is not the first time that he's written a piece like this.
	It won't be the last.
	And each time he does it, I won't say my blood boils, but the hair on my arms begins to stand up a little bit.
	Jack Danforth wishes the Republican right would step down from its pulpit.
	Instead, he sees a constant flow of religion into national politics.
	And not just any religion either, but the us versus them.
	My God is bigger than your God, velvet fist variety of Christian evangelism.
	As a mainline Episcopal priest, retired U.S. Senator, and diplomat, Danforth worships a humbler God and considers the right's certainty a sin.
	Legislating against gay marriage, for instance, it's just cussedness, he says.
	As he sees it, many Republican leaders have lost their bearings.
	And if they don't change, will lose their grip on power, not to mention make the United States a meaner place.
	Now, Danforth is no squalling liberal, it says here.
	He's a lifelong Republican, and his own political history shows that he's no milquetoast.
	A man of God in the GOP, he's speaking out for moderation and religion in politics in science and government.
	Let's applaud moderation.
	It just sounds so wonderful, but you still aren't going to be able to find for me.
	Nobody's going to be able to find for me in any library anywhere great moderates in American history.
	A book hasn't been written, and it won't be written.
	The lanky figure, once dubbed Saint Jack, not always warmly, for the perch he seemed to occupy in Washington's moral high ground, expects people will sour on the assertive brand of Christianity so closely branded Republican.
	I'm counting on nausea, he says.
	All right, well, some thoughts on this.
	Let's take a look at people of faith, shall we?
	Because all this is another hit piece on conservatives who are Christian.
	It's not a hit piece on Christians.
	It's a hit piece on conservatives who are Christians, who dare to participate in a political process like liberals who are Christians, who dare to stand up for their beliefs when they're under attack by liberals, by the left, and by the courts.
	Senator Danforth and others like him just wish those conservatives would go away, because that way liberal and moderate Republicans and Democrats could return to their exalted right at the perch of power.
	Well, people of faith were among the first abolitionists in this country.
	People of faith were among the first civil rights activists.
	And people of faith are today the defenders of life and moral values that are the foundations of our society.
	Were it not for people of faith, not only in the country at large, but within the political spectrum, and they have every right to be there, as does anybody else, were it not for their presence, who knows how many abortions would be taking place, how much teen pregnancy, how much moral debauchery would have been visited upon our culture.
	It's a significant amount as it is.
	Jimmy Carter is allowed to wear his faith on his sleeve.
	And what does he do with it?
	He promotes tyrants.
	The Reverend Dax uses faith.
	He goes into church and passes the plate for himself and Democratic candidates.
	He uses his faith to advance big government liberalism and the Democratic Party.
	But now that tens of millions of Christians who don't share the views of the left are participating in a political process, why, uh-oh, sound the warning bells.
	They are dangerous.
	Now, this nonsense may fly on the style section pages of the Washington Post and the New York Times, but it's not going to fly anywhere else.
	Those people in New York and Washington inside the Beltway are the ones in the bubble.
	And all this piece represents is the increasing fear of their presence and power that the left feels.
	Because at the end of the day, at the end of the week, at the end of the year in the final analysis, Christians who are conservative are Americans too.
	And I don't see anybody else telling any other group of Americans to get yourselves out of politics.
	We don't be saying it.
	We're not saying it to militant Muslim groups.
	We're not saying it to anybody else.
	Get yourself out of our political system.
	You are going to wreak havoc.
	Senator Danforth and former President Carter and the like don't like, well, they don't say this about liberal Christians.
	Well, you would never read a piece like this.
	You'd never see a piece like this about the Reverend Zach and his organization, the monochrome coalition.
	They don't denounce the involvement of the Muslim community in politics and in legal battles.
	But if you go back in history and look, the birth of the Republican Party in many ways involved the issue of abolition.
	It was people of faith who helped bring and lead that movement.
	Now, I suppose, just from reading this piece that Senator Danforth wrote, I suppose if he had been in Philadelphia when the Declaration of Independence was being drafted, he would have objected to the inclusion of references to God and natural law in our founding document.
	They're right there to tell us that people of faith, conservatives who are Christians, you've got to remove yourselves from the political system, be akin to saying to many of the founding fathers, you have to pull yourself out of these talks to put together our founding documents because you are only going to bring trouble to our land.
	I guess if Congressman Senator Danforth had been in Congress earlier in our history, he would have objected to passing the First Amendment because of the free exercise of religion clause.
	There's the First Amendment has the free exercise of religion clause, and now we've got elements of the moderate center and the left who are telling certain conservatives in America who are Christian, no, no, no, no, because of the religion you practice, you are destroying the country.
	You need to.
	If you take a look at the enemies that the left in this country has, it's striking.
	We've gone through them before.
	ExxonMobil, Shell, any pharmaceutical company, Walmart, Christian conservatives, take a look at the enemies that they have, and you'll clearly find out exactly who they are and where they are.
	If Senator Danforth were on the Supreme Court today, I'm assuming, I suppose, because I've read this piece that he wrote today, the Washington Post, that he would join the ranks of Ginsburg and Souter, Breyer and Stevens, claiming there's a wall of separation between church and state, and he would probably agree to strike down all religious symbols and references to God in the public square.
	I mean, once you start down this path that some Americans are not acceptable because of their religion, and they then get powerful in politics, that makes them really undesirable.
	Where do you stop?
	As I say, I've read this.
	I've seen this before.
	There's nothing particularly new in this.
	What Danforth is saying or stands for is just another voice repeating the same old catchphrases.
	What's interesting to me about all this is that this doesn't phase the Christian conservatives.
	It just energizes them.
	Because Christians who are also conservatives are fighting back.
	They didn't pick the fight.
	And I say the same thing about myself on this program.
	You know, people say, you get up, all you do is attack people.
	No, I don't.
	I don't attack anybody.
	I defend the institutions and traditions that I love, agree with, and want to protect.
	I defend things.
	I don't get up and look people attacked.
	They do that for me.
	Same thing with these Christians who are conservatives.
	They didn't pick the fight.
	They're fighting back.
	It's the left.
	It is the left in this country that seeks to use the courts to change society.
	It is the left in this country that seeks to outlaw practices that have historically been permitted and, in fact, cherished.
	It's the left in this country trying to get rid of all of these symbols.
	They are afraid of symbols.
	They are afraid of words because they are afraid of the power they think lies behind it.
	With all due respect to Senator Danforth, I think he has it backwards.
	It is the left that is on the attack in a desperation mode.
	It is the left that has, as Peggy Noonan wrote today, descended into an utter meaninglessness.
	She agrees with me that they are imploding and they are imploding because they're meaningless.
	They're irrelevant.
	They are the people, because of their knowledge of their impotence, irrelevance, and meaninglessness and their implosion.
	They are the ones who are on the attack.
	It is people of faith who are organizing to push back to defend what had been the status quo for most of our history.
	And I commend them for doing so.
	Quick timeout.
	We'll continue in just a moment.
	I'll tell you, here's a dirty little secret, folks, about a lot of this.
	The Christians who are conservative or conservatives who are Christians, and they're growing stronger and they're branching out and they're not monolithic.
	You know, everybody thinks that they're just they agree on virtually everything and they don't.
	I mean, there's some conservative Christians that are big believers in global warming, and I think they're nuts.
	But I'm not telling them to get out of the political system.
	There's some Christian conservatives who have a lot of different views on various social and cultural international issues as well.
	They're not a monolithic bunch.
	But regardless, they're growing in power, and they are growing in power because they're unified.
	They're fighting back.
	They're under assault and they know it.
	On the other hand, the modern-day so-called civil rights movement is built around the church.
	I mean, Bill Clinton spent half his time in these churches raising money illegally with the Reverend Jackson passing the plate.
	I'm on, let's be honest about this.
	Jimmy Carter's a big Christian nut.
	People are allowed to go out.
	You know, he's allowed to go out and proselytize and say whatever he wants based on his deeply held faith.
	Nobody, well, the same people that rip the conservatives who are Christian don't rip Jimmy Carter or the Reverend Jackson or the Reverend Sharpton.
	These guys get a free pass.
	The fact of the matter is they are losing power.
	They're imploding because they are locked into a time warp.
	They're locked in 30 to 50 years ago, and here's more evidence of it.
	The AP ran a story yesterday following the death of Coretta Scott King.
	Civil rights movement losing icons and focus.
	Amid their grief over the death of Coretta Scott King, black advocates say that her passing underscores a growing concern as the movement's iconic leaders fade into history.
	Rosa Parks, Coretta Scott King.
	Much of the focus is on honoring the past rather than pushing for equality today.
	Well, hey, this is written by Aaron Texira.
	Aaron, let me give you a little hint.
	They've been focusing on honoring and distorting the past.
	They still think that the leaders want their people to still think they're living in days of slavery.
	I mean, one of the premier quarterbacks in the National Football League can't be criticized by his black wide receiver without calling it black on black crime.
	I mean, this is nothing new.
	There hasn't been any advancement.
	Everything is still based on pre-1964 and 1968 beliefs.
	We will now celebrate Coretta Scott King as though the civil rights movement is finished and the mission has been accomplished, but the work is not done, said Bruce Gordon, president of the NAA LCP.
	We should be very respectful of and encouraged by the substantial progress that's been made, but in no way, shape, or form should we conclude that the civil rights mission is complete.
	No, of course, it never will be complete.
	That's the whole, it's the business of it.
	The business demands it never be complete.
	There's also a sense among advocates that modern activism is being overshadowed by a near-constant string of commemorations for bygone victories.
	The 50th anniversary of Brown versus Board of Education in 2004.
	Last year, the 40 years since the historic march from Selma, Alabama to Montgomery, Alabama to win voting rights for African Americans.
	Inevitably, such remembrances intensify in the first months of each year with the mid-January holiday for Martin Luther King Jr. and his widow fought to win and with Black History Month, which began Wednesday.
	In addition, each time an important civil rights figure dies, be it Rosa Parks, Ozzie Davis, or now Coretta Scott King, it renews the focus on the movement's history.
	Some advocates are concerned about the eagerness to look back.
	I think that's pretty accurate.
	They're pretty wise to be concerned about this because, I mean, if you have a movement, I mean, this is taken for what they are.
	You have a movement.
	It's based on icons, based on Martin Luther King.
	It's based on Coretta Scott King and Rosa Parks.
	Who are the current icons that 30 and 40 years from now you're going to be celebrating?
	Ja Rule, Snoop Dogg, Kanye West.
	Now, there are plenty of people out there that qualify for this, but they'll never see the light of day.
	In this context, that would be Clarence Thomas, Condoleezza Rice.
	The movement is moving forward, is my point.
	But the assigned people in the big click in the civil rights movement are not the ones moving forward.
	They're not moving forward because of the ideas they hold.
	And so all they can do is look past and look back and commemorate the glory days of what once were.
	Now, the work that those guys did, Martin Luther King, you can see it.
	The work that they did has come to great fruition as a great, growing black middle class.
	You have the most powerful woman in American history as Secretary of State, talked about as a presidential candidate.
	She's lampooned and impugned by the same people in the Civil Rights Movement, though, who impugn others in the conservative movement.
	They write disparaging things about her.
	They put cartoons together that are repugnant in their racial overtones.
	So while the movement's going forward, the people who think they run it are standing still, just like everybody else is in the Democratic Party and in the left.
	It's plain as day for those outside the movement to see it.
	I mean, I don't think we're going to have a Kwaezi infume day 30 years from now.
	I mean, he even, he's upset.
	He lost.
	He had no money to run for the Senate.
	Well, he's got some, but he's being dwarfed in Maryland.
	I got that story in the stack, too.
	Let's take a quick timeout here, folks.
	We will be back and continue in mere moments.
	Howard Dean was in Durham, North Carolina to watch the State of the Union address.
	He said, because Durham, North Carolina is in the heart of a great Democrat state.
	The fact is that North Carolina has voted Republican in all but one presidential election since 1968.
	That he said he was in North Carolina to watch the State of the Union because it's at the heart of a great Democrat state.
	Your leader, those of you Democrats out there, Howard Dean, not even knowing how North Carolina votes in presidential races since 1968.
	Quick time out.
	The media is starting to take swipes at Mother Sheehan.

▲