All Episodes
Previous Next
March 27, 2007 - Rush Limbaugh Program
36:31
March 27, 2007, Tuesday, Hour #1
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Welcome to today's edition of the Rush 24-7 podcast.
Hiya, folks, greetings to you.
Nice to have you.
We're back here on the EIB Network, El Rushbow, bringing truth.
Truth-starved millions all across the bountiful fruited plain.
We're here at 800-282-2882 and the email address rush at EIBnet.com.
Nice to see everybody seated at the beginning of the show for two days in a row.
I'll tell you more sad news this morning.
Tony Snow's cancer is back.
It's been a rough four or five days here for the people in politics who have come down with cancer.
John Elizabeth Edwards, now Tony Snow, his cancer, had colon cancer, had his colon removed, found another spot that they thought was clean and benign.
Went to the hospital yesterday, did some tests, and it's back.
It's metastasized and it's moved to the liver now.
No word on the prognosis, but aggressive treatments are going to begin soon.
I guess most likely chemotherapy.
So we sort of melancholy here over all this today.
I'm sure the prayers and thoughts of everybody who has heard the news go out to Tony and his family with this recurrence.
He's beaten it once, vows to beat it again the second time.
It's now moved to the liver.
And there's no timeframe here on what his return to work will be.
Let's move on, ladies and gentlemen.
Right off the top here, the headline here from Susan Page in USA Today, Edwards gains support as he remains in the race.
He indeed got a bump out of the announcement, the press conference he had last week with his wife.
Americans by two to one support the decision of Senator Edwards to stay in the race, even though his wife has been diagnosed with a recurrence of breast cancer.
By the way, it's now moved to her hip as well as her ribs, or one of her ribs.
USA Today Gallup poll finds that more than a third of the people surveyed believe that Edwards eventually will be forced to withdraw from the campaign because of her illness.
It was a phone poll, 1,007 adults taken Friday through Sunday.
The questions about the Edwards were asked of half the sample, and there's a plus or minus 5% margin of error on this.
On the full poll, it's a plus or minus, a full sample, it's a plus or minus margin of error of 3%.
Edwards got a boost in the race, Democratic contenders in the new poll.
He was the preferred candidate of 14 of the respondents who identified themselves as Democrats or Independents who leaned to the Democrat Party.
It's up from 9% in a USA Today poll three weeks ago, so he got a bump of 5%.
He ranks fourth, though, still behind Mrs. Bill Clinton, who's at 35%, Barack Obama at 22%, and former Vice President Al Gore is at 17%, even though he's not in the race.
And on the Republican side, it's also interesting.
Fred Thompson comes in third, even though he hasn't announced.
McCain's plunge seems to have leveled off.
Looks like Thompson's numbers in the poll are coming from Giuliani, if it's to be believed.
Democrat pollster Mark Melman, who is not affiliated with any presidential candidate, said the bump that Edwards got is understandable.
In the crucible of crisis, people make judgments about a candidate's character.
There's a lot here in which people can make important judgments about Edwards.
He said that by the same token, the poll reaffirms the fundamental fact that it is unlikely to decide the outcome of the nomination battle, meaning the press conference that Edwards and his wife had last week.
Now, I get people sending me these polls.
Every time they come out, I get everybody and their uncle and their grandmother sending me these polls with their take on it.
And I still, I don't know what's, I don't know what's with me, but I think polling numbers right now just, I said this even last year, in November after the election, that polls taken this far out really can't mean anything.
I mean, the election's not for who knows how many months, the primaries are still nine months away.
The first primary is, and the one thing that argues against my instinct on this is that both parties have moved their primary schedules way up.
And so all these large states that used to go in May and June, like California, perhaps Florida, are going to go in January and February.
And there is this thing called Super Duper Tuesday.
And it is possible that both parties' nominees will have been chosen by a year from now in March.
Now, New Hampshire and Iowa are still important in that people that don't do well there have a bigger mountain to climb and the people who do do well.
I mean, remember, Iowa is what killed Dean, given the expectations that he had.
He went in there and got zip after all this hullabaloo about his internet fundraising and all this.
I mean, that stuff still matters.
And the polling data now does matter in the sense that it can affect fundraising and a number of other things, which was interesting.
Yesterday, McCain announced that they're going to come up short of their goals by the reporting date of March 31st.
Everybody has to report first quarter fundraising totals by March 31st to Federal Election Commission.
And, you know, you have to look at fundraising as one of the early primaries, not a poll, but you look at it as an early primary.
If McCain is not going to meet his goals, one part can say, well, he's running behind.
The goals may have been too high, too.
So these things are all relative.
But the bottom line is, the only thing the polls tell me is that something's unsettled.
I'm talking about on the Republican side, and maybe even the Democrats.
Dick Morris, you know, now I like Dick Morris, and I, I, you know, sometimes his stuff makes a whole lot of sense.
At other times, I can't figure it out.
And he's got a piece out today.
The political A-team falters.
It's, I mean, if you believe this, and if you're the Hillary camp, this is scary because he says that her camp and Hillary, they're blowing it.
Left her, she just set a fundraiser.
She just, fundraising record on Beverly Hills, she just dwarfed the amount of money that Obama raised when he went out there.
I think he got $1.3 million and she got $2.6 million in a fundraiser at Beverly Hills at Ron Burkle's place.
So here, after that successful fundraising trip, here comes this piece.
Well, I'll give you the details of it as the program unfolds today about how her A-team is just that Clinton Inc. essentially is screwing up.
I don't know that I see that, but Morris does, and I'll tell you why, as I share the details as the program unfolds today right before your very eyes and ears.
I just here's, let me finish the thought about what argues against my instincts that this polling stuff right now is irrelevant.
It's not totally irrelevant because it does mean something.
When you can have a guy like Fred Thompson, who hasn't even announced, move into third place, and when you can have Gore, who hasn't even announced, move into third place on the Democrat side, it has to tell you something.
And on the Republican side, what it tells me is that there's just not a whole lot of oomph out there for anybody.
If somebody can come along unannounced, just maybe float the possibility and everybody going, yeah, yeah, yeah, raw, raw, Fred, Dalton, Thompson, yeah, yeah.
It tells me that not a whole lot of people, a lot of people like me, not really fired up about anybody particularly yet.
All three of these candidates have their big-time supporters, and they're all out there fundraising, and they do have supporters.
But in terms of, you know, movement-wide or party-wide, there doesn't seem to be anybody around whom the whole Republican caucus, meaning the conservative voters in this country, are rallying around right now, which is, you know, something in and of it.
So like I said yesterday, sort of like the buffet at Denny's.
They have a buffet at Denny's.
They don't have a buffet at Denny's.
Well, imagine they did.
Imagine they had a buffet at Denny's and everything on the menu was in the buffet.
I mean, you like some of it, but you don't want all of it.
There's something for everybody there, but the total package isn't.
And so that's what the polling tells me.
I also got some email today from people who are just fit to be tied over what they've heard about the Republicans in the Senate who are going to go ahead and try to pass the House get out of Iraq bill as soon as they can.
And a lot of people, what do you mean?
The Republicans selling out?
You mean they're going to go along with this pork?
That's why they lost in November.
And I tell you what, I'm never voting Republican.
You people got to calm down out there.
This is a brilliant tactical move here to move the House bill through the Senate quickly as possible, get to conference and get to the White House so it can get vetoed.
The problem here is that the money for the Iraq War, the supplemental money that's needed, will be needed by, I think April the 15th is when it's May 15th is really the crucial date.
It starts on April 15th.
They don't have time to start debating this bill in the Senate and try to take out all the pork and the earmarks and all the, you know, that bill, by the way, I did, I've been looking at it a little bit.
It's the largest tax increase in American history in parts of this bill.
There's stuff in this bill.
It goes beyond just subsidizing a spinach farmer and other things.
They've thrown all kinds of garbage in this thing.
But there isn't time to try to strip all that out before you get a Senate vote on their version and go to conference.
So the whole idea here is to pass this thing as quickly as possible as it just get it out of the Senate, get it to conference, get everybody agreeing on it as quickly as possible, send it up to the White House for the promised veto.
And then just relegate this thing to the ash heap.
All right, that sort of sets a table, but there's lots more out there.
Audio soundbites, galore.
Trent Lott destroyed Dianne Feinstein on this Attorney General thing Sunday on Fox News Sunday.
We'll have the audio soundbites of that coming up.
And there are more fallout on this Attorney General thing.
One of the Justice Department aides has taken the Fifth Amendment or says she will take the Fifth Amendment.
Not going to testify because of the partisan atmosphere in the Senate.
All that, much more straight ahead here on the EIB network.
The views expressed by the host on this show make more sense than anything anybody else out there happens to be saying because the views expressed by the host on this program are rooted in a daily and relentless, unstoppable pursuit of the truth.
You remember way, way back, I don't know how this had to be in the early 90s, late 80s, maybe early 90s, on April Fool's Day, on April 1st, I did an entire monologue on the necessity of increasing taxes on the poor, that the poor were not paying their fair share, and that it was unfair.
And I went through this whole mess.
And of course, it did.
It was one of the things, early things that marked me as one of America's truly great thinkers and bold thinkers, because not only did I think it, I had the courage to actually suggest it.
Well, it has taken a while.
Here is an example of what I always say about this program being on the cutting edge of societal evolution.
CBS and the Associated Press are reporting that New Jersey is among 19 states that now tax families living in poverty.
According to a new report released today, the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities found that two parent families of four who earn less than the federal poverty line, which is $20,615 a year, must pay income taxes in 19 of the 42 states that levy that tax.
Families with very limited means are still taxed too much by the states.
New Jersey does not require residents who earn less than $20,000 a year to pay income taxes, but the center found that poor families in New Jersey who make between $20,000 and $20,615 owed $219.
So if you earn less than $20,000 in New Jersey, you get off without paying any income tax.
However, between $20,000 and $20,615, which is the poverty level, then you will owe $219 in federal income tax.
By eliminating state income taxes on working families with incomes at or below the poverty line, states can offset some of the child care and transportation costs that families incur as they strive to become economically self-sufficient.
This, according to somebody named Levitz, where is this?
I highlighted this paragraph and I didn't highlight the name in a previous paragraph.
Well, anyway, in other words, by eliminating income taxes on poor working families, states can help make work pay.
So, well, that may well be, and I don't have a list of the other states here.
Let's see.
I don't.
This story only, because it's, you know, it's CBS and AP, which the only thing counts to them is the East Coast.
But, you know, any state, folks, as in North Carolina, Florida, we have California.
They all have these things.
Legalized gambling, lotteries.
All of that taxes the poor.
Who are these people kidding?
All those things are direct taxes on the poor.
But there's a premise out there, and of course, this is right out of the left, that just because you're poor, you are exempted from contributing your fair share.
And of course, if you're wealthy, you are obligated to pay more than your fair share.
That's what the whole percentage racket is all about.
So New Jersey with the guts to go out there and tax its own poor people, as I suggested on April 1st, way, way back in the early 90s.
Now, here's this Dick Morris piece.
And it's at Fox News, and it was published way back on the 22nd.
And I just now have been made aware of it.
So it is clear this piece was published prior to Hillary, I'm sorry, Mrs. Bill Clinton's big fundraising sweep out in Beverly Hills over the weekend in California.
They were supposed to be the A-team in American politics, the Clinton machine that inspired fear and admiration throughout the political world.
It guided Mrs. Bill Clinton through two successful Senate races in a state where she had never lived, helped her recover from scandals that nearly crippled her, the pardons, the White House gifts, the Peter Paul fundraiser.
They seemed invincible.
But ever since the presidential campaign started, the Clinton operation has looked amateurish, flat-footed, defensive, and tactically clumsy.
They don't seem to be at all ready for the big time.
Obama has repeatedly outmaneuvered Hillary's campaign.
Well, the stories today are just the opposite.
Stories today are that Obama's making rookie mistakes.
And one, he did make a rookie mistake, and they're not really holding him to this, but he went out there and started really ripping this.
It was some campaign appearance somewhere.
He went out and started ripping to shreds a Senate bill he'd voted for.
Either forgot he voted for it or he didn't think anybody would look that he had voted for it or whatever.
I don't even remember what the bill was, but it's these kind of mistakes.
And now they're starting to ask questions in the status.
Well, here it is.
Is Obama all style and little substance?
This is our old pal Nedra Pickler in the AP.
The voices are growing louder asking the question: is Barack Obama all style and little substance?
You know, the question could be asked of Mrs. Bill Clinton.
I have been asking this.
By the way, I have a revision, ladies and gentlemen.
Not a substitution, but a revision and an addition to my own announced theory as to why Hillary is the presumptive Democrat nominee.
You know, I've, to give you the short version, I have suggested that she's just entitled.
She's owed this because of the life she sacrificed, her own life, which could have been far greater than it is now, if she had just stuck to her feminist ideals and gone out there and pursued her own interest rather than get hooked up with this hayseed from Arkansas and try to take over wherever he got.
Ended up.
But I think there's a new way to look at Hillary's candidacy as well.
And Bob Tyrrell makes this point.
He's got his book out called A Clinton Crackup.
And Tyrrell's perspective is that he's the editor, the owner, the publisher, the grand poo pa of the American Spectator.
And his theory is that Hillary Clinton represents the last gasp of the 60s radicals to have their vision of the future back in the 60s in the White House.
And that's why this election is crucial.
And in the 60s, of course, and I'm one of these people where I grew up in the 60s, but not all people in the 60s, not all the baby boomers, 60s people, were anti-war leftists and communists and people that hated America.
There are plenty of them that were Reaganites, like me.
And Tyrell's theory is that this election in 2008, the presidential race, is the last election of this generation of people where the left's candidate.
Well, his point is, if you take Hillary out of the race, who else in that crowd represents the 60s idealism that fostered all the anti-war rallies and all of the anti-America stuff?
If she loses, that that's it for that crowd in terms of the presidential race.
Not that they're going to be out of power in Washington because these people are entrenched in the bureaucracies.
And for that reason, Tyrrell says, in addition to my own well-developed and unassailable theory, in addition to mine, Tyrrell's theory is that Hillary represents the 60s radicals and she's it.
And so this is a seminal election where this generation has finally grown up and reached its last gasp effort to shape the country in its own image from the 60s.
Anyway, interesting theory.
Back here in just a moment.
A man, a legend, a way of life.
Learn it.
Love it.
Live it.
That, by the way, would be living legend.
The Limboy Institute opened, the largest free education institution known to exist in the free or oppressed worlds.
No graduates, no degrees.
The learning never stops.
Here are the other 18 states in which people below poverty level face more than $200 in state income taxes.
addition to New Jersey, Alabama, Arkansas, Hawaii, Indiana, Iowa, Michigan, Montana, New Jersey, Oregon, and West Virginia.
And four of them, Alabama, Arkansas, Hawaii, and West Virginia, they owe more than $400 in state income tax, people below the poverty line.
The story here about Obama, this is a Mike Allen story at thepolitico.com.
Rookie mistakes plague Obama.
Speaking early this month at a church in Selma, Alabama, Senator Obama said, I'm in Washington.
I see what's going on.
I see those powers and principalities are snuck back in there.
And they're writing the energy bills and the drug laws.
It was a fine riff calculated to appeal to Democrat audiences as Obama seeks a nomination.
But not only did Obama vote for the Senate's big energy bill in 2005, he also put out a press release bragging about its provisions.
And his Senate website carries a news article about the vote headlined, Senate Energy Bill Contains Goodies for Illinois.
A press release said he voted for the bill reluctantly because he wanted something bolder, and his staff says there was nothing inconsistent about the comment in Selma.
So that's where he generated the headline, rookie mistakes plague Obama.
Now, this Nedra Pickler story is much the same thing.
Is Obama all style and little substance?
And I'll tell you, Dick Morris writing at Clinton Inc. has, you know, wandered off the reservation.
I think both these stories are Clinton Inc.
Clinton Inc. inspired.
Nedra Pickler today is Obama all style and little substance.
Former North Carolina Senator John Edwards, the only other candidate to serve less time in elective office than Obama, described in detail his health care plan to provide insurance for all Americans.
Mrs. Bill Clinton doesn't have a written plan yet, but no one questions her expertise since she was the chief proponent of the issue during her husband's presidency.
And we'll see, no one questions her expertise.
Why the hell not?
Why does Obama have his expertise?
I'm talking about a Democrat side now with the drive-by media.
Why is it that Obama gets his expertise questioned and Hillary doesn't, even though Hillary has no plan?
He got no plan, but nobody questions her expertise.
Her expertise ought to be questioned because the plan she proposed was totally exposed and it went down to a screaming defeat and was a seminal factor in the Democrats losing the House of Representatives in 1994.
She had no experience in working with bureaucracies and committees and so forth.
In order to get something like this done, she went up there as, you know, the lady Godiva, which is going to get it all done and the power of her personality and the fact that she was co-president.
And by the way, she has said essentially what she's going to do is revive her own plan.
She's going to just revive it.
It's maybe update it for a few things.
But if she's elected, she's going to implement it, which already failed miserably.
But these two stories are classic illustrations of how Hillary gets a pass on the same things that other candidates are being criticized for.
Nedra Pickler writes, if Obama were running at a different time, he might get more of a break for lacking specifics.
What's that got to do with it?
He doesn't offer specifics.
A lot of people think that he is, by the way, but he doesn't offer specifics.
Mrs. Clinton doesn't offer.
If there's somebody not offering specifics about anything on anything, it's Mrs. Bill Clinton.
But she has the presumed expertise, of course, you see.
And look at, going back to Bob Tyrrell's theory, I think it's one of the reasons that his theory holds.
I mean, the drive-by is largely comprised of the same generational types, these 60s types, that the Clintons come from, and they're one and the same.
Clinton is these people.
Mrs. Clinton is these people.
People often ask, why does Hollywood like the Clinton so much?
Particularly Bill.
He's one of them, folks.
He's one of those guys.
I mean, Bill Clinton and Monica and Kathleen Willie and all that, why that's a license for all the guys in Hollywood to keep doing what they're doing.
If the guy Top is doing it, that couldn't be better for them.
He's exactly like one of those guys.
It's not so much ideology, although that's a factor.
You can't ignore it, but it's more a cultural and behavior thing.
That's why he's such a hero.
People ask me all the time: well, how come Hollywood people like a guy that sounds like a hayseed hick and some southern guy that's got this accent like that?
Because Hollywood hates all people.
I think they're all Christians.
Ain't going right-wing Christians.
I want everybody to burn a hail.
But how come Bill Clinton?
Because no way you could identify Clinton with one of these fundamentalist Christians in terms of how is it caricature behavior and so forth.
Clinton gives these guys a license to steal.
I mean, just the fact that he's dating while he's married will be enough to seal a deal for him.
In fact, they're jealous of him.
They're actually jealous.
He's one of those guys.
It's really no more complicated than that.
Michael in St. James, Missouri, not far from St. Louis.
We'll start with you today on the EIB network.
Hello.
Mega Diddles Rush.
Thank you, sir.
Hey, this campaign or this bill, this funding bill for the war, this pork barrel, it sounds just exactly like what's going to happen with the campaign finance reform bill of a few years back, where Bush was counted on to veto it, and he did not.
I don't like that at all.
Well, I understand your sentiments on this.
Fool me once.
Yeah, fool me twice, that old saying.
But the president went out there last Friday, Michael, and he laid it on the line.
He said this bill has no chance of becoming law.
He pointed out that that victory margin in the House was by one vote.
218 is the minimum you can get for victory.
And he went out and he said there's no chance this bill is going to become law.
He pointed out they don't have a veto-proof majority in any of the two houses, the House or the Senate.
And he was pretty much inviting a veto.
He was not nearly that forceful on campaign finance reform.
In the campaign, he led everybody to believe that he was against it.
But as president, he never invited the bill so he could veto it.
And we've had Snerdley tells you a lot of calls echoing the same sentiments, Michael, that you've raised here.
But in this case, I would be stunned if we had a repeat of campaign finance reform.
I don't think that's in the cards.
This is Bush's issue.
This is his defining issue.
This is what he's built legacy and his protection of the country on.
And he's not going to allow this thing that sets a date to get the troops home in March of 2008.
Simply not going to do it.
I wouldn't be afraid of it this time.
The reason for this, folks, is that the money is needed to keep the surge going and a number of other things going.
And that's, I think not only should the Senate get this thing passed as quickly as they can and get it up there for a veto, I think when the president vetoes this, he ought to do it on a nationwide nighttime appearance from the Oval Office.
See, this is the point.
He needs to do it with the whole country watching, and he needs to go out there and explain it and teach it and tell everybody exactly what was in this bill, not just the withdrawal date of March 8th, not just the $24 billion of pork in there for Spinach and other people, but the tax increases.
I mean, there are things in this bill, folks, that nobody knew until they started looking at it.
Well, there's $100 million in this bill to spend on the two-party conventions in the Iraq withdrawal.
What are you laughing at in there?
What in the hell is funny about this?
$100 million to fund the two party conventions this summer, in addition to everything else.
He's got a great opportunity here when the veto arrives to do a great educational seminar prime time.
Probably won't do it primetime.
I wish he would, but whenever it's going to be a great opportunity.
to tell the American people what is in this.
And then, you know, I would go even further.
If I were the White House, I'd stage my own little production.
And I'd get all these pictures of smiling Nancy Pelosi after they passed this bill.
She was happy just because they got the bill passed.
I mean, she just finally got something done in a disarray and out of array Congress, a Democrat caucus in the House of Representatives.
But as he's going through the list of all the things this bill would do, secure defeat in March of 2008, raise taxes, paid $100 million to two party conventions, $25 million to a spinach farmer in California, just had Pelosi's smiling face up at the same time.
If I had my TV show, that's what I would do.
No, the White House can go that far.
By the way, speaking of all of this, one of the most unusual proposals to emerge in the Senate debate on Iraq withdrawal, Senator Mark Pryor, wants to keep any plans for bringing troops home a secret.
The Arkansas Democrat is a key holdout on his party's proposal to approve $122 billion for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan while setting a goal of March 31st of 2008 to get out of there.
Unlike the plan's Republican opponents, Pryor wants a withdrawal deadline of some kind.
He just doesn't want anyone outside the White House, Congress, and the Iraqi government to know what it is.
My strong preference would be to have a classified plan.
A classified timetable should be shared with Congress.
Public deadline would tip off the enemy.
It might just bide their time and wait for us to leave.
Then you'd have chaos and mayhem and instability.
Mark, Senator Pryor, how long do you think it would take for this date to leak?
What?
This is absurd.
A senator has actually suggested a piece of legislation.
has a secret withdrawal date that only the White House and the House and the Senate know about, which would bring about his genuine fear.
Because the date would leak out.
I mean, you couldn't keep...
Members of Congress know it, and it's going to stay a secret.
Fact chance.
Be right back.
All right, let's go to the audio soundbites and setting up the latest here on the Attorney General scandal controversy over the firing of the eight U.S. attorneys.
By the way, I told you people last week, keep a sharp eye on the name Paul McNulty, one of the ranking aides in the Department of Justice.
And I can't tell you, I got a lot of email from people who go to his church or his name.
I can't believe that you would defame the name of Paul McNulty.
He's a genuine conservative and Republican.
I can't believe what I'm hearing on your program.
You better be careful.
Well, you know, it is what it is.
Gave you people a heads up.
And the news here today is pretty indicative.
At any rate, let's go to the audio soundbites from Sunday, Fox News Sunday.
Trent Lott sharing the stage with California Senator Dianne Feinstein.
Chris Wallace said, Senator Lott, since the president is willing to allow his aides to talk to Congress, how do you defend or do you defend his insistence they testify in private, not under oath, no transcript being made?
Are the Democrats in the Senate interested in information or confrontation?
In my mind, I think if the president would agree for his close advisors in the White House to testify before Congress under oath, he'd be making a huge mistake.
There is a thing called executive privilege.
The president should pay attention to the precedents they set for their successors.
Going back to George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, Alexander Hamilton, I mean, you have a right to have executive privilege there.
Frankly, if you just don't think the U.S. attorney is particularly to your liking, you ought to be able to remove him.
Well, that didn't sit too well.
Wallace said, Senator Feinstein, doesn't it say something?
Here you are.
You've been looking at this for weeks.
You've got 3,000 documents, and there's still no there there in this story.
The there is why were they dismissed?
And, you know, every day something new comes out.
The Attorney General in Michigan, Margaret Chiara, excuse me, the U.S. Attorney in Michigan has held a press conference and said she was dismissed clearly for political reasons.
But that's all right.
That's fine.
Tahara's, my goodness.
How were they selected in the first place?
And I have found that U.S. attorneys forget quite often how they got where they are.
They all of a sudden they think, hey, I must be a federal judge.
I'm here in perpetuity.
I'll do what I please.
And dare anybody to tell them, hey, you've got to prosecute more and more aggressively, running around trying to indict some lady that got a grant improperly instead of a billion-dollar contractor.
You have questions.
You know, this is a good point.
Lott says, my goodness, horror of horrors, fired for political reasons.
How were they selected in the first place?
These are not judges that get lifetime appointments.
They are employees.
They serve at the pleasure of the president.
They are hired on the basis of politics.
Come on, folks, what do you think Clinton was up to when he and Hillary canned 93 U.S. attorneys in the first three months of their administration?
You think politics wasn't behind that?
And you think they picked some of their own political people?
Which is the prerogative when you win elections.
It's okay.
You pay the price when you lose elections.
You get people that are not to your liking in offices and positions of power.
But then the Democrats, this is just a continuing effort here to politicize Republican policy, or to criminalize it, I should say, and to make it look like it's scandal.
The Democrats make a history out of doing this.
The Democrats' existence is 100% political.
Bush hadn't replaced enough of these people, as far as I'm concerned.
Bush didn't act soon enough in getting rid of some of the institutionalized Clintonoids that are left over, and not only in justice, but at the Department of Defense over there at the Pentagon, the State Department, and the CIA.
It guesses all part of the new tone.
Bush was trying to say, you know, I'll put politics second.
I'll put getting along for look when he got him.
Zip zero diddly squat.
Chris Wallace says, Senator Feinstein, what's your response here to what Senator Lott just said?
Six out of the eight of them are involved in public corruption cases.
Most of those cases against Republicans.
They were removed while the investigation or the prosecution was ongoing.
The one in Congress.
Or they were removed.
You wrote a letter about her.
Sure.
Go ahead.
Yeah.
I mean, I don't see where there's a large number of them involved in corruption cases.
I think they were involved whether they were taking action on death penalty cases, immigration cases.
And in this case, they weren't taking action on those things.
And those things are important initiatives in the administration.
And they were lagging far behind.
And this is all such smoke and mirrors anyway, because Clinton, one of his 90s, two of his 93 U.S. attorneys, a guy in Little Rock that was replaced by Paula Casey and Jay Stevens, Chicago, they were involved in corruption cases aimed at Clinton.
And nobody said a word.
And now Mrs. Bill Clinton's out there running, well, our firings were entirely justified, and we had a right to do it.
And here's how our firings differ from these eight.
And of course, the slavies drive by us with their tongues hanging out.
Oh, we love you, Hillary Miffeth Clinton.
Give us them cover so we can get a bass bush.
It's just, it's all smoke and mirrors, and it's all made up.
By the way, as I keep reminding people, U.S. attorney in San Diego pulled off a corruption case.
Tell it to Duke Cunningham.
Duke Cunningham's in jail.
He's serving gonzo numbers of years, lost his assets and so forth.
And nothing happened here.
They're just trying to criminalize all these policy differences, which is not unusual.
This is what Democrats, they can't win, folks, on a long-term basis to the ballot box.
And they're trying to set themselves up to be institutionally unaffected by elections by having their own people, as many people as possible in career positions that survive regardless who wins elections.
We'll be right back.
Good news out there, boys.
A judge in the UK just ruled that women who are drunk can consent to sex.
Details are coming up.
▲
Export Selection