All Episodes
Previous Next
July 30, 2007 - Rush Limbaugh Program
36:24
July 30, 2007, Monday, Hour #2
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Greetings to you music lovers, thrill seekers, conversationalists all across the fruited plain.
This is the award-winning thrill-packed, ever-exciting, increasingly popular, growing by leaps and bounds, Rush Limbaugh program on the one and only Excellence in Broadcasting Network.
We are thrilled and delighted to be with you.
Here is the telephone number if you would like to join us today.
800-282-2882.
And the email address is rush at EIBnet.com.
Ladies and gentlemen, please indulge me on this.
Something's up out there, and I like to think through these things.
And the more that I listen to the things that are constituting the difference, the more lightning-like the thoughts race around in the deep, dark crevices of my immensely fertile mind.
So I want to go back and play three soundbites from the previous hour, the Chris Matthews Sunday Show.
This is a show that doesn't look like hardball at all.
It's a syndicated show that runs out just like any of these other Sunday shows, the McLaughlin Group or what have you.
And the first thing, a montage of the various journalists that he had.
He had Kelly O'Donnell of NBC, Gloria Borger, U.S. Snooze and World Report, Time Magazine, Michael Duffy and David Ignatius of the Washington Post.
First, a montage of these people, the drive-by media.
You've got to understand now.
For four years, we got to get out.
We can't win.
We've got to bring the troops home.
Whatever the Democrats have been saying, the drive-bys have been echoing it.
So with that in mind, listen to this montage on these drive-by media types thoughts on leaving Iraq.
People are beginning to learn that exiting is not easy.
There are enormous costs.
Can it be a thousand Iraqis dying a month at the current rate?
That could explode, maybe 10 times as many if the U.S. leaves.
This is such a problem right now for the Democrats.
Privately, many of them will say, and Joe Biden has even said it publicly, that you can't withdraw overnight.
But it would be dangerous for us to do that.
We'll put it to the Matthews meter, 12 of our regular panelists.
Can Bush keep 100,000 troops or more in Iraq until he leaves office?
Looks like he can.
Eight of our groups says, yes, he can.
It was Gloria Borger who said this is such a problem right now for the Democrats.
Privately, many of them will say that you can't withdraw overnight.
Now, one of the things I want to take you back in my fertile mind's memory once again for many, many months now, I have been incredulous, we all have been over how cemented the concept of losing the Democrat Party has been.
From Pelosi to Reed to Dick Durbin to the leaders in both the House and the Senate, they've already proclaimed that we've lost.
They've waved the white flag.
It's over.
The surge isn't working.
Pull out now, resolution after resolution after resolution.
And I've said, you know, somewhere in this party, somewhere, there are some adults behind the scenes.
There have to be some adults who realize that this is death for these people.
They're governizing themselves.
They're sowing the seeds of a future landslide loss.
There have to be some adults in this party understand that you cannot just keep trying to placate the fringe kooks that make up their base out there on the internet.
So I'm wondering if what hasn't happened is that some of these adults in the Democrat Party have gotten hold of the drive-bys and said, you know, this has gone too far, and we're going to have to pull our party back from the precipice of the cliff.
And the drive-by, well, absolutely.
You're absolutely right.
So this could be the result of the adults.
We don't know who they are.
This could be the result of the adults talking to the drive-bys.
You got this column in the New York Times today.
They say, hey, it's going great over there.
These two libs from the Brookings Institute are going great.
A piece in the Washington Post on Saturday talking about how the Iraqis are joining the effort here from the bottom up and how it's really working well, blah, blah, blah, blah.
But three days in a row, bam, bam, bam.
180 degrees different.
Could be here that what's happening is the adults of the Democrat Party have gotten to the drive-bys, and the drive-bys are now trying to send a warning to the kooks, to the kids, the Pelosis, and the Reeds: hey, you guys had better wake up.
There's also this possibility.
And don't think that this is out of the realm of possibility.
You know, this, because the drive-bys think this is huge.
They won't let go of the story.
The kerfuffle between Obama and Hillary following the last debate.
You know, when Obama said that he would meet with the thugs, he would meet with the dictators.
He would meet with the tyrants.
He won't go on Fox News.
And neither will Hillary.
But they'll meet.
And Hillary said, that's naive.
That's naive.
You don't elevate the office of thugs by giving them an audience with the president of the United States.
So Obama is fighting back by saying, well, look at you.
Look at your vote to authorize the war in Iraq.
So Obama is really hammering Hillary on that.
The drive-bys are watching this.
And this is not part of the script.
So part of this reversal here could be to eventually show how prescient Hillary was and how full of courage and guts she was to not be talked out of supporting her vote, not renouncing her vote.
She has not done that.
She's stuck with it.
She has said Bush lied, I got snookered and so forth, but she hasn't withdrawn her support for her own vote like all the other Democrats have done.
It could well be that, you know, Obama's raising a lot of money, providing a little threat out there.
This is circling the wagons around Hillary.
There's any number of possibilities.
It could also be this.
The drive-bys are in Iraq.
They see the surge working.
They know they can't cover it up anymore with the new media on the case, too.
They can't make it look like a blithering defeat.
So they're letting it out.
It doesn't serve their template anymore to report false news on success.
They got what they wanted in 06.
They got the House.
They got the Senate back.
When it serves them in 08, they'll flip again, as they did by not reporting that all the Democrats voted for the war, despite the clips and despite all of the, you know, all this, the lies and so forth.
And I, you know, something else, too.
You look at this guy, Gordon Brown, the Prime Minister of Great Britain, shows up here amid reports that he's thinking of pulling Great Britain out of there.
He shows up and endorses the effort, says it's major, it's crucial, it's important, praises the U.S. for its leadership.
Despite the sentiment in his country that literally got rid of Tony Blair, despite the sentiments, you've got to get us down there.
They can see this too clearly now.
The success that the surge is having.
Now, two more bites.
And this next one, this is even more amazing than what you just heard.
This is David Ignatius.
And you remember to set this up.
You remember for four years, the drive-bys and the Democrats have been saying, Iraq, it's unnecessary.
Bush lied.
There were no weapons of mass destruction.
This is an intel screw-up.
They cooked the books.
They cooked the intel.
There was no reason to go there.
There were no weapons of mass destruction.
Al-Qaeda wasn't there.
Blah, blah, blah.
In fact, got to get bin Laden, bin Laden, and Zawahiri.
And that's until we do that, this is a failure.
We have lost.
Bush is misfocused.
Matthews says to David Ignatius of the Washington Post, what good does this Iraq war do to reduce the overall threat of terrorism?
These struggles are different fronts of the same war.
The notion that a defeat for the United States and its allies in Iraq is costless in terms of the larger war against al-Qaeda is just wrong.
I mean, you know, Bin Laden said again and again, the Americans are weak.
If you hit them hard, they'll run away.
They were hit hard in Beirut.
They ran away.
They were hit in Somalia.
They ran away.
I feel like Fred Sanford here.
It's a big one, Elizabeth.
It's a big one.
It could be the big one.
You know, Fred Samford always thought he's having a heart attack.
Red Fox, the lovable, irascible Redfoot.
Do you realize what you people just heard?
You just had a Washington Post columnist say that the idea that Iraq is different from the war on terror is silly.
That these struggles are different fronts in the same war.
And finally, Michael Duffy of Time, Chris Matthews says, how will it be better if we stay in Iraq two years more than if we leave in a year?
You get to maybe protect two clear interests the U.S. has, keeping Al-Qaeda from having a safe haven on the order of Afghanistan and keeping that regional war from breaking out.
Okay, I had to do this segment again, and I'm glad you indulged me here because I wanted to present some theories that might explain why the 180 here.
And it'll be interesting to see what happens tomorrow.
And it'll be interesting to see if the drive-bys are indeed able to influence the Reeds and the Pelosis.
Now, Feinstein, or Feingold, Russ Feingold said on Fox yesterday that he doesn't care.
He doesn't care what Petraeus says.
He's going to seek other sources.
And he's still holding firm on this.
But this was before the column came out today in the New York Times.
Back with more after this.
Okay, when we go back to the audio soundbites, we got some incredible sound from Russ Feingold on Fox News Sunday with Chris Wallace yesterday.
Just got, I don't even know if Feingold's aware of it.
He just got ripped up one side of that studio to the other.
You're going to love hearing this.
But I got people who want to comment on the previously referred to subjects here.
We go to Missy in Lafayette, Louisiana.
Hi, thanks for calling.
Thanks so much for having me, Rush.
Cait and Ditto, too.
Thank you very much.
Rush, I think you hit the nail on the head with the whole Hillary thing.
This is her way to further distinguish herself from Obama and Edwards.
It gives her some security back in New York for those who are still remembering and feeling the impact of the assault on our country.
And it moves her more central than the Kook fringe.
She's positioning herself for the presidential run next fall.
Absolutely.
Well, I did advance this theorem myself.
You were calling to echo it.
If it's true, if we're right about this, and we have to admit here we are just speculating.
But if we're right about this, do you understand what it means?
It means that somebody at Clinton Inc. don't think the drive-bys came up with this all on their own.
I mean, this is just too coincidental.
There are no coincidences with the Clinton.
So if this swerve in drive-by coverage of the war in Iraq is indeed designed to aid Hillary, then look at how fast they turn on a dime.
Look at it.
Of course, we hit puff piece on the front page of New York Times.
It's not worth discussing in any great detail other than to discuss the placement.
How did it get there?
Why have we not heard about this before?
It's the strangest damn story.
But it's designed to appeal to the average New York Times reader and present a picture of Hillary that is not true.
Likable.
They're trying to burnish an image for Hillary.
Smart, deeply concerned, deeply involved.
And she had a conservative father that drove her out of the house, drove her to Wellesley, drove her to the East Coast, drove her into the arms of Bill Clinton and liberals.
Wanted to go to Africa.
What young kid doesn't want to go to Africa for hanging out?
Big deal.
She didn't go to Africa because she's afraid what her dad would say and what kind of conversations they would have.
Oh, these conservatives are such mean, spirited SOBs.
This is not an accident either.
And by the way, if you're this guy, she's never spoken to this guy since they last wrote the letters in 1969.
She's not spoken to him in 38 years.
And the New York Times finds out about these letters because Gail Sheehee found out about them for a book that she wrote on Hillary.
New York Times says, oh, let's call a guy.
Guy says, hi, New York Times, you want these?
Sure, I'll give you the letters.
She turns them over without calling Hillary first.
The story in the story is that Hillary's, oh, he's still got those.
I'd love to see them.
Could you make copies, sir, and send them back to me?
These letters, they're not intimate.
It was not boyfriend, girlfriend.
It was just, you know, two young college kids writing together.
They used to grew up in the same place in Illinois, Park Ridge, I think.
It's just makes no sense.
People don't do this.
Write letters, a bunch of letters over four or five years and never speak to anybody again, even by letter or phone.
And it shows up in the New York Times now after all these years of Hillary being in public life.
So if indeed, I'm leading with all this, if indeed the drive-bys have done a 180 here in order to help Hillary because Obama's coming on too strong.
Oh, man.
I mean, that's brazen.
That's brazen.
Not surprising.
This is brazen.
But it's going to be interesting to see what happens the rest of the day, tonight, tomorrow, and what happens with the rest of the Democrats on this.
And we can't leave out this New York Times column today.
We talked about that the first hour, but two leftists from the Brookings Institution say, hey, it is going great.
Go.
We can't get out of there.
It'd be foolish to get out of there.
What every American must know is this is working and we should stay, at least through the end of 2008.
John in Santa Barbara, California, you are next on the EIB network.
Hello.
Hi, Rush.
I think that the thing is that the dividing between Republicans and Democrats is the war, but the Democrats knew all along that the war is necessary.
They just wanted to make Bush make the mistake of pulling out.
But now that we're so close to the election, they want that issue to go away, you know, because they don't want to have to be stuck with having to pull it out.
This is not making it go away.
This is making it look like what Bush is doing is working.
Well, yeah.
It has a chance to work.
Now, they can then start to ignore it after they have done this little 180 and pretend that it's gone away, but Bush isn't going to let it go away.
If it turns out this thing is working, one of the things I said in the first hour, the biggest problem that we've had, I think for all these polls that have been taken that show the American people are unsettled, filled with angst, anxiety, apprehension, unhappiness.
It's all been said to be about the war.
Well, let's accept for the fact that it might be.
If something like this could serve to unite the country behind the effort, because everybody loves a winner.
And it was depressing for some people that we were reportedly losing and that we didn't seem to have a way to turn it around.
And so I can understand that depressing people.
We are the United States of America.
We do not lose, especially to a bunch of seventh century people.
And yet we were.
It was reported we were losing and it was a quagmire and it was Vietnam and all these things.
If it could be turned around and the enough Americans who've been on, you know, sort of the wobbly side of this could say, you know what, we're winning.
Okay, everybody loves a winner.
We get behind this.
Can you imagine what the unity or the near unity?
I'm not foolish enough to believe it.
Every American on the left would come around on this.
Don't misunderstand.
But if the polls go up dramatically on this and there's this sense of unity out there, you realize what it would mean attitudinally, psychologically for the country.
This is something the Democrats don't want, folks.
They want angst, anxiety, unsettledness, fear, chaos, crisis, and all that.
This is the only person that might be able to benefit from this would indeed be Hillary.
And so that's why we're targeting our theory to explain this turnaround in her direction.
Polly in Travers City, Michigan.
I'm glad you waited.
Welcome to the EIB Network.
Hi, Rush.
Hi.
Okay, I know what's going on.
Why the 180?
All right, I'm listening.
It's a left-wing liberal conspiracy just to mess with your head.
It's just a big joke.
They're going to come say April Fools or something like that.
No, this is trying to mess with me.
Yeah.
Well, if that's their theory, they're doing a good job.
I think so, too.
I mean, I hate to be so childlike here in my incredulity over this, but this, and I really hope I'm not making too big a deal of it, but given four years of the exact opposite reporting, and we know that the drive-bys are there in Iraq and they can see this.
And we know that the Democrats are not going to pull out if they win the White House.
They're not going to pull out with victory saddled around their necks.
So all of this has been pure politics.
We all know that.
Now the politics is changing.
The politics is changing because the situation on the ground is changing.
And the Democrats, some of them, at least the drive-bys, okay, look at, we can't deny this anymore, is one thing.
But they're messing with my head in the sense that I can't quite figure it out yet.
Right.
I'm still working on it.
It's great to talk to you, Rush.
Thank you.
I appreciate it.
You've made a big change in my life.
You helped me change.
How so?
Oh, in 30 seconds.
Oh, you were a liberal.
Young, young.
Yeah.
But over the past 10 years, I've grown up quite a bit.
Was your dad a mean-spirited conservative taskmaster?
Yeah.
And I learned to be just like him.
Yeah.
And I'm proud.
Got any letters you wrote to some guy you want to tell us about?
No.
Good.
Nothing you need to know about.
Good answer.
All right, Polly.
It's great to hear from you.
We have to take an EIB profit center timeout, obscene profit center.
We're going to make all we can here, ladies and gentlemen, before Hillary takes them.
Yes, welcome back.
Half my brain tied behind my back.
Just to make it fair, ladies and gentlemen, our show prep here knows no bounds.
We will go and research anywhere to get the latest for you, including India.
From the timesofindia.com.
Craving for something sweet and sour at the same time, don't think twice.
Just have a bowl of spicy and creamy tomato soup to satisfy your desire.
A bowl of hot tomato soup every day can boost fertility among men, according to Snap Boy.
Am I glad I do not eat much of this stuff?
Researchers at the UK-based University of Portsmouth have discovered lycopene, which gives tomatoes their bright red color.
I thought it was, I thought it was chemical additives.
That big vegetable was doing that made tomatoes red.
Okay, so it's lycopene can turn sperm into super sperm, sources reported.
The conclusion came after researchers studied the effect of lycopene in the diet on a group of six healthy men, all in their early 40s.
Excuse me.
I'll tell you, when I saw this, I gulped a couple, three times.
I said, thank gosh, I don't eat tomatoes.
If you already have super sperm, I guess super, super sperm.
If you already have super sperm, this enhances it.
All right, back to the audio sound bites.
Oh, but before we do that, have you seen this ABC news survey?
The civil libertarians are outraged.
71% of the American people are okay with news cameras in public places to record their activities as a way of stopping crime.
Civil libertarians, outraged.
How can this be?
The American people want their security.
Very similar.
They're sick and tired of crime.
And they're sick and tired of terrorism.
And by the way, I think it's unmistakable that they have seen these cameras in Britain, in London, help track down these terrorists that are trying to blow up subways and nightclubs.
All right.
To Fox News Sunday yesterday, the party that said Bill Clinton's perjury was a personal matter now wants to go after Alberto Gonzalez for perjury when he didn't even commit perjury.
This whole thing with the U.S. attorneys, all the Democrats are doing is setting it up so this Department of Justice can be paralyzed to go after vote fraud.
One of the things that these eight U.S. attorneys, some of them were gotten rid of for is because they were not pursuing voter fraud cases.
The administration said this is huge because the Democrats are engaging it.
Anytime you go anywhere where a Democrat or a civil rights activist or whoever opposes photo ID on voter registration cards, you know they want to cheat.
Nine times out of ten, they want to cheat.
So here we have Gonzalez getting rid of these U.S. attorneys, Bush's request, because they're not pursuing voter fraud cases.
This is all about trying to tie up the Justice Department so that they will not pursue them any further by having a cloud over the firing of the attorneys.
And it's just, it's, it's, I know I sound cynical.
I actually, I think the reason this is going on is so that they can have a better chance of getting away with voter fraud.
And they've put this notion out to Republicans that are guilty of that.
Democrats wrote a book on it.
Both parties know how, don't misunderstand.
So anyway, we got fine gold on with Chris Wallace.
Chris Wallace says, Senator, according to this morning's New York Times, Alberto Gonzalez may actually have been right.
The dispute may have been over.
This gets very technical.
The computer searches of databases, not the interception of phone calls.
But in any point, it's a fairly technical issue.
We're discussing it.
Does this really rise to the level of appointing a special prosecutor to investigate the Attorney General for perjury?
You bet it does.
This is technical and it is classified, but there's really nothing more important than not having the Attorney General of the United States tell false statements to Congress about these programs and about what's going on.
Now, the truth is, is that the Attorney General, in my view, has at least lied to Congress and may have committed perjury.
And I think we need to have somebody who's able to look at both the classified and non-classified material in a way that he can actually determine whether or not criminal charges have to be pursued.
Chris Wallace then says, Senator, wouldn't the American people rather see Congress do something about lowering drug prices, about energy policy, about student loans, all part of the Democrat agenda that you haven't passed so far, rather than engage in this political theater?
That's just not true.
We have passed a major energy bill in the Senate.
We have passed major legislation on student loans and higher education.
That's true as we do.
Yeah, Senator, but none of it has gotten through Congress.
Well, the fact is the minimum wage increase got through Congress.
Whoop-e-doo!
Yip-yip-yip-yip-yahoo!
Wallace says, can you point to a single smoking gun?
Any hard evidence that the White House has done anything illegal?
I think clearly with regard to the NSA surveillance.
I'm talking about the U.S. talking about the U.S. attorneys, sir.
Well, I believe they probably have.
I can't give you anything definitive on that, but I do believe there's been terrible misconduct and misleading approaches here.
But I think the question is, is this really going anywhere?
Is this substantive oversight or is this political theater?
I mean, the point is, on the U.S. attorneys, which we're talking about, six, seven-month investigation, 8,500 pages of documents, 14 witnesses.
And you say yourself, as a member of Senate Judiciary, you haven't found any hard evidence that the White House has broken the law.
Well, I happen to think they probably did break the law here, but I don't think the investigation is over.
Well, that's why we're asking for people like Karl Rolven and others to come down and testify so we can actually examine the evidence.
They don't have anything, and he had to have a fourth.
Well, I think they did pass the minimum wage finally at that point.
I don't think my guess is that Senator Feingold does not know how shellact he was when he left the Fox News broadcast complex on Sunday.
Now, continuing with a theme that came up last week, Senator Specter suggested that we needed to go back and review the confirmation hearing testimony of John Roberts and Samuel Alito because they may have misrepresented themselves to the committee members in order to get confirmed.
In other words, he wants to go back and see if the committee was lied to by Alito and Roberts.
And so, last Friday, this was picked up by Senator Schumer.
He spoke to the American Constitution Society Convention.
Here is a portion of Senator Schumer's remarks.
Were we duped?
Were we hoodwinked?
Were we too easily impressed with the charm of the nominee Roberts in the area of nominee Alito?
In case after case, our most recently confirmed justices have appeared to jettison decisions recently authored by their immediate predecessors.
Although Roberts and Alito both expressed their profound respect for Starry Decisis at their confirmation hearings, many of their decisions have flouted precedent.
What are you going to do about it?
I thought we weren't supposed to criticize judiciary.
I thought we weren't supposed to attack the judiciary.
I thought they were off limits, Senator Schumer.
I thought this is outrageous.
This is a power grab.
The Libs are threatened.
They feel worried.
The Supreme Court folks is how they insulate themselves from election losses.
It's how they get people, activists on the court instituting their own personal policy preferences.
Regardless, the law, liberalism shall run free and uninhibited on the Supreme Court.
Now, they think they may have been lied to.
Were we hoodwinked?
You realize how stupid you are making yourselves sound with that line of questioning about yourselves.
Here's another portion of Senator Schumer's remarks.
So every day, I feel more comfortable with my vote against Chief Justice Roberts.
And every day I'm pained that I didn't do more to try and block Justice Alito.
I was one who felt we ought to filibuster, but my colleagues convinced me we just didn't have the votes.
We should have done everything we could to have blocked Alito.
Alito shouldn't have been confirmed.
We should have done our job better.
Take the president at his word.
When a president says he wants to nominate justices in the mold of Scalia and Thomas, believe him.
The burden always lies with the nominee to show that he or she is within the mainstream.
And that burden cannot be met, as we've seen, by mouthing pleasant platitudes about modesty and stability at a confirmation hearing.
Well, last I remember, it was Justice Alito's poor wife that was fleeing the hearing room in tears over the way her husband was being treated by the Democrats on the committee.
I think it was Senator Leahy, was it not?
We should have done everything we could to have blocked Alito.
He shouldn't have been confirmed.
This comment, you know, Schemer is consistent here, talking about finding judges that are within the mainstream.
That's a political characterization.
The court's not supposed to be that.
Mainstream to him is liberalism.
Liberalism is not mainstream America.
It is not.
Here, look at Washington Post.
I got one more schema bite.
Washington Post, Drew Weston, the new George Lakoff rhymes with, is back again, writing another advice column in the Post on Sunday to the Democrats.
Dems, you got to have heart.
Lakoff's replacement here issues another call, more passion, less facts from you Democrats.
Page three of this piece, he says, voters disagreed with 75% of what Reagan had on issues, but they liked him, and that's why they elected him.
And they can't get themselves beyond that.
They do not understand that Reagan was elected on issues of substance.
It wasn't marketing and packaging.
Yeah, I was a likable guy, and that helped.
But his, you don't win 49 state landslides on pure likability.
You know, by the way, we've had passion at Hillary, and I don't think that plays very well.
That screaming and shouting out there.
So the Democrats, the only reason that this column is written, they can't dare be honest about who they are because they aren't mainstream.
Liberalism isn't mainstream.
That's why I have to come up with all this compassion and emotion.
You got to have heart.
You got to appeal to people's feelings.
You can't get caught up in the facts.
Facts are too hard.
Facts are too cold.
Plus, the facts go against the Libs.
All right, one more Schumer bite.
Final portion of his remarks.
This the PS Des Résistance.
For the rest of this president's term, and if there is another Republican elected with the same selection criteria, let me say this.
We should reverse the presumption of confirmation.
The Supreme Court is dangerously out of balance.
We cannot afford to see Justice Stevens replaced by another Roberts or Justice Ginsburg by another Alito.
I will recommend to my colleagues that we should not confirm any Bush nominee to the Supreme Court except in extraordinary circumstances.
They must prove by actions, not words, that they are in the mainstream, rather than we have to prove that they are not.
There's no doubt we were hoodwinked.
What does that say about you?
That you were hoodwinked.
You were outsmarted.
These guys, both of them, ran intellectual rings around every one of those pompous windbag senators on that committee, Republican and Democrat members alike.
That's why they couldn't vote them down.
They ran rings or you got hoodwinked.
You're just pompous and arrogant.
You don't allow yourselves the understanding there are a lot of people smarter than you that show up here for these jobs.
But now he's just going to shut it down, shut down the whole confirmation process.
This is Libs, folks.
This is the Stalinism of the Libs.
Just total control.
Don't get their way.
Shut down the process.
All right, back to this last bite with Senator Schumer.
He said the next nominee, they're not going to get hoodwinked.
The next nominee must prove by actions, not words, that they are in the mainstream.
Now, tell me, how does a nominee sitting before this pompous bunch of windbags demonstrate action that pleases them?
First of all, it's a flawed concept because they don't know the cases that are going to come before them, so the senators make them up based on their political leanings and so forth.
I mean, what's the next nominee supposed to do?
Demonstrate his actions by going up and kissing Senator Schemer's rear end?
What kind of action are we talking about here?
You know, Schemer is worried about precedent, all this precedent being overturned.
As we've said many times here, judges' job is to follow the Constitution, not precedent, unless the precedent follows the Constitution.
If the precedent follows Constitution, fine.
If the precedent doesn't, then you overturn it.
It's what strict constructionists do.
I mean, if you take this out to the logical conclusion, if Schumer had his way, Dred Scott would still be the law of the land.
Plessy Ferguson would still be the law of the land.
Dred Scott upheld slavery.
That was a precedent that we had to overturn.
Well, for the purpose of this discussion, that's accurate.
Plessy upheld segregation.
Plessy Ferguson upheld segregation.
We would still have segregation.
If you can't overturn precedent, if you can't reverse precedent, Schumer's the idiot here, the one being inconsistent, purely political.
This is Perry.
Is that right?
Yeah, Perry in Durham, North Carolina.
Hey, how are you, sir?
He's dropped off.
He said Sayonari.
He grew impatient.
Well, I can understand.
He'd been waiting for two hours.
Who's next?
Linda, New York City.
Hello, and welcome to EIB Network.
Yeah, my comment was about the drive-by media's 180 on Iraq.
Yeah.
I think the reason is that no matter what they do, the Democrats don't have the votes to stop the surge or to break Bush's will.
So now they're trying to put a good face on their impotence or a little sugar on the sour grapes.
Hmm.
Well, we'll have to see if the elected Democrats follow along.
It's one thing for the drive-bys to do it.
And if the drive-bys are advising the Democrats here in a surreptitious way, then it's up to the elected.
Like if Reed and Pelosi start changing their tune, then you might have a point.
Well, even if they can't, even if some of them hold out and want to do it, if they can't do it, doesn't it sort of say, well, maybe it isn't so bad not to do it?
I don't know.
I'm just throwing that in.
Well, but here's the thing.
To really understand all of this, you have to put it in the proper context.
You have to look at it through the proper prism.
This is why you need me.
You look at this through the one lens that they're looking at it, and that's the 08 election.
That's all that matters to them, the 08 presidential election.
So it may well be they're seeing these poll numbers climb.
They do not have a majority of the American people opposed to this.
They do not have a majority of the American people who want to lose this, meaning Iraq.
They don't have it.
If they did, they would have gotten all these resolutions passed.
If the vast majority of the American people were of the same mindset they were in Vietnam, they would have successfully defunded the war and ended it that way.
They have precedent for that.
They don't have that public opinion.
They are trying to create it.
They have been trying to create for four years, and they have failed.
That is momentous.
Now with the polls that came out twice in two days in the New York Times or twice in three days last week about how the support, the initial invasion, support for the initial invasion is high, they polled that twice because they couldn't believe their first results.
So I think somebody is seeing, wait a minute, we don't have the American people on this.
They've been lying about what the election results in 06 are about.
That was a mandate to get out of a.
It wasn't.
And they're faced now with reality looking through the lens of the 08 presidential race.
What I've been telling you, they're setting themselves up for a grand MacGovernization type landslide defeat.
And I think somebody smart in the Democrat Party is trying to reverse that direction with all this.
That's what's happening.
Try this headline from the Los Angeles Times school to install footbaths for Muslims.
ACLU is fully behind the effort, as is Barry Lynn of the Separation Church and State Crowd.
We'll be back.
▲
Export Selection