All Episodes
Previous Next
Oct. 17, 2006 - Rush Limbaugh Program
36:18
October 17, 2006, Tuesday, Hour #1
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Welcome to today's edition of the Rush 24-7 podcast.
And greetings to you thrill seekers, music lovers, conversationalists all across the fruited plain, America's anchorman, Rush Limbaugh on the air.
Broadcast excellence.
Straight ahead, three hours of it.
Telephone number, if you want to join us on the program today, 800-282-2882.
And the email address is rush at EIBnet.com.
All right, let's start off here with the wrist slap that Lynn Stewart got yesterday from a Clinton-appointed federal judge.
It's not just the judge in this case, though, who needs to be examined.
This sentence, Lynn Stewart represented a blind sheikh, Omar Abdel-Rahman.
She violated canons of legal ethics by, he is, as part of his sentence, he is not allowed to communicate with any of his terrorist buddies.
She, his lawyer, did it for him.
She could have received up to 30 years in jail, but she gets 28 months.
She's going to appeal that.
She'll remain out, I think, on appeal.
And depending on which judge in court she gets on the appeal, she could have the whole thing stricken.
It was a very interesting case presented by her defense.
Hey, she's helped the poor.
I mean, you got to examine this woman's life in total.
She helped the poor, and she's had breast cancer, and she's overweight.
And that means that she's more prone to producing more estrogen.
That means the breast cancer could come back.
And it's harder to detect breast cancer in overweight women.
And the judge said, yeah, you know what?
I kind of like those arguments and decided on 28 months.
The lesson there is, is that if you do good works earlier in your life and end up before a Clinton-appointed federal judge and you are a Democrat, the good works early in your life will mitigate crimes that you commit later on in life.
But aside from looking at the judge, and then the judge is a, we've got his pedigree here someplace.
Where did I?
He's straight out of the Clinton Central casting.
His name is John George Cottle.
He was nominated by Clinton on April 26th of 1994, confirmed by the Senate in August of 1994.
It's amazing how fast that Clinton appointees were confirmed to the federal bench back in 1994.
Republicans were not taken over the House, but that wouldn't have mattered anyway.
Senate is where these things are decided.
He received his commission on August 10th of 1994, went to Georgetown University for his A.B., got his J.D. in law at Harvard.
He was a law clerk for Justice Potter Stewart, the Supreme Court Assistant Special Prosecutor, Watergate Special Prosecution Force, 1973 to 1974, private practice in New York from 75 to 94.
However, the judge is only part of the equation here, ladies and gentlemen.
The thing that stood out for me is that what we have in this sentence of 28 months of helping a terrorist communicate to his buddies, you could assume that these communications between Omar Abdel-Rahman, facilitated by his attorney Lynn Stewart, to his buddies, led to the deaths of more people.
In full light, what we have here is a classic illustration of the Clinton administration record on terror.
And it is well worth dwelling on and delving into.
If the Clintons ever win the White House again, if Hillary wins in 08, there's a woman involved in this case that might end up being a candidate for Attorney General or nominated for a judgeship herself.
Her name is Joanne Harris.
Joanne Harris was one of the people who came to the court yesterday to argue in defense of Lynn Stewart and on behalf of a reduced sentence for her.
The Times, the New York Times, did not opt to quote from a letter submitted to the sentencing judge on Stewart's behalf from Joanne Harris.
Joanne Harris was the Clinton Justice Department's criminal division chief at the time the blind shake was indicted.
The indictment, by the way, came in 1993, not as the Times reported in 1994.
And the Times also said that Joanne Harris authorized the indictment.
She didn't.
The indictment was actually authorized by the Attorney General Janet El Rinho and the Manhattan U.S. Attorney Mary Joe White.
And my source for this is Andy McCarthy, National Review Online, who led the prosecution of the brain shake.
Now, according to the article, Joanne Harris told the judge that the terrorism counts against Lynn Stewart were unwarranted overkill.
She reportedly elaborated that Lynn Stewart didn't have a clue that the stick she was poking in the government's eye was going to have consequences beyond her imagination.
Now, counterterrorism, and I'm reading here from a piece written by Andy McCarthy, counterterrorism, of course, remains the central national security issue as we head into the 06 elections, with 2008 choices hard upon us after that.
Thus, it is very much worth noting the stark contrasts here.
The Bush Justice Department strongly believed that Lynn Stewart's behavior warranted the strongest condemnation.
It's why they asked for a stiff sentence.
A jury of 12 New Yorkers, not exactly the red state heartland, unanimously agreed after hearing all the evidence.
Still, one of the highest Clinton Justice Department officials evidently thinks the whole thing was overkill.
But the contrast is starker still.
Recall that President Bush, through John Ashcroft, adopted a spit-on-the-street approach to terrorism, authorizing suspects to be locked up on any available legally valid charge in order to disable them and to convey to terrorist groups that we were pursuing them aggressively.
Compare President Clinton, who has spent a lot of time lately defending his national security record.
In 1999, he pardoned 16 members of the FALN terrorist organization, which as Investors Business Daily editorialized last month, carried out more than 150 bombings in the U.S., including the lunchtime bombing of the Frances Tavern in New York on January 24th, 1975, that killed four people.
Former Clinton advisor Dick Morris has indicated this was done to help First Lady Hillary Clinton win the votes of Puerto Ricans in the anticipated New York Senate race.
January 20th, 2001, Clinton's very last acts in power included pardons for two convicted weather underground terrorists, Susan Rosenberg and Laura Sue Whitehorn.
Lynn Stewart is a figure who straddles the September 10th and September 11th worlds, the divergent Clinton and Bush counterterrorism models.
As the lead up to her sentencing shows, it matters a great deal which model we choose.
So, yeah, you can focus on the judge, and that's all well and good, and it's expected of a Clinton-appointed federal judge who was on the Watergate Committee.
It's just a bunch of libs.
I mean, there's no question about it.
It's why the argument over reorienting the entire judiciary, Supreme Court on down, has been such a huge argument this year.
But don't forget the name of the former AG, Joanne Harris, who argued on behalf of the most lenient sentence possible.
Because if the Clintons ever get back in power, somebody like Joanne Harris would instantly be an attorney general candidate or nominated for a judgeship.
And in this, in this ruling yesterday, this sentencing yesterday, as McCarthy writes, it is patently obvious the Democrat liberal view of terrorism and how to deal with it versus the George W. Bush model.
And it's on full display and is an indication of how that war on terror will be fought in the future, depending on who's running the show.
Brief timeout.
We'll be back and continue right after this.
So any of you out there looking for a reason to hope that the Republicans lose control of the White House, the Senate, the House of Representatives, or whatever, just take a look at this sentencing decision for Lynn Stewart, who has represented the dregs of society.
That actually worked in her favor.
She has represented all kinds of domestic terrorists, what, weather underground, Black Panthers, that sort of thing.
And she's done so much work on behalf of the poor.
And that shows a big heart and good intentions.
You do that, and you're buying yourself out of serious trouble later on.
It's almost crime insurance.
And that's essentially what the judge in the case determined.
So if you're of a mind that the war on terrorists trumped up doesn't really exist and so forth, and you want to go back to fighting it in a lax way.
In fact, if you want to go back and pretend we're at September 10th, then go ahead and vote the Democrats into power.
That is precisely what happened.
Speaking of all of this, we've got to go to the audio soundbites.
First, I want to take you back to July 27th this year, me on this program talking about winning in Iraq.
Of course, there's some unsettledness out there.
There always is.
We are at wall.
We are at war.
And we're going to be at wall for a while, no matter who's in the White House.
And we've got to factor that in who you're going to vote for.
Because if we're going to be at wall, we want to win the wall, right?
We want to win the wall.
And so I play that for you because last night President Bush sat down for the first of a three-parter with Bill O'Reilly on the Fox News channel.
And a question from O'Reilly, 60% of Americans are now against the Iraq war.
Why?
Because they want us to win.
They're wondering whether or not we have the plans in place to win.
They want to know whether or not we have the flexibility on the ground to constantly meet the enemy.
And I can understand why there's frustration, because the enemy knows that killing innocent people will create a sense of frustration.
And they know that they know America.
They know that we're a conscience-driven people that value life.
And the more people they destroy, the more innocent lives that are destroyed, the more likely it is we'll retreat in their way of thinking.
And that's the bottom line.
People want to win.
That's the source of the frustration.
People are being led to believe that we are not only not winning, but that we can't.
In fact, let's jump forward to audio soundbite number six.
James Baker, who has been misquoted, by the way, in media outlets, never said, has not said that he doesn't think we can win in Iraq.
It's been reported in certain places that he's heading up a commission.
The president asked him to head up the commission.
And it's been reported that he's out there saying we can't win.
We've got to come up with something else because victory here is not possible.
And it caused a lot of people to raise a lot of hell when he said this.
It turns out that he hasn't said this, that this was some sort of a leak to ears and microphones that were receptive to believing such a thing.
He was on Matthew's show last night.
Question: What do you make of the national intelligence estimate that we're creating more terrorists over there than we are killing?
The way I look at it, Chris, is even if Iraq was not the front line in the war on terror when we went in there, it damn sure is today.
And the terrorists are there, and one of the difficult problems we have, people talk about getting out and all that.
And as I've told you earlier, we have not closed on any recommendation whatsoever.
But one of the problems in just picking up and leaving is you leave a failed state for the global terrorists to reproduce in, just like they did in Afghanistan with the Taliban.
That is an excellent point.
I harken back to my trip to Afghanistan.
My gosh, that's a year and a half ago.
It was a year and a half ago.
It was a year ago, February, so.
And the head of U.S. aid, Andrew Nazios, was on the trip, and we went to dinner one night at the home of an American who lived there and was working to help the effort to rebuild the country and bring back the Afghanistan economy and culture.
And he got a brutal QA from some of the people there.
And he said, look, the reason we must stay and the reason we must prevail is because terrorists thrive in places where there are no states, no governments, a stateless place, which is what Afghanistan was after their civil war.
Taliban was able to move in.
That is why Somalia is so important now.
Somalia is now stateless.
Al-Qaeda attempted to take it over.
That's why Musharraf in Pakistan is consistently under the gun just to stay alive.
He's probably the most targeted world leader out there right now from people in his own country.
And so Baker is saying here to just cut and run and get out of there, leaves that place as a cesspool breeding ground for these people to take over and run operations out of that part of the world.
And Bush is insistent that we have no intent to leave.
However, it takes us back to the Lynn Stewart decision.
Depending on who ends up running this show, either in 06 or 08, the approaches and the theories, the strategies in dealing with militant al-Qaeda terrorists, militant Islamist terrorists, is on full display here.
And it is clear that the American left and the Democratic Party doesn't take the threat seriously at all, is not prepared to deal with it as something other than a nuisance that needs to be dealt with on an episode-by-episode basis.
Here's Peter in Staten Island.
We go to the phones early today.
A lot of people want to weigh in on this Lynn Stewart business, and you're first.
Welcome.
Yes, Rush.
How are you doing?
It's a pleasure.
I'm so honored to talk to you.
Thank you, sir.
You're a great American.
And this is from a long-haired Republican conservative.
Well, it's great to have you on the program, sir.
Thank you.
Yes, I've been a long listener.
This Lynn Stewart thing is like a slap in the face to all Americans.
This was one of the most treasonous acts you could imagine.
I think she's a traitor.
You know, you should make a real example out of this woman instead of afterwards.
She's talking about having a party and everything, or at least life imprisonment with no parole.
Well, she walked in there.
She walked into the courtroom acting as though she were barely alive.
She walked in looking haggard, looking ragged, looking like she was in ill health, full of stress, wanted to be full of remorse, wanted the court to see her as a haggard old woman who has been worn down to the bare edges over all this.
And you're right.
Once the sentence came down to, oh, all right, let's throw a party.
Well, I could do this time standing on my head.
Like I said, I mean, Etha Rosenberg was a good mother and stuff and everything, left behind two sons.
We executed her many years ago and stuff for a treasonous act like that.
And like I said, you know, this woman here with her ways, her liberal ways and everything, just disgusts me to no end.
Well, I can understand it.
You're probably in the minority in New York, though.
It may be close on this one, but I don't think, you know, liberals in New York still don't get it.
I mean, they don't like seeing the World Trade Center video, and everybody had a conniption when Corey Lydol's accident happened.
And everybody's first thought, oh, no, is this a terrorist attack?
When it comes to doing something about it, though, they just don't get much out of these people.
Now, some of you may not even remember Lynn Stewart.
You may not even know who she is other than what you've seen in the news.
She represented Omar Abdel Rahman, the blind sheikh.
His plot was to blow up the Lincoln and Holland tunnels, and he was convicted of having this plan.
His attorney, Lynn Stewart, was arrested six months after the 9-11 terrorist attacks and accused of violating strict prison rules by helping Abdel Rahman spread the word to kill those who didn't buy into his extreme interpretation of Islamic law.
She's admitted to knowingly violating prison rules, but she denies condoning violence and claims that she was just trying to do her job as a lawyer by looking after Abdel Rahman's interests.
Now, the U.S. attorney in the case, the assistant U.S. Attorney Andrew Dember, refuted her defense that she was wrongly targeted by the feds in the wake of 9-11.
He said, that case has nothing to do with 9-11, Your Honor.
She knew full well what she was doing was a criminal act, and she didn't want to be caught.
Now, when it came to Stewart, the judge said that prison time was necessary as punishment, but praised the longtime civil rights lawyer for her dedication to her clients over the past three decades and noted that no one was hurt as a result of the crimes in the case.
No one was, oh, okay.
Well, we can't even know that for sure.
We don't know what the messages that she translated and transferred, transmitted from the Sheikh Rahman to his followers, wherever.
We can't know what happened as a result of those messages, but it's clear leniency.
It's Lib deciding the fate of Lib.
And episode in the case really is irrelevant.
The fact that it was about terrorism is not much.
And I'll tell you, folks, this is why it's dangerous, this war on terror fought in court, because this is how a lot of these cases are going to end up.
Be back in just a second, right after this, or roll right on.
By the way, about Lynn Stewart, it should be pointed out, ladies and gentlemen, that it was George Soros who poured millions of dollars into the effort to defeat the president, who made a substantial donation to the defense fund for the radical lawyer Lynn Stewart.
According to records filed by the IRS, Soros' Foundation, the Open Society Institute, gave 20 grand in September of 2002 to the Lynn Stewart Defense Committee.
So the Lib's thick in all of this.
And it really, there's no other way to describe this other than an outrage, especially when you compare it to some of the other things that are going on in the news today.
What did I say there?
There's something like six investigations, six FBI raids and investigations involving Kurt Weldon.
This is a two and a half year old investigation.
He finds out about it three and a half weeks out of the election.
This is the Bush Justice Department doing this.
We're going out of our way to destroy anybody we can over the Mark Foley episode.
There's just a lot of head-scratching stuff going on out there today, folks, that makes no sense.
And in the meantime, this sentence that Lynn Stewart gets is an insult.
And you can tell by her reaction to it that it was.
Now, as part of the stark contrast as to how the war on terror will be fought between these two competing parties, the Republicans and Democrats, this morning at the White House, President Bush signed the Military Commissions Act, which is going to be challenged by liberals, and it will go to the Supreme Court.
Here's what the president said today.
This nation will call evil by its name.
We will answer brutal murder with patient justice.
Those who kill the innocent will be held to account.
With this bill, America reaffirms our determination to win the war on terror.
The passage of time will not dull our memory or sap our nerve.
We will fight this war with confidence and with clear purpose.
We will protect our country and our people.
And now in memory of the victims of September the 11th, it is my honor to sign the Military Commissions Act of 2006 into law.
Well, well, after the signing, Jeffrey Toobin, CNN, said the bill is going to come down to Justice Kennedy.
The anchor said to him, Supreme Court is going to approve this Jeffrey.
Senator Specter thinks that the courts are going to strike it down.
As for me, I don't know, but I'll be watching.
Justice Anthony Kennedy, it might all kind of come down on him.
As so often will be the case in the new Supreme Court.
Justice Kennedy will hold the power.
All right, this is a theme, by the way.
There have been a number of stories in the D.C. media, particularly the Washington Post.
And I know how this works, praising Anthony Kennedy as having grown in office.
He's the moderate, and he's now the, he's not power.
It's really the Kennedy court, not the Roberts Court.
And of course, these stories are meant to be read by Justice Kennedy.
And they are supposed to influence Justice Kennedy.
Yeah, it is my court, and I can keep getting this favorable coverage and laudable praise if I continue to do what these people.
It's a well-known Washington process.
So here we've signed the Military Detainee Act, the Military Commission Act.
This is the military tribunals.
And already, the liberals are planning on doing everything they can to make sure that it doesn't happen.
Now, you have to ask yourself why.
It's not just as simple as a civil rights disagreement.
It's not just as simple as they think military tribunals are a little excessive, and yet they are serious about fighting a war on terror because the second half of my statement is not true.
These are the people who have spent the last number of years attempting to grant al-Qaeda constitutional rights as though they were U.S. citizens.
I've called it the Al-Qaeda Bill of Rights.
You have to ask yourself, these are the people, folks, who have been invested in America's defeat.
Here you have a lawyer, a liberal civil rights lawyer, breaking all kinds of legal ethics, among them attorney-client privilege, to pass on these comments of Omar Abdel Rahman to his supporters for whatever nefarious purpose.
I'm sure he wasn't saying hi.
I'm sure he wasn't saying, hey, I'm doing okay.
He was urging death to all who disagreed with his version of Islamic behavior and law.
And she was passing along these messages of death, and the judge said, well, there's no one was harmed in any of this.
The judge can't possibly know it.
So we have the military tribunals signed into law.
Congress gave it to the president quickly, as I knew would be the case, and already the Libs can't wait to stop it and protest it.
Why?
Well, there are a number of reasons.
One is they want the cases tried by them.
They want to be the power.
They want to run U.S. foreign policy.
They want to usurp via the U.S. judiciary the whole role of commander-in-chief, particularly when a Republican is in office.
They are not about to surrender the power that they have amassed in the judiciary with all of these appointments that they have gotten confirmed, Supreme Court, appellate court, U.S. district courts.
And you look at the speed with which Clinton's judges were confirmed versus the arduous task that the Bush people have had in getting their judges confirmed.
This is, and by the way, this focuses another point on the importance of this upcoming election this year, this month, or next month.
And that is the makeup of the U.S. Supreme Court.
We've got three justices in there.
One's in his 80s, two are in their 70s.
And you know, they're just hanging on to, at least one of them is, so that it is not Bush who gets to name his replacement.
The liberals know exactly what they're doing.
Now, in addition to them wanting to control the prosecution and the war on terror via the U.S. court system, via the U.S. military, because remember, liberals loathe the military.
They think it's the focus of evil in the modern world.
They want control of all kinds of U.S. foreign policy via the courts, particularly prosecution of this war.
And when you add to it the things that they have done in the past 18 months or two years, you have to question whether they want to win it.
You have to question whether they want trials to be conducted by themselves with terrorists represented by their lawyers in order for the U.S. to win this.
This is serious stuff, folks.
I do not say this lightly.
There are people in this country who think we deserve to lose.
And if you find that strange, there are Republicans in this country who think we deserve to lose the House.
There are Republicans in this country who think we deserve to lose the Senate for whatever their reasons.
They think so.
So don't be surprised and don't be shocked when you hear me say that there are Americans who want us to lose against this enemy.
I can't begin to tell you why.
It's a psychological analysis that centers around guilt.
There's no question that there's a blame America first crowd in this country.
There's no question that there is a hate America crowd in this country.
And there is no question that some of these people do deserve to have their patriotism challenged.
Here is Trish in Edmonton, Canada, Edmonton, Alberta.
Nice to have you on the program with us.
Well, good morning, Rush.
Hi.
Ditto.
Thank you.
From north of the border.
Yeah, it's great to have you.
By the way, you know what I've noticed?
I've been reading the news that the U.S. is using Black Hawk helicopters to patrol the U.S.-Canadian border in Montana.
In Montana, you had a lot of increased flights because of the terrorist threat.
And I'm saying, what about the southern border?
What are the Canucks doing to it?
At any rate, I know that's not why you called, but I had to mention that since you're calling from Canada.
It's great to hear from you, by the way.
Well, we spoke almost a year ago about Mary Landrieu down in Louisiana.
Yes.
Yes.
You've made my day.
I've listened to you.
The day I listened to you, the first day, was going back, it was on Lincoln's birthday, like back in 1990.
So I just really enjoy your program.
Well, now, are you Native Canadian?
Oh, no.
No, I'm from Oklahoma.
My husband works up here for Big Oil.
We're destroying the environment up here in Texas.
Great, great.
Keep hearing it up.
What is Lincoln's birthday?
February 12th.
Well, it used to be.
That's not when we celebrate it.
We celebrate on the 22nd now, President's Day.
Right.
Well, I remember that was a point in the discussion on that particular day.
Right.
Listen, Rush, what I was, what's flooring me on this is we have the liberal strategy.
I'm not even going to say Democrat.
We see the liberal strategy of what will happen if we do catch bin Laden or Zawahiri or any of the Hesbo cells here that are in the U.S. if the Democrats are in power.
I mean, we've set legal precedent.
I mean, we all heard them talk about all the good deeds and the social services, like building roads and hospitals.
Well, if we catch bin Laden and they bring him up there to New York and put him on trial and he's convicted by a jury that knows that they can give this man 30 years.
Well, right, yeah, because you know that his legal team will be from the ACLU.
Exactly.
Yes, sir.
And it was Patty Murray, by the way, the little mom in tennis shoes senator from the state of Washington, who got in a little trouble for suggesting that no wonder bin Laden had a lot of support amongst his radical followers, that he built a lot of schools.
He made sure the roads were paved and the trash was collected, and he did a lot of good social work.
And so your theory is that once he gets put on trial in the United States, and let's say he's sentenced to five life terms for the September 11th attacks and the death of 3,000 Americans, you're suggesting that a smart lawyer and a Clinton judge could get the sentence reduced to maybe 10 months or three years because of all the good works bin Laden has done up until the time he created the crime in 9-11.
Yes, sir.
I think it would go a different way.
I think that bin Laden, if caught and captured and brought to trial, would deny ever having anything to do with it.
And they would say, but you said you did.
You claimed, well, of course, I was trying to stand up big with my people, but you can't prove I knew anything about this.
I wasn't on those airplanes.
I was never in this country.
I had nothing to do with this.
You proved it was me.
Prove that I had anything.
I think everybody would be and the defense counsel and say, see, judge, we've been operating under a misconception started by the Bush administration and the CIA since February or September 12th of 2001 that Bin Laden did it.
When in fact, we know the Bush administration did this on its own, and the 9-11 truth squad would get all their day in court to prove that it was a Bush conspiracy to do it.
That's what will happen, or a variation of it.
You're exactly right if Bin Laden or Zawahiri or any of these other people are brought to trouble.
I'm sure they'd bring Saddam to trial here as a witness for bin Laden.
Character witness.
I mean, it's not funny, but sometimes you have to illustrate the absurd by being absurd.
Well, you know, the more you look at this and the more you see this unfolding, you realize that it's not absurd.
I mean, the absurdity is becoming reality.
By this decision by a judge, the jury acted in good faith.
They knew that she was up for 30 years.
They convicted her.
And the judge, a liberal judge, turned that decision on its ear and in effect have done nothing but to embolden other jihadists or people who would help us here in the United States.
No question about it.
But look, Trisha, excuse me, I can't emphasize this enough.
Not underestimate the role that former Clinton administration officials played in persuading this judge.
I don't know how much persuasion he needed, but nevertheless, they ganged up.
And this Joanne Harris, who was in the Clinton Attorney General's office, the Justice Department, and who would likely be an AG candidate or a federal judge candidate, led the charge for reducing the sentence and talking about all of the great works in her past that Lynn Stewart had done.
And you've got to focus on that.
Not only are they going to appoint other judges like this one, but there are people like Joanne Harris who will end up like Jamie Gorilla.
I mean, imagine a justice department full of Jamie Gorillax.
I've got to run.
I got a little long here, but we'll be back and continue in just a second.
By the way, programming reminder, Vice President Cheney will be on the program at 1:33 this afternoon.
That's Eastern Time, so that's about 30 minutes, 35 or 40 minutes from now.
Vice President Cheney will be with us for 10 minutes.
Harry Reid says he's going to amend four years of ethics reports, and he's blaming Republicans for all this, and he's blaming the AP reporter for having a Jones against him and all that.
It's been learned that he lives in the Ritz-Carlton in Washington in a $750,000 condo, and he paid Christmas and holiday bonuses to the condo staff out of his campaign funds.
That is, you know, I think there have been censures of senators for doing this kind of thing.
He's chalking it all up to a Republican hit squad, even though a member of his own staff is the source for all of this.
Dingy Harry is managed to make it to page four, A4 of the Washington Post today.
Keep moving it up.
I don't know where the story appears in the New York Times, but he's blaming the lawyers.
He's blaming the lawyers for not doing these donations properly.
He had just scored his $700,000 profit off land that he didn't own and yet still wanted to tightwad it and pay the bonuses out of his campaign funds rather than his personal funds.
Jessica Cincinnati, you're next on the EIB network.
Hello.
Hi, Rush.
Thanks for taking my call.
You bet.
You know, I'm a little frustrated with your chiding of the disaffected GOP.
Really?
I am.
And I want to make sure I've heard you correctly in the past where you're not a believer of term limits because you believe terms are enforced.
Term limits are enforced on voting day.
Is that correct?
I've gone back and forth on term limits.
I've probably been for them at one time or against them.
But the reality is that term limits, even though it was part of the contract with America, are not going to survive.
So to facilitate the call because we're low on time, I'll concede your point, yes.
Okay, well, I think that's what you're seeing.
And I'm not saying that I agree with it.
I'm just saying that a lot of people, sad to say, feel that their only way to affect change is to enforce term limits at the polls.
And if it's frustration because we have a lack of leadership within the GOP, you know, we've tried other areas.
We've tried to lobby for change in other areas, but it's not worked.
Well, how am I?
What do we mean?
I'm chiding.
What am I doing?
I'm just warning what's going to happen if you don't vote or vote for the other guys.
That's all I'm doing.
Well, and I agree.
And in a post-9-11 world, the stakes are too high.
We need to make sure we enforce those term limits in the primary, in my opinion.
But, you know, it's hard to overcome that when the National Party gets behind the incumbent with their power and resources.
Wait a minute, I'm losing you here.
Term limits in the primary.
You don't have a chance to do that.
Incumbents are usually not opposed by members of their own party.
Well, in Ohio, we've had many incumbents that have been run against that have had opponents in the primary.
All right.
Well, let's stick to the point that you think that I should whatever I'm doing is I'm being too critical of Republicans who are upset with Republicans in the House or Senate, and that's irritating them even more.
I agree.
Yes.
Basically.
I don't know.
But how am I trying to what am I?
What do they hear me doing?
Well, I'm just warning them.
I'm warning them that they are the target of a media disinformation and bias campaign.
I am warning them they ought to understand the efforts that are being used to get them to adopt and assume these positions.
I knew this is going to happen, Jessica.
I'm out of time.
Can you hang on for the ⁇ I want to continue this with you because I have been falsely accused here, and I want to defend my honor.
We'll be back here in just a second.
Stay with us.
And once again, Vice President Dick Cheney on the program in a little longer, a little more than a half hour, right at about a half hour.
It's close enough for government work.
We'll be back and continue here in just a second.
▲
Export Selection