All Episodes
Previous Next
May 17, 2006 - Rush Limbaugh Program
36:13
May 17, 2006, Wednesday, Hour #1
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Welcome to today's edition of the Rush 24-7 podcast.
Look at this headline.
Look at this headline.
It's an AP story.
It says, it says, fear gnaws Mexicans as votainers.
There's a Mexican presidential election coming up.
I'm surprised there are any Mexicans left in Mexico.
To vote, that's why the headline caught my eye.
Greetings, ladies and gentlemen, welcome to the EIB Network.
And the award-winning, thrill-packed, ever-exciting, increasingly popular Rush Limbaugh program, we're here, the Limbaugh Institute for Advanced Conservative Studies.
Telephone number if you want to be on the program today, 800-282-2882.
The email address is rush at EIBnet.com.
I want to start by going back to yesterday's program about 24 hours ago.
And I want to review what I said leading into a discussion of President Bush's speech on immigration the night before.
Let's get to the president's speech on immigration last night.
What you saw, what you heard.
I think as a sincere leader trying to lead the nation, we've got the third rail of third rails here, the illegal immigration.
And the horses are out of the barn on this.
You can lock the door to the barn all you want, and you can say, but when the horses are gone, the horses are gone.
And this is one of these issues.
You heard the president, you saw him trying to solve a problem that previous leaders and politicians created, ignored, and encouraged.
It's a tough thing.
All right.
No, it's a question.
Does that sound like I was giving the president the benefit of the doubt?
I was understanding this is a big problem.
Yeah, he's had a role in it, but it's a problem created long before he got there.
And of course, I know it's got a lot of people royal, but you didn't hear anything in that that would constitute bigotry or harsh criticism of the president, did you?
In fact, you can go through the whole program yesterday.
You won't really hear that.
Was respectful of Vice President Cheney, as I always am on this program.
And I, you know, asked him some pretty tough questions.
It was not a, you know, I didn't lob a bunch of softballs at him.
So imagine my shock and stunned amazement when I'm watching the roundtable of one of my favorite television shows, a special report with Britt Hume.
And they're discussing the reaction to the president's speech.
And Fred Barnes turned to speak.
He said this.
The president did not do very well among the hardcore anti-immigrant people.
The hardcore people, the blog, the conservative blogs, the conservative talk radio people, Rush Limbaugh and so on.
The difference is they don't have a vote.
And once you get an issue that has tremendous momentum behind it, it's really the chemistry in the Senate and the House that matters.
Whoa, no, what is this?
Anti-immigrant.
When in the world, especially yesterday or any day, have I expressed anti-immigrant sentiments?
I have expressed alarm and concern over the original Hegel Martinez bill that would have allowed as many as between 100 and 200 million new legal immigrants into the country in 20 years.
I think that's a bit overdone.
I've never suggested we ban immigrants, ban immigration.
I've only spoken about illegal immigrants.
What is all this?
It's anti-immigration people, the hardcore people, the blogs.
You know, this is disappointing because there's no anti-immigration sentiment among any of the people I know about this.
It's all anti-illegal.
And I don't understand what's so hard to understand about that.
The word illegal, if it doesn't mean anything anymore, take it out.
But if illegal still has meaning, if you can go to dictionary, you can find that it has a meaning then and it continues to be used, then why ignore it?
And why try to cast people who are not anti-immigrant as anti-immigrant?
There's a whole.
You know, I'll tell you what, this issue has got more divisions in the Republican, is causing more divisions in the Republican Party than any issue that I can recall in a long time.
And I frankly, including the Doom by Porch deal, I can't recall an issue.
I've been doing this for 18 years.
It'll be 18 years in August, big anniversary coming up.
I can't trying to think.
There have been some, but I can't think of any single issue which has Republicans slash conservatives more up in arms than this one.
And particularly with the apparent lack of response at the highest levels of government, House, Senate, White House.
The House Bank was a big deal and the House Post Office and some of those corruption scandals that existed back in the late 80s and early 90s.
But either this is incredible.
You've got, even among the conservative quote-unquote, intelligentsia.
And yes, we have pointy-headed elites in the conservative movement, just like they exist on the left.
And they're mostly inside the Beltway.
And even those people are divided on this.
Some of them are calling each other anti-immigrant.
The others are saying, yeah, you don't understand a problem in America.
You need to get outside the Beltway and go see it.
This is a classic illustration here of how at least Fred Barnes, I don't know if he's speaking just for himself or representing the Weekly Standard where he works as well in an editorial sense, but this idea that there's an anti-immigrant mood out there is misstated.
And frankly, it's absurd.
Now, there's action in the Senate.
As you know, Jeff Sessions succeeded in reducing these numbers from 100 to 200 million to somewhere between, well, I think the top will be 60 million.
And it's strange when you can have new immigration of 60 million over 20 years be considered a victory.
So these guys start with this massive high starting point, 100 to 200 million new legal immigrants.
And Sessions says, whoa, that's too many, and starts alerting people in the Senate.
And they vote it to change the amend it, and they get it down to the top now would be, I think, it's either, yeah, 60 million is what it would be if the full caps are reached.
But that's not really the big story.
The real big story is that the Senate yesterday voted against securing the border before implementing provisions that would grant the right of citizenship to millions of illegal aliens that would double the flow of legal immigration.
The amendment would have delayed the amnesty and guest worker provisions in the Senate's comprehensive immigration reform bill until the border had been sewn up successfully.
Majority of Democrats, 36 out of 44, were joined by 18 Republicans and the chambers alone independent to kill the amendment on a 55 to 40 vote.
Well, that sort of sums up where we are here.
55 to 40, and the amendment would have delayed the amnesty and guest worker provisions in the Senate's bill until the border had been sewn up successfully.
Meaning, if you look at it the other way, 55 senators said, screw security.
We're going to join the Democrats and the open borders crowd here.
Would you like to hear the names of the 18 Republican senators who voted with the Democrats on this?
Here we go in alphabetical order.
Robert Bennett of Utah, Sam Brownback of Kansas, Lincoln Shafee, Rhode Island, Norm Coleman, Minnesota, Susan Collins, Maine, Larry Craig, Idaho, Mike DeWine, Ohio, Lindsey Graham, South Carolina, Chuck Hagel, Nebraska, Dick Luger, Indiana,
Mel Martinez, Florida, Linda Murkowski, Arkansas, or Alaska, sorry, Senator Shelby from Alabama, Olympia Snow from Maine, Senator Specter, Pennsylvania, Ted Stevens, Alaska, Voinovich, Ohio, and John Warner from Virginia.
There were four Republicans who didn't vote.
Dad Cochran, Mississippi, Judd Gregg, New Hampshire, Trent Lutt, and Senator McCain, who was at Columbia University, making a commencement address.
And a fascinating headline on that story: Wet Weather Dampens Protests at McCain's speech.
Did the commencement speech at Columbia University?
Anyway, we have to take a brief time out here, folks.
We'll be back and continue with all the rest of today's program in mere moments.
Don't vanish, stay where you are.
And we're back, 800-282-2882.
El Rushball, the all-knowing, all-caring, all-sensing, all-feeling, all-concerned, pretty much all everything.
Maha, Rushy.
And welcome to those of you watching the program today on the DittoCam at rushlimbaugh.com.
By the way, for those of you watching the program on the DittoCam, we are investigating sabotage here.
DittoCam settings are all out of whack, and we can't get them back to where they were.
We've done our best to normalize the picture, but with the normal settings we always have, I look like I'm a sunburned red apple.
We can't have that.
The last thing I am is a red.
So we've made some dial position changes here.
And Brian says, I guess I'll have to look at the owner's manual.
I said, screw that.
Get a new camera.
Obviously, they've been using this a long time.
Just get a new camera.
We're the EIB network for crying out.
I'll look at the owner's manual.
The great thing about technology today is you don't have to look at the owner's manual.
At any rate, 800-282-2882.
Guess we're supposed to be proud, and I guess we're supposed to applaud this today.
The Senate voted today.
We got audio soundbites from Senate action today.
Ted Kennedy flips out.
That's coming up.
Senate voted today to exclude illegal immigrants convicted of a felony or three misdemeanors from a chance at remaining in the country under what critics say is an amnesty program.
Unanimous vote on an amendment that before Easter had been considered a poison pill, provided added momentum for broad immigration reform that would give legal status to millions of illegal immigrants and put many of them on a path towards citizenship.
This is the Kyle Cornyn Amendment.
Kyle of Arizona, Cornyn of Texas, they softened the bill Tuesday in negotiations with the supporters of the legislation.
Sponsors agreed to include exceptions for hardship cases and those who don't know or didn't know a deportation order had been issued for them.
Senator Kennedy said, we want to keep those who could harm us, the criminal element.
We're going to keep them out of here.
Those who could benefit us ought to remain.
Yeah, yeah, yeah.
Yeah, of course.
Well, yeah, I know.
You want to know what one of the hardships is?
It'll hurt my family if you deport me.
So that, if somebody's family would be hurt by deportation, they don't get deported.
Okay.
I'll tell you, it's going to be fascinating to see where this goes.
Folk, I know it's getting worse by the day, and it's inexplicable.
It doesn't make any, what are these 18 Republicans doing?
What is so difficult to understand about this in terms of the smart, sensible thing to do here?
The first thing is the security of the border and to have 18 Republicans.
Nope, nope, nope.
Can't put that in there.
Maybe they didn't like the fact that we can't do anything else until the border is.
Well, what is wrong with that?
I am trying to maintain my composure, but no matter where I look and no matter how deep I dig, I can't come up with an explanation for any of this that makes sense to me.
Here's some of the details.
By the way, I need to issue a correction.
Senator Sessions' fix the top is 90 million now, between 60 and 90.
I made him said it was 30 and 60 million that the new amendment adjustments allow for.
It used to be 100, 217 million, somewhere between there, those two numbers, after Jeff Sessions did his magic.
The range now is between 60 and 90 million.
But I mean, so what?
I got it wrong by 30 million, 10 million here, 10 million there.
But what are we talking about anyway?
These numbers are still ridiculous.
It's still absurd.
I mean, it's crazy when the top figure now gets reduced from 217 million to 90 million and you think, aha, victory.
At any rate, the amendment to delay the amnesty and guest worker provisions until the border had been sewn up successfully was offered by a senator from Georgia by the name of Isaacson.
He said, we didn't enforce the border.
We granted amnesty in 1986, and 20 years later, there are 11 to 12 million to 13 million who've come because of the promise and opportunity of this country, but also because we've given a wink and a nod to the security of our border.
Mr. Isaacson's fellow Georgian Republican Saxby Chambler said, I don't see how any senator who is serious about border security and enforcing our immigration laws can disagree with this amendment.
To disagree with this amendment sends the message to the American people that we are more eager to give illegal immigrants a path to citizenship than we are to secure our borders from further illegal immigration and the smuggling of illegal drugs and weapons.
Speaking of that, illegal drugs, Jonah Goldberg had a piece today, the National Review Online.
It's one of their editors at large or executive editors.
And he said, it's interesting if you compare the way we're fighting the war on drugs to the way we are fighting the war on illegal immigration.
He said, pretend for a moment that illegal immigrants are illegal drugs.
And is the war on illegal drugs working?
And in fact, some people say it isn't going to work because the supply and demand laws are going to take over.
As long as there's a demand for drugs, they're going to find a way in the country, no matter what you do at the border.
If you look at illegal immigration that way, some people might have the same take.
But his interesting analysis is that while all kinds of people are just dead set, serious on the war on drugs, and we have got to come here.
No, God, we're not going to cut anybody any slack.
We're not going to back off one second.
The same problem, you've still got an insecure, unprotected border that leads to the existence of both problems.
And yet the illegal immigrant crowd, well, the open borders crowd.
Borders, we need to deal with this on the interior basis.
We need these voters.
Whatever cocka may be thinking they've come up with.
And when it comes to the war on drugs, it's an entirely different mentality and attitude by people, the same people.
So it is interesting.
We'll link to it at rushlimbaugh.com.
Also, there's an amendment that was defeated yesterday.
That was the Byron-Hillman Head-Dorgan Amendment.
Defeated 69 to 28.
His amendment would have eliminated the central plank of Bush's immigration policy, a program to offer temporary guest worker visas to 325,000 foreign workers a year.
Dorgan and some union leaders said that the program would insource a steady flow of cheap labor that would compete for low-skilled jobs, lowering wages for everyone.
So a Democrat amendment to scrap the guest worker plan was also defeated.
And it's interesting, Dorgan acting here at the behest of unions.
And then, and then there's this.
So many aspects of this story are mind-boggling.
From Nuevo Laredo, Mexico, Mexico warned yesterday that it would file lawsuits in the United States in our courts if National Guard troops detain migrants on the border.
And some officials said they fear the crackdown will force illegal crossers into more perilous areas to avoid detection.
Bush announced Monday he will send 6,000 National Guard troops to the border, but said the troops will just provide intelligence and surveillance.
They will not catch and detain illegal immigrants.
Mexican Foreign Secretary Luis Ernesto Derbez told a Mexico City radio station: if we see the National Guard starting to directly participate in detaining people, we would immediately start filing lawsuits through our consulates.
The Mexican officials say they worry the crackdown will lead to more deaths.
Now, let me see if I understand this.
It's getting harder and harder to make sense of any of this.
Mexico says that if the U.S. National Guard actually takes any action to protect our borders by holding back illegal aliens, then they are going to sue in the United States in our own courts.
They're going to sue us in our own courts for essentially protecting our border.
Who are they going to call?
John Edwards, who's going to take the case for them?
I know they'll find a lot of lawyers to take the case, but will not one, just one elected United States official stand up and take a position on this?
Just one?
Is there not one?
I don't care what party is there not one elected official who, when hearing that Mexico threatens to sue us in our courts if the guard actually happens to participate in protecting the border, to announce the lunacy of this and to say, who do you people think you are?
By the way, Mexico, where's your shame?
Does it not bother you that so damn many of your citizens want out?
Nobody looks at it from that angle either, but this is absurd in so many different ways.
It makes no sense.
I can't figure it out, folks.
I'm sorry.
Yeah, even a retired Marine captain sent me an email and said, Look at Pal, you want to sound like a little hungry high school kid.
Go ahead, but it's beneath you.
Sometimes I have trouble understanding exactly how it is people perceive me here.
Greetings, folks, and welcome back.
Rush Limbaugh, having more fun than a human being should be allowed to have.
You heard right.
Mexico is warning of lawsuits in our courts if the National Guard detains immigrants.
And I, you know, this, when's somebody in our elected capacity going to stand up and say, hey, Mexico, your own immigration laws are nothing but a bunch of BS and we demand that you change them.
We just sit around and take it.
You know, these little third world countries just diss on us all the time, and we just sit around and take it because we have institutional guilt, folks.
We have guilt and so forth.
It's pervading every aspect of American culture and politics now.
There's just no, by the way, interviewed Shelby Steele yesterday afternoon for the next issue of the Limbaugh Letter, and it was fascinating.
This man has written a book, White Guilt, that will just, you know, I have people come up to me all the time, say, Rush, Rush, how can a liberal be a liberal?
How can anybody be a liberal?
You know, I'll go through my various answers, this, this, this, this.
But he answers it.
He answers it.
You've got to have a tremendous foundation of guilt.
He also explained to me, and I thought I knew the answer to this, but I didn't.
I wasn't quite all the way there.
We were talking about his views on the black population and how it's just in terrible trouble because the current civil rights leadership, which he thinks is fading away, he's very optimistic that all this is going to change.
But he said, the current civil rights leadership has done its best to make sure that successful blacks are not portrayed as role models, such as Condoleezza Rice or Colin Powell or Justice Thomas or any number of them.
And I said, well, why is that?
I mean, I understand the threat to the civil rights coalition of people like Dr. Rice and Justice Thomas and Colin Powell who have achieved outside the prescriptions that the civil rights coalition say are necessary, such as affirmative action and all.
He said, no, no, no, it's nothing to do with that.
He said, the problem is that Justice Thomas and his success and Condoleezza Rice and Colin Powell demonstrate that there is no institutional racism in America anymore.
They demonstrate that black people are free.
And he said that black people, the civil rights leaders, have just done their level best to keep their charges, their people, the people they claim to lead, ill-equipped to deal with freedom.
They'd rather keep them in an entitlement mentality.
He said, this is not about rage.
When you see riots after the Rodney King episode or OJ or what is not about rage.
He said, if oppression caused rage, then the slaves would have revolted.
They didn't.
There's no rage that's causing all of this.
He said, this is a purposeful, strategic attempt to use guilt and to blame white people and other people in power and perpetuate this.
And the purpose of it is to continue to spread this guilt among non-blacks and non-minorities.
And it's working.
And it's been working for a long time.
This business with illegal immigration, I guarantee you that as far as the Democrats are concerned, the reason we're not going to do anything about it is because they refuse to be seen or thought of as being cold-hearted, mean-spirited, and cruel to the quote-unquote disadvantaged.
Not to mention the political aspects.
They see them as future voters and a way to expand their party and all that.
That, of course, makes sense.
But aside from the other, it's like the story I told you to big-time TV personality.
He got into an argument with a bunch of us out in Southern California over immigration.
He finally got frustrated at being unable to refute any argument that we were giving him.
He finally got mad.
He started pounding a dinner table.
He said, look, if any poor person of color wants to come to my country, try to improve their life.
Well, I'm not going to stand it their way.
I will not do it.
If they, I'm going to open my house, I'm going to open my door.
I'm going to welcome them in.
He was so frustrated.
Well, voila, guy was hell-bent on making sure that nobody thought he was mean, mean-spirited, cruel, cold-hearted.
The inability to put his own country first, the inability to put what's right to enforce the law or what have you, the inability to deal with the national security of this country on any issue, subordinated to his own guilt.
And that's, I think, where a lot of people come down on this illegal immigration business and trying to seriously do something about it because they're afraid what others will say about them, especially in an election year.
I honestly don't care about the poor.
I mean, the worst thing that you can say.
A politician, one of the things about which a politician will be the most afraid of having said about him or her is doesn't care about the poor.
I mean, it's almost a requirement that you care about the say you do if you have any chance of being elected.
All right, I want to go to this ABC Washington Post poll, but I want to preface it by doing another see I told you so.
Let's go back to this program yesterday, audio soundbite number three there, Mamon.
This is what I said yesterday about the drive-by media loving the Bush speech because he staked out the moderate middle.
Judging by the mainstream media's reaction today, I mean, the New York Times has run a sympathetic story by Elizabeth Bue Miller on just how nice and thorough and consistent Bush is on Mexicans and immigration and what it means to the country and blah, blah, blah.
And the LA Times liked it.
The Washington Post liked it.
And they all used the word moderate.
The president struck a middle cord.
All right, well, we're going to find out real quick, since that's what the drive-by media is saying.
I want you to pay special attention to the polls because we are always told that elections in this country are won by the party that best courts the undecided vote, the moderates, the independents, the middle ground, because the base of both parties you take for granted, they cancel each other out, but that great unwashed in the middle in there, that's who we go get.
Okay.
So if the drive-by media wants to anoint the president's speech last night as a big appeal to the center, then his approval numbers ought to skyrocket if this is indeed a country of moderates.
So let's just wait and see what the next approval numbers from drive-by media polls show us.
Well, we have those numbers.
Here's Elizabeth Vargas on ABC's World News tonight.
A new ABC News Washington Post poll finds that the president's approval now stands at just 33 percent, tying a 25-year low.
The president's approval rating on immigration is almost as low as his overall job approval.
His Oval Office address last night was intended to seize the political high ground on immigration, but it doesn't look like he won over many critics.
Well, it also illustrates what I said, that this is not a nation of moderates.
It's not a nation where there's a big center of undecided independence, because if there were, and this was indeed a speech that targeted the center of this issue, why these people would be rallying to the president's side in the poll, but it didn't happen.
Last night, also same show, Elizabeth Vargas spoke with George Steffi Stephanopoulos to review these findings.
And Vargas said, in the meantime, the polls are showing a disconnect.
People very unhappy about the president and his administration.
This is the most fascinating finding in the poll.
69% of the American people think the country is on the wrong track, but 58% of the American people think their local community is on the right track, is going in the right direction.
And 89% of the American people are optimistic about their own personal future.
You know, a president just shouldn't be at 33%.
When you've got 89% of the country optimistic about their future, this is a challenge and an opportunity to do it.
That's all I need to hear.
That's why I don't believe this 33% business.
And I have also, I have also explained what Stephanopoulos here is agog about and just can't understand.
69% think the country's on the wrong track.
All right.
Now, how can that be if 58% think their local community is on the right track and 89% are optimistic about their own personal future?
How do 58% positive, 89% positive equals 69% negative?
How does this happen?
It happens only if you want it to.
It happens only if you ask the questions the right way.
And we know that the drive-by media's constant pummeling of this economy for the last five years and the pummeling of this administration, remember my formula, I came up with my own version of the Einstein theory of relativity to explain all this.
They just constantly bash their influence is down, but if they hit it every day, they're going to affect people.
So when you have 58% think their local community is on the right track, but everybody else is in a tank, guilt.
It's guilt.
I mean, I'm doing fine, but I see the news and I say, oh, this horrible news of the economy is going crazy.
I mean, so they said, it must not be good out there.
It's good for me.
And then when they think it's good for me, it's not good for everybody.
Well, that's not fair.
Well, I feel guilty about that.
So I'm not going to say it's that good, but I'll tell them it's somewhat okay.
And then you get 89% of the people optimistic about their own personal future, but 69% think the country's on the wrong track.
This isn't just Iraq, folks.
You may think it is, but it's not just illegal immigration in that debate, although that's part of it.
Some gasoline price residue in there, no doubt.
This is no more than the drive-by media lobbying these darts and mortar fire into crowds and heading on down the highway to do it again later that day or the next day.
The only way you can have 89% of the people optimistic about their own personal future and 69% think the country going in the wrong direction is that people think they're doing well, but nobody else is.
And that is a phenomenon I have noticed not just in the last five years, but periodically.
Yeah, maybe it is just in the last month.
No, because we've talked about this.
92.
Remember when Clinton was running around?
This is the worst economy in the last 50 years.
Well, he was doing the drive-by media's work for him.
He was hammering.
That was a campaign theme.
It was not the worst economy in the last 50 years.
It was a mild recession.
And you go back and talk to people.
We had people call this program back then.
Oh, I'm doing fine, but I am worried about my neighbor across the street.
That's where that started.
That's where I first heard it, was the presidential campaign of 1992.
Remember, the Bush administration back then wasn't responding to it because they didn't think anybody would ever elect Bill Clinton, and they weren't taking Perot seriously either.
And yet they kept hammering that worst economy in the last 50 years stuff and putting people first and all that rot gut.
And it created the notion that while people were doing okay, they didn't think anybody else was.
And that seems to have survived here.
But, George, all this means is that this 33% approval number, there's something wrong with it.
A few more comments about this, but a brief timeout.
Back in just a second.
Okay, the ABC Washington Post poll revealed yesterday on the 15th, president's approval rating, 33%, congressional approval rating, whatever it is.
How often are they doing these polls?
Was this the May 15th tracking poll?
Was there a May 13th?
Will there be, was there a May 14th?
And what I want to know is, was the poll of the 15th a poll of the whole day?
Or did they run a morning poll?
Did they run an evening and afternoon poll?
Did they run a late night poll?
How many polls are these people?
Every day there's one of these polls.
Every day.
We have NBC News in the Wall Street Journal.
We've got Harris Interactive out there doing their own stuff.
We've got USA Today Gala.
We got AP Ipsos.
We got CBS New York Times.
We got six polls.
Six days leaving out Sunday for Sunday, you talk about all the polls.
And a headline, Bush approval ratings lower, and we helped.
What started as a make news stunt to attract left-wing readers is now morphed into a political strategy.
Propaganda under the cover of news.
Now, I understand this.
I understand a lot of you out there couldn't care less about drive-by media because you know who they are.
It's like, you know, liberals and so forth and so on.
And a lot of you believe that the 33% number is pretty close to accurate.
We're in deep doo-doo.
That we are in deep doo-doo.
And we could be in deep doo-doo, folks.
It's not too late to avoid ending up in deep doo-doo, but I mean, we, as a party, the leadership of our party has been taking us in directions that we as conservatives don't recognize and don't support.
Tom in Knoxville, Tennessee, we'll start with you on the phones today.
Welcome to the program, sir.
Hey, Rush, thank you for taking my call.
Hey, I think I have an answer for you on these possible lawsuits coming out of Mexico.
My thought was when you read that, I was surprised, but I thought, you know what, we can't even defend our own homes without the threat of a lawsuit.
You know, if you have somebody that's trying to break in or perhaps invading your property, and so I think they've learned from the best.
Well, but that's not the point.
I mean, I understand the point that you're trying to make about that, but lawsuits and courts are out of control.
This is more.
All I'm saying is, where is somebody with some sense and some responsibility in a position of elected power going to stand up and say to Mexico, this is absurd?
You try suing us.
You can't tell us how we're going to protect our own country.
And yet they're doing it.
And we're just standing around twiddling our thumbs.
In fact, 18 Republicans joined with the Democrats yesterday to make it clear border security is the last thing they care about.
What are you laughing at in there, Snerdly?
Well, I mean, the...
Don't want to.
I didn't understand what you said.
Where?
What voter?
Who?
I'm not sure.
I understand.
I'll get from you in the break.
But here's the thing.
The Republican Party, conservative movement, Republican Party, conservative movement has defined the Republican Party for 20 years.
We're a national security.
We're a law and order free market party.
And we're not beating the crap out of the enemy in Iraq.
And Steele's right about that, Shelby Steele.
We're not enforcing our own law on the border, and we're spending like idiots.
And I think one of the pieces of glue that's holding the conservative movement together today is the detestable, contemptible left.
We know that the country simply can't be turned over to them.
Plus, there are some other signs out there of conservative muscle flexing.
There was a literal earthquake in Pennsylvania, just as there was in North Carolina and just as there was in Ohio in these primary elections.
Rhino Republicans, liberal blueblood, country club Rockefeller Republicans are being thrown out of office.
And conservative Republicans are winning in these primaries.
So the Republicans in Pennsylvania and Ohio, North Carolina, and Pennsylvania, this is pretty remarkable.
Pennsylvania not known as a hotbed of conservatism.
And the Republicans in these primaries just clean the clocks, these conservatives of these old moderate country club Rockefeller blueblood types.
And the same thing with Ken Blackwell in Ohio.
And what else?
There was one other state.
I guess it was maybe it was Ohio, but I forget.
I know North Carolina, but some.
Oh, it was in Reston, Virginia, where these people wanted to set up a day labor center for illegals.
They got thrown out as well.
So there's clearly unrest out there.
And these people in Washington had better notice it, or they are going to be in a deep doo-doo with all the rest of us.
Back in just a sec.
And we have audio sound bites from the Senate floor yesterday, Democrats illustrating they are nowhere on the immigration debate.
▲
Export Selection