Welcome to today's edition of the Rush 24-7 podcast.
Maybe, maybe I should say here, ladies and gentlemen, for the first day, for the first time in my life, I'm proud to be an American.
No, no, no, I'm just kidding.
But Sonia Sotomayor is a great story.
It's a great story.
Greetings to you, music lovers, thrill seekers, and conversationalists all across the fruited plane.
Time for broadcast excellence, hosted by me, Rush Lindbaugh, the former titular head of the Republican Party.
Telephone number 800-282-2882, the email address lrushbo at eibnet.com.
Just moments ago, prior to the start of today's program, my trusted aide, Dick Camp and Chief of Staff, H.R. Carson, sends me a note saying that he had just gotten off the phone with the Associated Press.
The Associated Press asked if they could roll tape on my comments regarding Sonia Sotomayor, appointed to the Supreme Court today by President Obama.
The guy on the phone from the AP said to H.R., look, I know that Rush passed the leadership baton, the Republican Party, to Secretary Powell, but Rush is still the most influential voice out there for Republicans.
So HR says, should I grant him permission?
I said, yeah, we can't stop them.
I mean, they roll tape on what I say.
Feel free.
Ladies and gentlemen, her story is very inspirational.
I mean, the personal story of Sonia Sotomayor, where she came from, and where she has now arrived.
You can't deny that this is a tremendous story, very inspirational for practically everybody.
But the thing I'd like to point out is that she accomplished all of this during the Reagan years.
She accomplished all of this during the Bush years, both Bush years, both Bush presidential years, 12 years, and even the Clinton years.
She accomplished all of this before President Obama, the Messiah, was elected president of the United States.
Now, this morning, Mr. Snerdley came to me breathlessly, looking for guidance, as I'm sure many of you are too.
Do you think we should go to the mat stopping Sotomayor?
Do you think we ought to go to the wall to oppose her?
And I said, absolutely we should.
Once again, an opportunity to draw the distinct contrast that exists today between the conservatives and those in the Republican Party to President Obama.
I doubt that Sotomayor can be stopped.
She should be.
She is a horrible pick.
She is the antithesis of a judge by her own admission and in her own words.
She has been overturned 80% by the Supreme Court.
She may as well be on the Ninth Circus Court of Appeals, given all the time she's overturned.
She has been reprimanded by a truly strong Hispanic judge, Jose Cabranis.
She has been rebuked in writing by Cabranis for opinions that she wrote that had no bearing on the constitutional issues before her in the case that was being decided.
Details on that coming up.
But here is why.
Even though she may not be able to be stopped, here is why Sonia Sotomayor needs to be opposed by the Republicans as far as they can take it.
Because the American people need to know who Barack Obama really is.
And his choice of Sonia Sotomayor tells everybody, if we will tell the story of her, who he is.
He got up in his announcement and said everything about her that isn't true.
that she's great constitutionalist, that she doesn't use personal opinion, that she understands what her role is and the oath is of a Supreme Court justice.
She has done just the opposite of that.
She is a hack like he is a hack in the sense that the court is a place to be used to make policy, not to adjudicate cases, not to adjudicate constitutional law, but to make policy.
She's even admitted it.
Grab soundbite number one.
This is 2005.
In Durham, North Carolina at Duke, the School of Law there, during a panel discussion about the Court of Appeals.
This is what Judge Sonia Sotomayor had to say.
All of the legal defense funds out there, they're looking for people with Court of Appeals experience because it is Court of Appeals is where policy is made.
And I know, and I know this is on tape, and I should never say that because we don't make law.
I know.
Okay, I know.
I'm not promoting it, and I'm not advocating it.
Well, there you have it.
I mean, she makes light of it and makes jokes about what she determines her purpose to be as someone who may.
So she is the embodiment of the criticism of a judge or a justice who is all wrong for the highest court in the land.
So, of course, the Republican Party should go to the mat on this because in the process of doing so, the American people will find out more about Barack Obama and who he really is, what he really believes in.
And her choice, this choice helps to tell the real story of Barack Obama.
This is a debate worth having.
She stands for policymaking.
Her defenders have said two things that are incompatible.
I've been watching TV this morning, and her defenders have said two things that are incompatible when you take them together.
No, she doesn't believe in policymaking for the bench, as her words were taken out of context.
No, her words were taken out of context.
You just heard her words.
Listen to it again.
Here's audio soundbite number one.
We got liberal defenders on TV this morning.
No, no, no, she's been taken out of context there.
She doesn't believe in policymaking.
All of the legal defense funds out there, they're looking for people with Court of Appeals experience because it is Court of Appeals is where policy is made.
And I know, and I know this is on tape, and I should never say that because we don't make law.
I know.
Okay, I know.
I'm not promoting it, and I'm not advocating it.
She's just telling her audience what they want to believe.
I mean, the audience is laughing because she's let the cat out of the bag, but they know nothing is going to come of it because she's just being honest.
She's being honest about her.
There's nothing out of context here whatsoever.
So her liberal defenders on TV today have said two things are incompatible when you take them together.
They've said that she's being taken out of context she does not believe in policymaking.
And they're also saying that every justice and every decision is about policymaking.
I've watched it all this morning.
And the defenders of Sonia's Soto Mayor have come out of the ballpark.
Now, all over the ballpark, from all over the place, and they're contradicting themselves.
I mean, this is why this is actually a good choice.
I mean, do I want her to fail?
Yeah.
Do I want her to fail to get on the court?
Yeah.
She'd be a disaster on the court.
Do I still want Obama to fail as president?
Yeah, AP, you're getting this.
He's going to fail anyway, but the sooner the better here so that as little damage can be done to the country.
Now, I also want to talk what I think the Republicans are going to do with this as opposed to what they should do, because I think those are two entirely different things.
There's a big source of controversy with Sonia's Sotomayor, and I don't know if it's going to be brought up.
Somebody, I'm sure Jeff Sessions or somebody on our side, the Judiciary Committee, will bring it up.
And one of the focal points is going to be her conduct in the New Haven, Connecticut firefighter case that is at present on appeal at the Supreme Court.
The name of the case is Ricci versus De Stefano.
And in this case, Sonia Sotomayor sided with the city of New Haven that was alleged to have used racially discriminatory practices to deny promotion to firefighters.
She sided with them.
Sotomayor joined a percurium opinion that went so far as to bury the white firefighters' crucial claims of unfair treatment.
And this is the case that Judge Jose Cabranis, a Clinton appointee, chastised Sonia Sotomayor in writing for apparently missing the entire host of constitutional issues that were before the court.
And Cabranis is a Clinton appointee.
According to Judge Cabranis, Sotomayor's opinion, quote, contains no reference whatsoever to the constitutional claims at the core of this case.
And its perfunctory disposition rests uneasily with the weighty issues presented by this appeal.
Even Richard Cohen in the Washington Post, a liberal columnist, wrote of his dissatisfaction with this case.
He said, Ricci's not just a legal case, but a man who has been deprived of the pursuit of happiness on account of race.
Here's the irony.
This case is under review right now at the Supreme Court.
The Supreme Court's opinion is expected by the end of June when David Souter, the judge that Sotomayor is scheduled to replace, will leave.
So it'll be fascinating to see what the Supreme Court does in this case, where a liberal Democrat judge appointed by Clinton chastised her in writing.
In another example of Sotomayor's judicial philosophy, she stated in a 2002 speech at Berkeley that she believes it is appropriate for a judge to consider, quote, their experiences as women and people of color, unquote, which she believes should, quote, affect our decisions, unquote.
Yet Obama's up there talking about how she's superb at interpreting the law.
She just said, and she said it numerous times, she is not about interpreting the law.
She's about making policy from an extreme radical left-wing position.
This is not, and you know, Obama talks about we need people with empathy.
It's not even about empathy, folks.
That's just cover.
He just wants one of his own on the court to do his dirty work from the highest court in the land, and she fits the bill.
She went on to say in that same speech at Berkeley, quote, I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experience would be more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn't lived that life, unquote.
She restated her commitment to that unlawful judicial philosophy at a speech she gave at Duke, where you just heard the audio soundbite.
The Court of Appeals is where policy is made.
So here you have a racist.
You might want to soften that, and you might want to say a reverse racist.
And the Lids, of course, say the minorities cannot be racists because they don't have the power to implement their racism.
Well, those days are gone because reverse racists certainly do have the power to implement their power.
Obama is the greatest living example of a reverse racist, and now he's appointed one.
Getting this AP?
Sonia Sotomayor to the U.S. Supreme Court.
There's, look, the guy named Jeffrey Rosen, who is the legal affairs editor at the New Republic, a liberal journal of opinion.
Let me read what he writes about her.
Her opinions, although competent, are viewed by former prosecutors as not especially clean or tight, sometimes miss the forest for the trees.
It's customary, for example, for Second Circuit judges to circulate their draft opinions to invite a robust exchange of views.
Sotomayor, several former clerks complained, rankled her colleagues by sending long memos that did not distinguish between substantive and trivial points, had petty editing suggestions in them, fixing typos and the like, rather than focusing on core analytical issues.
So she's not the brain that they're portraying her to be.
She's not a constitutional jurist.
She is an affirmative action case extraordinaire.
And she has put down white men in favor of Latino women.
She has claimed that the court is all about making policy.
So yes, there's a golden opportunity.
Take this to the mat.
Take it to the wall.
The people need to know what Obama really believes in.
And this is how it could happen.
Now, will the Republicans do it?
That's another question.
Have you seen, and do you remember if you have seen it, a picture of the lady holding the scales of justice?
Do you know what's remarkable about the lady in that rendering?
She's blindfolded.
She doesn't know whether the people before her, justice, does not know whether the people before it are black, white, Hispanic, male, female, rich, poor, Martian, or whatever.
There is nothing about Sonia Sotomayor that is blindfolded where justice is concerned.
This is a huge concern.
Now, what are the Republicans going to do?
I happen to think that this appointment by President Obama is more about Democrat Party politics than it is about the U.S. Supreme Court.
It's a close second because he does have an anti-constitutionalist.
If he gets her confirmed, he will have an anti-constitutionalist on the court.
That's what he wants.
Forget this empathy stuff.
It's not about empathy.
That's to get the squishies among us to think it's okay.
He wants an anti-constitutionalist out there, but this is also a huge wedge issue for Obama.
I mean, this is, I mean, this is a two-run homer.
You might even call it a grand slam.
She's a what?
A woman, be what?
A Hispanic.
Boy, she's a two-pronged minority.
I guarantee you that a majority of Republicans are going to be scared to death to oppose her or even say anything about her because the Dems are going to use race left and right.
They use race nominating her.
They use race and minority status nominating her, identity politics, and then they are going to use race, identity politics, minority status, feminism to criticize me and any other Republican that dares oppose her.
So you've got a great wedge issue here for Obama in the nomination of Judge Sonia Sotomayor.
The Republicans, particularly in the Senate now, are going to be in a huge box, a huge political box.
And don't forget, the Republicans are under the illusion that how they treat and react Sotomayor will affect how they are able to get the Hispanic vote.
Now, this is where the Republicans are really, really missing the boat.
We tried this.
Every Bush Hispanic nominee who was male, they set out to destroy.
Miguel Estrada, Alberto Gonzalez.
The Democrats set out to destroy them.
The Hispanic aspect is irrelevant except when they nominate one, and particularly now a woman.
So the Republicans are going to have to forget about this.
They have got a choice here, the purpose of which is to get an anti-constitutionalist on the court.
And second aspect of the choice is to shut them up, to cower them, to get them cowering in fear in the corners of the committee hearing room and saying nothing.
Because Obama knows that the moderate Republicans who run the Republican Party, led by General Powell, are obsessed with not causing any waves, not making any waves.
And they're obsessed with this big tent.
They're obsessed with inclusiveness, whatever the hell that means.
And they're obsessed with the Hispanic vote.
So this, you know, this, this, whether Rah Emmanuel picked it or whether one of she's a Clinton person, whether one of the Clinton people nominated her is irrelevant, Obama's got a twofer here.
And there's, look, as I say, the odds that she can be stopped are long.
Perhaps the biggest pitfall she faces is her own confirmation hearings.
She might slip up there and might say something that would give the opposition a home run.
But even then, they're going to have to be willing to take advantage of it.
By the way, do you know that Obama opposed both Rogers Roberts and Alito?
Barack Obama opposed them both.
And in both cases of John Roberts, the current Chief Justice, and Samuel Alito, he's always perfectly qualified.
And they've both got perfect judicial temperament.
But I'm going to vote against them because to him, it's about ideology.
It's about liberalism.
He thought these two guys are conservatives.
It didn't matter to him what their judicial temperament or qualifications were.
He voted against both of those.
So now he's got a hack.
He's got a party hack that he's put on the court, likely to be confirmed.
This is where the so-called moderate Republicans are completely useless, if you ask me.
When the rubber hits the road, such as in this nomination, where are these moderate Republican groups on the nomination?
Where are the moderate senators?
Where is Colin Powell?
Where is Tom Ridge?
You see, folks, we are confronting a radical assault on this nation, a radical assault today on the U.S. Supreme Court.
And moderates in the Republican Party are distracting our ability to organize the opposition.
You know why the Democrats don't like me?
You know why the Democrats don't like me and the media doesn't like me?
It's precisely because I'm the one doing the heavy lifting against them.
Me and my buddies on talk radio and their leaders.
I'm the one doing the heavy lifting.
Colin Powell panders to moderate Republicans.
Truth be told, do you know where Colin Powell stands on a single issue?
Do you know where Tom Ridge stands on a single issue?
Neither one of those guys was asked where they stand on a single issue in their Sunday show interviews.
So what we're trying to do here is save the country, save our country from a party and an ideology that is systematically remaking it, the Democrat Party and liberalism.
And if the moderates in the Republican Party offer no way to address this danger, then they are useless.
So this is where we are.
And that's what I have to say about Judge Sonia Sotomayor.
There are lots of other things on this program today, and including your phone call.
So we'll take a brief time out here.
Again, the number is 800-282-2882.
We'll be right back.
Ha, how are you, Rush Limbaugh?
Talent.
On lawn from God, here from the distinguished and prestigious Limbaugh Institute for Advanced Conservative Studies.
One more little bit of information here about appellate court judge Sodia Sotomayor.
The Supreme Court has reversed Judge Sotomayor in four instances where it granted Cersei Arari to review an opinion she authored.
I say this again.
The U.S. Supreme Court has reversed Judge Sotomayor in four instances where it granted Cersei Arari to review an opinion that she authored.
And in three of these reversals, the court held that Judge Sotomayor erred in her statutory interpretation, meaning she goofed up on the law.
She was overturned four times when she wrote the opinion, the lead opinion.
And in three of the four cases, the Supreme Court held that she erred in her statutory interpretation.
The cases are Knight v. C. I. R. Merrill Lynch, Pierce Veneran Smith v. Daybit, New York Times v. Ticini, and Correctional Services Corporation versus Malesco.
The cases are 2008, 2006, 2001, and 2001.
And so, there you have it.
Now, I've checked my email at home since the Sunday shows.
We had both General Powell on Face the Nation Sunday.
Tom Ridge was on CNN on Sunday morning.
Tom Ridge, just for your information, Tom Ridge called this program in 2003 to detail for us.
I mean, he wanted to be on this program in 2003.
Tom Ridge out there saying, I'm too shrill, and I need to dial it back and all these other things.
But I need to ask the question, who's really changed?
And I've been who I am for 20 years.
When it comes to core beliefs and principle, I haven't changed.
I've grown.
20 years, I've learned more.
I've become more educated.
The program's probably more substantive today than it's ever been, but it was always so substantive that's a small margin.
And all during these 20 years, these same types of Republicans sought me out.
They wanted my help in the 94 congressional races.
They wanted my help in 2000, 2004.
They wanted my help in 2006.
Many members of Congress called this program, wanted to get on this program.
Now, all of a sudden, I am the primary problem with the Republican Party.
I think that General Powell and Tom Ridge need to be put to the test.
They need to be asked, and they need to say where they stand, not only on this nominee, but where they stand on issues confronting the United States.
This is where the so-called moderate Republicans, the rhinos, whatever you want to call them, are, in my opinion, completely useless.
We are on one of those occasions where the rubber has hit the road.
We have a radical anti-constitutionalist nominated to the Supreme Court by the most radical leftist president we've ever had in the country who is himself also an anti-constitutionalist.
Where are the Republican, moderate Republican groups on this nomination?
Where are the moderate Republican individuals?
Where are the moderate senators?
Where are Powell?
Is anybody going to ask Powell what he thinks of this nomination?
It is General Powell around whom the Republican Party should be organized.
That's what they're saying.
Tom Ridge, too.
Powell and Ridge are going to be asked what they think of this nomination?
Doubted.
If they were asked, what would they say?
We are confronting a radical assault on our country.
The moderates in our party are distracting our ability to organize opposition to this.
As I said, the Democrats don't like me precisely because of my substance.
The media doesn't like me precisely because of my substance.
I'm the one doing the heavy lifting against them and their leaders.
General Powell is pandering to the Democrat Party.
And truth be told, I think most people have no idea where Powell stands on most major issues.
They have a perception of him based on the liberal media, and he has a great reputation.
His poll numbers are very high.
But does anybody know what General Powell stands for?
He wasn't asked by Bob Schieffer his position on anything Sunday.
He wasn't asked to define the Republican Party based on issues.
We are, ladies and gentlemen, you and me, we're trying to save our country from a party and an ideology, systematically remaking it.
The moderates in our party offer no way to address the danger.
They won't even confront it.
They won't even acknowledge the danger that exists.
None.
In all of General Powell's interview on CBS on Sunday, he failed to mention a single principle that he thought was worthy of defending against what's going on here.
He failed to advance a single policy that would help contain any of this.
Instead, General Powell talks about a big tent.
He talks about a right wing.
He talks about me.
He talks about inclusiveness.
But he offers nothing substantive.
Tom Ridge on CNN Sunday, no different.
What does he stand for?
Other than clichés about big tents and inclusiveness and a new tone.
What does Tom Ridge say that contributes to the urgent political and societal battle we're smack in the middle of?
What does Colin Powell say that contributes to the urgent political and societal battle that we're smack in the middle of?
Nothing.
General Powell votes for Democrats.
He admitted Unface the Nation.
He voted for JFK.
He voted for Jimmy Carter.
He voted for, you vote for Clinton.
He voted for Obama.
This is a guy around whom the Republican Party needs to organize itself, we are told.
Now, President Obama just nominated a radical anti-constitutionalist to the U.S. Supreme Court.
The nominee believes in reverse discrimination.
The nominee believes in quotas and a host of far-left policies that she would mandate from the court on the American people.
And she has said that's her role, to make policy.
Why aren't General Powell and Tom Ridge speaking out about this?
This is an outrage.
Forget politics.
Let's just talk about the purpose of justices on the court.
Lady Justice is blind.
Sonia Sotomayor is not.
Whether you're moderate, liberal, conservative, Republican, Democrat, or not, this is an outrage, this nomination, to the whole concept of justice and what it means in this country.
But General Powell and Tom Ridge, I haven't seen a thing that they've said.
I don't even know that they're being asked what they think.
Now we have a radical nominee from a radical president, and we're told that the moderates in the Republican Party are those that are going to define the Republican Party, fine and dandy.
Where are these so-called moderates taking the lead now in defining the Republican Party and defending it and doing battle against the Democrat Party?
Why aren't they?
They're not.
Why aren't they?
And they won't, folks.
They will only enter this scene when they think it's safe.
And that is after conservatives have done all the heavy lifting on this nomination.
And then after that's happened, the moderates will run in, take over the media, and claim that their contribution will be to admonish the conservatives.
I guarantee you what's going to happen here.
It won't be long before a moderate Republican gets on television and disavows the things that I have said today.
Because I'm too shrill or outspoken or I offend too many people with what I say.
They will raise objections to my tone.
They will raise objections to my tenor.
But they will not oppose this.
They will not stop this because they are afraid to stop this.
They are afraid to oppose this because they think they'll be called racist.
This is why this is politically pretty smart move from Obama.
This is a wedge appointment.
Boxes the Republican Party, particularly the moderates, in.
They won't dare criticize her.
She's a woman, and she's the first Latino nominated, or Latina, nominated to the Supreme Court.
What this does for everyone else is to put in perspective Powell and Ridge, how they talk in platitudes, they talk about perceptions.
But when you apply reality to their rhetoric, it becomes clear how ill-equipped and directionless they are to handle any of this.
If they run the Republican Party, if the moderates take over and run the Republican Party, do you realize that there's no stopping any of the Obama agenda?
There is, in fact, a joint or a joining with the Obama agenda on several things as the moderates try to show the people they think hate them that they're reasonable people.
Without question, without question, I'm predicting the moderates in the Republican Party will support Soto Mayor because of race.
Supporting her, in their view, is how we get the Hispanic vote down the road.
And they'll be afraid to oppose her on race and identity issues as well, without question.
Obama knows how to play these people, i.e. a wedge appointment.
The truth is, most Hispanics have no idea who she is.
So this, again, is a golden opportunity to tell the American people who Obama is by telling them who she is.
Don't forget, Obama, the Democrats, trashed Alberto Gonzalez left and right.
And when they did, nobody accused the Democrats of being anti-Hispanic, including Powell and Ridge.
Powell and Ridge did not step up and chastise the Democrats or going after Alberto Gonzalez or Miguel Estrada.
They didn't at all.
I'll tell you what, I think it's time.
This game of ping pong goes on.
It's my turn now to hit back.
I think it's about time that General Powell provide a coherent and comprehensive statement of his political doctrine.
He's never asked about that.
He relies, so there's the left, on his reputation as a D.C. insider.
I set forth my views day in and day out.
Have done so for 20 years.
I explain the origin of my ideas.
I cite to history and philosophy.
I set forth my principles.
Yet it's not enough for General Powell to shoot spitballs from the studios of liberal media shows.
If he wants to have an impact, he needs to do more than this hit-and-run media appearance thing he's doing, where he really says very little of substance and where he gets away with it.
Tom Ridge is a politician.
Tom Ridge, by the way, just passed up a chance to run for the Senate in Pennsylvania against a conservative in the GOP primary to be Pat Toomey.
Anybody know why?
And if Pat Toomey is so bad for our party, Pat Toomey is a conservative, the kind of guy that Tom Ridge doesn't like.
Why didn't Tom Ridge run in the primary to stop him?
Bob Schieffer on Slay the Nation Sunday did not ask General Powell a single serious question.
And that's what happens when they like somebody who is trashing conservatives.
He could have asked him, General Powell, how would you define your political philosophy?
General Powell, what, if any, government programs would you cut?
General Powell, do you support expanding entitlement programs to include national health care?
And if you do, General Powell, how would you pay for it?
What is the highest tax rate you would accept, General Powell?
General Powell, should we give amnesty to illegal aliens?
General Powell, how would you expand the Republican Party's base without diminishing its principles?
What are your views on affirmative action, General Powell?
What are your views on the death penalty?
How about school choice?
He never gets these questions.
My opinion on these questions is cited by the media at all times to disqualify me.
Bob Schieffer asked him none of this, nothing else of substance or interest.
And General Powell has yet to lay out his philosophy in any coherent way so that we can judge just how appealing it would be, not only within the Republican Party, but beyond it.
Quick timeout.
A little long here.
The next segment's going to be short.
Stay with us.
Interesting piece.
It's a blog by Toby Harndon.
Toby Harndin at the UK Telegraph.
And the headline of his piece here, what right do Colin Powell and Tom Ridge have to lecture the Republican Party?
Now, these are the questions of a British blogger who happens, he reports out of the United States.
Writes this, why does Powell now seem to think he has the right or credibility to lecture Republicans on how their party ought to be run?
He voted for Obama, and he did so very publicly.
He saved his endorsement of Obama at a very propitious strategic moment and did so in public.
After the Republican Party had nominated a candidate supposedly ideal to somebody like General Powell, that would be John McCain.
So why does Powell now seem to think he has the right or the credibility to lecture Republicans on how their party ought to be run?
Just as he did not go quietly into the polling booth and vote for Obama, Powell is not working discreetly behind the scenes at party gatherings to press his case, which is what I just said.
Where are his policy prescriptions?
Where does he stand?
What is he doing to organize the Republican Party if he's now the leader of it in opposition to this radical extremism that is being presented to the country from the Democrat Party?
Now, Mr. Harndon writes that it's easy to feel some sympathy for Powell.
He was marginalized during the Bush administration.
I really think, excuse me, there are three reasons to explain Colin Powell.
One of them is race.
I mean, no way he wasn't going to support Obama and coming out and doing so publicly.
Race, it's also he's angry at Bush.
And the scooter-libby thing proves that.
I think the third element that explains Colin Powell, he went up and, you know, he was the point man at the United Nations with the slideshow and the official presentation on Saddam's weapons of mass destruction.
And even though we haven't found any, a lot of people believe they were there, Colin Powell no doubt feels profoundly humiliated and embarrassed with the people he cares about most, the Washington, D.C. political elites.
And I think he's on a rehab tour to get his reputation back, to get his, and he's, and it's working.
I mean, he's, the rest of the D.C. establishment hates Bush, so it's an easy call.
Come out and oppose Bush.
Come out and oppose the Republican Party.
We've all known that the way a Republican ingratiates him or herself in a D.C. political structure is to go on any television show in D.C. you can find and rip your own party.
And maybe take it a step further, endorse the other guy.
And the fact the other guy happens to share race with you makes it even easier.
So there's a lot of rehab going on here, but Toby Harden is right.
What right does Powell and Tom Ridge have to lecture the Republican Party, especially when they don't put forth any particular position on issues?
We'll be back.
Sit tight.
Sunday on CNN, Tom Ridge refused to name a Republican that he would support in any upcoming election.
He says he votes a secret ballot.
Votes a secret ballot, wouldn't name anybody he would support.
John King actually asked a good question.
Well, then, Mr. Ridge, why should any Republican listen to you if you won't commit to voting for a Republican nominee?