All Episodes
Previous Next
Feb. 2, 2006 - Rush Limbaugh Program
36:18
February 2, 2006, Thursday, Hour #1
| Copy link to current segment

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.
Ha ha ha.
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, uh, 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 camson.
Welcome to all of you who are watching the program today as subscribers at Rush Limbaugh.com.
And I, you know, I don't pump this up much because I I don't I don't like being a huckster uh for my own stuff.
But I'll tell you it's it's uh it's uh incredible deal.
The the subscription rate uh 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 uh each and every day.
It's www.rushlimbaud.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, uh my 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 seventeen years ago.
This, according to CNN, although they've all reported this by now.
Alito sided with the majority in a six to three 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 Anton 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 uh court order said.
Uh here are the last two paragraphs of this uh story.
Alito replaced Justandra Day O'Connor, a moderate conservative, who had been the swing vote in a series of five-four decisions on social issues.
Alito was expected to align himself with the court's conservative block and could affect the outcome of votes on key social issues.
So the media's go, oh, right, we dodged a bullet.
Oh, right.
They're all excited and they're especially happy that uh you conservatives will be down on the dumps and upset and feeling betrayed.
And we we did a little research uh on on this.
Uh and my my instinctive uh 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 gonna uh vote on the basis of uh hastening an action here if he's not certain about.
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 when these requests come to the Supreme Court to uh to uh execute somebody uh from a state, if there are four justices who want to hold off, and the result would be five-four in favor of allowing the state to execute.
Traditionally, the uh the Supreme Court has has uh not wanted these votes to end up 5'4, uh because life is at stake here.
And so they've always uh not always, but in many cases, they have uh they've practiced deference.
Uh if there are as many as four of the nine justices who want to put on the brakes and allow another review or uh or appeal.
And it could well be that uh that Alito is simply doing that as well.
Uh we're gonna I uh Mr. Snerdley vividly remembers this uh when he was watching the hearings.
Uh I find it I find it curious that that none of this has been reported uh that Alito said this during the hearings.
But well, I guess I'm not surprised by it because what Alito said in the hearings was really irrelevant.
Umbody 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 are trying to gin up some sort of scandal about the man.
Uh I remember even making jokes during the um the opening statements after the Senate 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.
Uh and so what he said uh really throughout the course of the hearings, what Judge Alito said was was inconsequential in most cases.
And uh so I I wanna I want to double check and make sure that uh it's not that I doubt Mr. Snerdley's just you know, we here at the EIB network, we don't like to do anything until we have eight sources.
Um, 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 we'll continue to check into this, but I don't I don't think anybody should take the the media spin on this that this is a split and that Alito has betrayed anybody, uh certainly the president or conservatives or um or what have you.
All right, little little preview of what's coming up.
We uh we told you that Bush, uh President Bush yesterday speaking.
Where was he yesterday?
I've already forgotten where it's at uh it was at the That's right, the Grand O'Loprian National He was uh on a roll, and I had many email comments about it yesterday, and we we have some audio prepared from that.
Uh an amazing uh uh interview on ESPN between one of their their website reporters, Michael Smith, and uh Philadelphia Eagles quarterback Donovan McNabb, uh, who really takes out after Terrell Owens in this interview and uh eventually says that Owens, by suggesting that the Eagles would go undefeated if Brett Favre were the quarterback was essentially engaging in black on black crime.
That's what McNabb said.
Um and there's something everybody's forgetting about this.
I'm I'm stunned that everybody's forgetting it.
Owens didn't say that.
Owens did he was being interviewed by uh by Michael Irvin.
And Michael Irvin said, well, what do you think if uh if if uh if Red 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 McNabb.
And so they they're all all upset here because Owen supposedly suggested a white quarterback, and that really that really burned McNabb because that's black on black crime.
Owen suggested nothing.
He was responding to a question posed by Michael Irvin, who's a black guy who is all this identify everybody's race and all this.
It's just it's it's 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 is i 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 quarterbacking again 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.
Uh John Danforth, uh who spoke at my high school graduation.
He was there.
Uh and uh and I never I'll never forget his well, I do forget his speech, but I don't remember much about high school graduates that want to get out of there.
Uh but I just I just remember that he delivered the uh 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.
Uh what we what we have here, uh another hit piece on conservatives who are Christian, uh, 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.
Uh Dan Ford says, I just wish these couldn't these conservative Christians would go away.
That way liberal Republicans and Democrats could return to power.
Want to spend some time on this because it's it's instructive, patently absurd.
Walmart has been sued for not selling something this time, for not selling something.
You know that the the most dangerous place you can be 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 after pill.
We'll have the deals on this.
Uh 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 it?
Ah, here it is.
Yes.
I I was right, snurtedly was right on this uh Sam Alito business.
Just just uh here's a little blurb.
Summary of coverage, Samuel Alito on the final day of hearing, it ran um the Associated Press on January 13th on the subject of the death penalty.
Senator Patrick Leahy, Democrat Apple Tree, 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 that there was more back and forth with uh with Feingold on this.
And it it Alito got far more detailed, and he looks at look.
Uh sometimes I'm gonna uphold and sometimes I'm not.
It's gonna 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 uh and Thomas uh and uh Chief Justice Roberts uh voted one way and Alito didn't join them.
Uh but that that's that's because there were enough votes on the other side.
There were there were five votes to uh uh to delay the case and said this is this is in fact he said, as I said during hearings, he said he favored review of death penalty cases, 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 uh hypodermic, uh out of courtesy, he'll delay it just to keep reviewing it.
Uh so it he's done.
He's done exactly what he said he would do.
Nothing unexpected whatsoever.
All right, here's the here's the uh the money sound bite from the ESPN interview with Donovan McNabb and ESPN.com's Michael Smith.
Uh he was asked, McNabb was, for his reaction to the comment uh made by uh 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 uh because you know, as as deep as people won't go into it, it was black on black crime.
I mean, you you have a guy that that has been criticized just about all his career.
Um now the last criticism was that I'm selling out because I don't run anymore.
Um by an African American.
Um and to say, you know, if we have Brett Farr, you know, that could be, you know, okay, if you had, you know, another quarterback of a different decision.
Ethnic background.
Yeah, we'll be winning.
It's different to say, well, if we have Michael Vick.
Right.
Or if you say we had Dante Cole, Pepper McNair, Steve McNair, Aaron Brooks, Byron Leftwitch.
Right.
Uh but to go, you know, straight to Brad Farr, you know, that kind of just slapped me in the face, like, wow.
Now, let's let's review this.
Again, you have to remember that the the there's 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.
He 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 didn't it confused him.
Said he didn't view himself as a black quarterback.
Then he made it to the Super Bowl last year.
The Eagles went in there to play uh 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 it clearly saw himself last Super Bowl as a black quarterback, and he clearly sees himself as a black quarterback now.
Uh 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 I know what what what Donovan McNabb seeks to do professionally, and I don't I'm not I don't criticize this at all.
He wants he's patterning himself after Michael Jordan.
He wants that kind of aura and uh and and and ability to sell products, be a spokesman, uh, be a leader.
He that that's the the athlete he's pattering himself after 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 uh in an in a made-up uh racial controversy.
But uh a third thing I want to point out here is note this took place on ESPN with uh the subject was just totally race.
Totally raced.
We can't we can't have that on ESPN.
We're not gonna put up.
It's just it's uh it's funny.
John in Philadelphia, you're up first today.
Nice to have you on the EIB network.
Thanks, Rush.
Giant Ditto's from Philadelphia.
Uh I believe that this is a PR crime.
Uh I'll try not to commit a uh hate crime here in discussing the issue, but I think they need to hire you, as you mentioned before, is 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.
Had 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, the f what we didn't have in the audio on this, and this makes this even more interesting or puzzling is that uh I by you know, I by quirk of fate happened to see this last night, uh 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 Favre comment when he was about to get in bed.
It was late one night, and he was he and his wife were lying in bed, and he said he started laughing when Owens made that comment.
And his wife he said his wife looked at him and said, That makes you laugh.
Oh, yeah, it just made me laugh.
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 it I I can totally understand it.
There was a challenge to McNabb's leadership in the locker room, his ability to perform on the field, all kind 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.
I thought they were totally unfair to the guy who'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 anyway, because without him they were they were going nowhere.
Owens was out, you know, lifting weights in the front yard while shooting hoops.
Um I'll still offer to broker of the peace here.
I don't think my offer will be taken up, but you got a good idea out there, John.
Somebody needs to tell these people how they're coming across, because they have no idea.
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 could have predicted it.
All right, Jack Dan Forth.
Hey, I have to tell you he's uh he's a friend of extended members of my family.
But I and he this is not the first time that he's written a piece like this.
It won't be the last, and I each time he does it, you know.
I won't say my blood boils, but the hair on the on my arms begins to stand up a little bit.
Jack Dan Forth 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, Dan Forth 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, we'll lose their grip on power, not to mention make the United States a meaner place.
Now, Dan Forth is no squalling liberal, it says here.
He's a lifelong Republican, and his own political history shows that he's no milk toast.
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.
Yeah, it just sounds so wonderful, but you still aren't going to be able to find for me, and nobody's gonna 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 some thoughts on this.
Let's take a look at people of faith, shall we?
Because all this is 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 Dan Forth 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 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 uh 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 a 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 of 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 in 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 Dan Forth and uh former President Carter and the like don't like uh you know 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 Zax 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 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, I I just just from reading this piece that Senator Dan Forth 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 Dan Forth 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 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.
Exxon Mobil, 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 uh if Senator Dan Forth were on the Supreme Court today, I'm assuming, I suppose, because I've read this piece that he wrote today in the Washington Post that he would join the ranks of Ginsburg and Suter 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 not acceptable because of their religion, and they then get powerful in politics, it makes them really undesirable.
Where do you stop?
Uh As I say, I've read this, I've seen this before.
There's nothing particularly new in this.
What Dan Forth is saying or stands for is just another voice repeating the same old uh catchphrases.
Uh what's interesting to me about all this is that this doesn't phase the Christian conservatives, it just energizes them.
Uh 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've 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're afraid of the power they think that lies behind it.
With all due respect to uh Senator Dan Forth, 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're imploding because they're meaningless.
They're irrelevant.
They are the people because of their knowledge of their impotence, irrelevance, and meaningless meaninglessness in 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 will continue in just a moment.
I tell you, here's a dirty little secret, folks, about about a lot of this.
The Christians who are conservative, or conservatives who are Christians, and is because 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 there's some Christian conservatives who uh who have a lot of different views on on various social and cultural international issues as well.
They're not 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 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 uh Reverend Dax passing the plate.
I'm on, let's be honest about this.
Jimmy Carter's a big uh the Christian nut.
People are allowed to go out, you know, and he's allowed to go out and 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 uh Jimmy Carter or the uh Reverend Jackson or the uh Reverend Sharp.
Uh the these 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 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, uh 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 Texera.
Aaron, let me give you a little hint.
They've been focusing on honoring and distorting the past right on a.
They still think that the leaders want their people, still think they're living in days of slavery.
I mean, one of premier quarterbacks in National Football League can't be criticized by his black wide receiver without calling it black on black crime.
I mean, it it's it's 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 NAALCP.
We should be very respectful of and encouraged by the substantial progress it'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 gets 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, Ozzy Davis, or not Coretta Scott King, it renews the focus on the movement's history.
Some advocates are concerned about the eagerness to look back.
Uh I think that's 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 uh Rosa Parks.
Who are the current icons that 30 and 40 years 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 impugned 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 a Democratic Party and in the left.
I mean, I don't think we're going to have a quasi infume day 30 years from now.
I mean, he even he's upset he lost, he hadn't no money uh to run for the Senate.
Well, he's got some, but he's being dwarfed in Maryland.
Uh, that story in the stack, too.
Let's take a quick time out here, folks.
We will be back and continue in mere moments.
Howard Dean was uh was in uh Durham, North Carolina to watch the State of the Union address.
He said, because, because Durham, North Carolina is in the heart of a great Democrat state.
Uh the fact is that North Carolina has voted Republican in all but one presidential election since 1968.
But 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.
Uh your leader, uh, those of you uh Democrats out there, Howard Dean, not even knowing how North Carolina votes in presidential races since 1968.
Quick timeout.
▲
Export Selection