All Episodes
Previous Next
July 17, 2009 - Rush Limbaugh Program
36:30
July 17, 2009, Friday, Hour #1
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Welcome to today's edition of the Rush 24-7 Podcast.
A good Friday to all, and isn't every Friday good.
Of course, it's better if Rush is actually here.
You know it.
I know it.
The American people know it.
But it is Friday, the 17th of July 2009.
Rush is back on Monday.
You and I together today, and I really, really appreciate it.
Appreciate the uh the folks calling to ask.
I appreciate my ability to be here, because uh usually got to clear out some things.
Usually it's not a tough call.
If if the phone rings says, hey, can you fill in for Rush?
Nothing else on my calendar is so immovable, so I'm so glad to be here.
And let's get right to it.
It has been you could say a busy week.
Let me throw you the phone number, which you well know, 1-800-282-2882, 1-800-282-2882.
I'm Mark Davis, and you may recall our delightful three hours spent last Friday.
Uh hey, real quick, in fact, wasn't about half a last Friday about the smoking ban in the military.
Pentagon said no to that.
They commissioned a study, I told you about it last Friday, in which uh and it can properly be said that a non-smoking military is a healthier military.
I mean, that's just true.
Uh but then the Pentagon took a look at the mechanic and when by and please, just I'll tell you, I don't need calls on this.
It turned out the right way.
The Pentagon looked at this and said, you know, if some folks have been dodging IEDs and hearing bullets whiz by their heads, if they want to blaze up a Marlborough at the end of the day, we're going to let them.
So the smoking ban in the military forestalled, at least for now.
But there are plenty of other bad ideas coming our way that uh we stand ready to combat on the Rush Limbaugh Show at 180-282-2882.
I'm Mark Davis from Proud Affiliate WBAP Dallas Fort Worth.
Great to be with you again.
Let's dive in and talk about what kind of week it has been.
There have been two things gulping up my talk show Oxygen on the uh on the show that I do here on this Proud Station.
Uh, but uh on the Limbaugh Show and everybody else's show as well, Rush and others have been talking about two things more than most, and that's uh the Sotomayor hearings and health care reform.
So let's roll out a little week in review on both of those issues and flavor it with some other stuff that maybe we haven't had a chance to get to in the talk show universe and sprinkled in with your calls, it'll just be delightful, I'm sure.
1-800-282-2882.
Let's beg I consider health care to be the the greater scourge, health care reform, Obamacare.
Um I mean, the Constitution means more to me than my health plan, but if it's a uh a suitor for Sotomayor trade, you know, the does the complexion of the court change that much?
No.
And believe you me, I am not in any way downplaying the significance of fighting this nominee.
Uh I guess it's just that that that's either going to happen or it's not, and there's and there's not a lot we can do about it, except try to make some things clear about what the Constitution says and what it does not, and about the value of uh of having Supreme Court nominees uh who understand and appreciate the original intent of our founders.
I mean, those are extremely important.
Uh the health care debate, though.
Uh, we may have an opportunity here for some very interesting things to happen.
Uh my actual congressman is Michael Burgess out of the 26th District of Texas.
He is not just a congressman, but he is a physician.
He was an OBGYN before ascending to Congress.
And he's so he brings uh the power of a congressman, the experience of a doctor, uh and and the wisdom of a conservative uh to this issue.
And uh he addressed uh uh Chairman Henry Waxman in his committee just yesterday and said I wasn't an automatic no vote for health care.
I uh I wasn't just a an instant rubber stamp no.
You you could have uh perhaps tried to win my approval for health care reform that uh that actually had positives that outweighed the negatives, but there was never really any attempt to do that.
And from listening to some of Congressman Waxman's audio from the last day or so.
This we've gotta have it in three weeks.
We won't go on Recess until this is done.
This is the MO of these people is jam it down your esophagus.
Don't give people enough opportunity to examine it and react to it because they know that if it gets scrutiny, that that scrutiny will not serve the president's agenda well.
They know this.
And so it's it's gotta happen now.
It's this phony urgency.
There was phony urgency on the so-called stimulus.
There was phone and to be bipartisan about this, we got some phony urgency from the Bush administration on the bailouts in his waning months.
I mean, um what's what's the geographic equivalent of name dropping, location dropping?
And I just love this sentence, so please allow it to me.
When I was sitting in the Oval Office, this was a couple of weeks before uh President Bush's last day, and there was a little handful of talk show hosts and uh Rush got his own day, rest assured, but when they got down, not down to, but I was glad to be in there with uh uh Mr. Levin and uh and so some other names you well know, I'm sure.
Um we're sitting there talking to the president, and he was more than glad to address some things that we as conservative hosts had taken issue with him about.
Uh immigration and th and but the bailout was freshest in our minds.
And there is there's a decorum that says don't argue with the president in the Oval Office.
I mean, bring something I mean, if if it's on meet the press or something, if if it's a journalistic setting, but when you're literally a guest in in not his house, but the people's house, at least he viewed it as the people's house, uh and the moment I'm referring to here is he talked about his conversations with Hank Paulson.
He talked about his conversations with uh other folks and his financial team, and the impression that they gave him that we've just got to do these bailouts.
We've got to do them or something terrible will happen.
And sitting in my brain banging on the inside of my skull to get out was the question, Mr. President, what if they're wrong?
What if the instinct in your head to be a free market guy?
The instinct in your head to oppose bailouts?
What if the actual solution makes the problem worse?
What if your gut is true and these people are wrong?
Haven't we gone through years of a war where you've relied on your gut instinct and the voices around you, many of them have been just wrong?
You know, get out, not worth fighting.
War's not good.
And he took the very risky and politically unpopular view that the war is worth fighting.
Iraq is a better place today because of it.
The Middle East safer because of it.
America safer because of it.
Because he knew he was right.
I wished for him on the bailouts, the clarity that he showed us in the war.
That didn't happen.
And I wasn't, you know, gonna sit there and uh get up in the president's grill in the Oval Office.
Not good.
But I mentioned that just to again be uh winkingly, nudgingly bipartisan in the notion that it's not just Democrats who will offer uh who who will either fraudulently or sincerely buy into uh the urgency of the moment in order to get done what we gotta get done.
The famous words of Rahm Emanuel, never let a good crisis go to waste, because then you could do things that you otherwise could not do.
With the economy swirling around in the toy dee bowl and everybody thinking their life is just going straight to hell, you bet you can sell them a bill of goods, you can get them to sign on for pigs in a poke that they would never otherwise dream of.
So what does this have to do with health care?
Everybody was concerned about the economy.
More than half of America, I'm sure that's part of why Obama won.
I would love to hop into a time machine, go back, have the economy not tank in September and see if it turns out differently.
I I don't know.
Uh, you know, you can drive yourself crazy with games like that.
But the difference, though, is that uh easy sixty, seventy percent of America was so freaked out by the economy, if not more, that they were that there were some people who were enthused about the notion of uh of a stimulus, and others just sufficiently ambivalent they said, whatever.
Whatever.
Nothing can be worse than, you know, what's happened to my 401k in the last six months, so go do whatever you want to do.
Health care is different.
Health care is different.
I will speak a sentence and uh scroll it down in Sharpie somewhere and repeat it to yourself as often as you have to.
Most Americans are satisfied with the health care they have right now.
Most Americans are satisfied with the health care they have right now.
Could it be better?
Do they have frustrations if they've had you know stumbling moments uh along the road, they had uh stories to tell about uh occasional headaches uh in in this the greatest health care system in the world?
Sure.
Is our system without flaws?
Of course not.
But by and large, if you just ask them, you know, satisfied or not satisfied with the health care you have right now.
More often than not, that answer is yes.
And here come these people to turn that on its head.
With government care that talks a good game, and I love when the president says, you know, if you like your doctor, if you like your plan now, you can keep it.
Presuming it still exists.
Because once it is in competition with Obamacare, once it is in competition with the government's health care plan.
It's a great question whether the the doctor you have, the plan you have, the care you get will even be recognizable after a year or two or more of the brave new world envisioned by President Obama.
So uh if you take some Republicans with spine, I know.
Insert your own uh snarky comment here, how many of those are there?
And it'll be snarky but true.
If you take some Republicans with spine, some of the blue dog Democrats, some of the somewhat fiscally conservative Democrats in some states uh like Arkansas and places where people are not fully uh drinking uh the Democrat Kool-Aid of the day.
Um you might have the kind of a some real bipartisanship, an actual coalition, an actual coalition that can uh that can defeat this idea.
And it's funny because you remember 1994.
In 1994, with Hillary care, and then and this just breaks my heart.
Someone has abducted Harry and Louise and uh and and replaced them with with people who have lost their clarity.
Uh you remember the 1993, 94 Harry and Louise ads.
And they they have flipped, literally and figuratively.
In fact, let me tell you about that in a minute, and then we'll get to some of uh the week in history with Judge Sotomayor.
These hearings have revealed to anyone who needed the evidence that she is not sufficiently driven by the purity of the Constitution's words to be on the Supreme Court.
She has get time after time after time, sometimes in the answers she has given, sometimes in the answers she has refused to give, provided any Republican with the guts to do it, a thoroughly valid reason to vote against her.
The only question that remains now is how many of them will have the guts to actually do it.
So we have these things and plenty of other things to examine.
1800-282-2882.
Always go to Rushlimbaugh.com, even on the days when Rush isn't here, maybe especially on the days when Rush isn't here.
Just to look at his face and appreciate uh his greatness.
Uh Rush will be back on Monday.
I'm Mark Davis at WBAP Dallas Fort Worth for today, just today.
Glad to have you.
Let's do some phone calls and some Sotomayor wrap-up from the week gone by next.
It's 1800-282-2882.
I'm Mark Davis back in a moment on the EIB Network.
It is the Friday Rush Limbo Show, July 17th, 2009.
I'm Mark Davis filling in.
Very nice to have you here.
Let's uh let's let's cover a chunk of space here on the Soda Myor hearings this week, and then we'll get to the bottom of the hour and then come back and dive into uh uh the wave upon wave of your calls at 1800-282-2882.
So it's Monday morning and I'm uh you know strapping in for the Soda Myor hearings, and I'm wondering how it's gonna go, and I know uh that to some degree you know exactly how it's going to go.
You're going to have uh as you have in every hearing, uh uh senators of the opposite party trying to establish a bit of a rough road for the nominee, and uh senators of the same party trying to smooth that road.
Conservative senators tend to bristle at liberal nominees, liberal senators tend to bristle at conservative nominees.
The difference, though, and I really want to put this up for a test, because uh conservatives will nod at this and go, you know, yay, brother.
Uh but and I know all of you closeted liberal limbaugh fans who just listen because you just have no choice.
You're just drawn, you are compelled like moths to a flame.
Even if it's and I love this to quote unquote see how the other side thinks.
And you know what?
That's great.
That's great.
Rush loves all listeners.
If you're a listener, fantastic.
And so, and the way I I mention this because if you want to challenge this, I'd I'd love to have you.
I believe that conservatives lament liberal appointees' tendency to depart from the Constitution's precepts.
Liberals lament the conservative tendency to cleave to those principles.
I know that's very broad brush and very generic talk show guy, but I I think there's there there is a core of truth in it.
I've uh everything that I've found fault with, you know, from uh from Judge Sotomayor to Ruth Bader Ginsburg to whomever, to Stephen Breyer to, you know, is but I sit there and I listen to their answers and I say, you know, that's just not true enough to the Constitution.
And then I take a look at the hell that Sam Alito was put through.
I take a look at the definitive injustice done to a nominee, Robert Bork, whose mistreatment even became a verb.
What was that based on?
What exactly was that based on?
Could did Ted Kennedy ever say to Robert Bork that you are not adhering to the Constitution's words and to its intent?
No.
Ted Kennedy said to Robert Bork that that in your America it's uh blacks in the backs of buses and back alley abortions.
When we take a look at Judge Sotomy or this week, have Jeff Sessions and even Lindsey Graham in moments of clarity, uh and and John Kyle and uh and and John Corny and others, uh they have been grilling her about how true she is to the Constitution.
Back with Sam Alito, they were trying to paint him as a bigot.
So I'm gonna put that up there and just put it up to a test, and and I I welcome challenges to it.
Conservative objections to liberal appointees is because you don't stick to the Constitution.
Liberal objections to conservative appointees is because they do.
They do.
And when you stick to the Constitution, it's not that it offers an automatically conservative result, and this is the most important thing I'll say about this.
Not a you know on the whole issue, but it just coming from me, the most important thing I want you to understand about me.
As I criticize liberals who want the Supreme Court to bring about liberal results, I I am not looking for a court to bring about conservative results.
I'm looking for a court to bring about constitutional results on abortion, for example.
The discovery of a right, a federal right to abortion in 1973 is and was fraudulent.
And the Supreme Court thus established a mandatory uh pro-choice America, establishing a right that didn't exist.
I am not looking for a decision that will make abortion illegal in every state because there's no constitutional basis for one.
See, there's that pesky adherence to the Constitution.
I am looking for Roe v.
Wade to be overturned so that every state can have its own abortion laws.
Which is what the Tenth Amendment requires and what honors our founders.
The time for conservatives and liberals to do battle is in the 50 states on issues like gay marriage, on issues like abortion.
But the only way those battles can be honestly held is if i is if the left gets its hands off the Constitution and bringing about its worldview by judicial fiat.
So just on there there's no pot calling the kettle black here as I sit there and criticize people who want the courts to bring about a liberal result.
Well, don't you want the courts to bring about a conservative result?
No.
I want the the Supreme Court to honor the Constitution, and I'll fight for conservative results in my state of Texas.
And you can fight for conservative results in your state of Ohio or Maine or Florida or wherever you are.
And that's just extremely, extremely important.
So Sheldon White House of Rhode Island accused Republicans of looking for a nominee to bring about their desired political results.
No, no.
No.
No.
So I'll tell you what to do.
Let's hit the bottom of the hour here.
I'm going to come back, give you some thoughts of what Judge Sotomore has said, some of what she has not said, and combine what I think of it with what you think of it, and let's do that on that issue in a couple of more two, shall we?
It is the Friday Rush Limbaugh Show.
I'm Mark Davis, filling in for us just today, Rush is back on Monday.
And the number's 1-800-282-2882.
Be right back.
Thank you, Johnny, appreciate it.
Billy Idol's white wedding.
Of course, if there's anything we've learned this week, it is that a wise Latina wedding is preferable.
Sorry, it was just too easy.
But as we prepare to uh hop into the world of your calls, let me just give you my sixty to ninety seconds.
I'll try anyway, on uh the the wise Latina comment and the and the Ritchie case.
Because those there's an actual case that is more of what you should examine, an actual case, but if you say something repeatedly and you mean it, and then you suddenly have a and I I've just loved this term, and it's it's sort of been dug back up, it's not the first year that it's been coined.
The confirmation conversion.
The confirmation conversion is when you suddenly realize that things you've said and the way you've ruled can really get you in trouble because, oh, you've been tapped to be a Supreme Court nominee.
Suddenly a speech you were proud to give becomes something that you must distance from.
Suddenly a ruling that struck you as clear headed is something that you must tap dance around.
I really can't make it any clearer than to say the wise Latina.
It's kind of funny.
I don't I don't want to call it a remark.
A remark is off-handed.
And all off, you know, a remark is something you blow off sometimes without thinking.
She thought about this, thought about it thoroughly, and delivered it frequently.
The wise Latina statement.
If it's not racist, then the word has no meaning.
Now I know that people have stepped forward to say that and they've they've used poor Sam Alito and have said if he were to step forward and say, as a white guy, I I can view things with uh with greater clarity.
And of course, that would also be racist, and his nomination would have been deservedly uh over immediately.
And people, when I've had this discussion with people, they've said, Mark, it's not it's not apples and apples.
There are slings and arrows of of being a woman or being Latina or being black or being whatever.
There are their experiences that you will have walking in those shoes that are not the same as a white man.
The advantage of being a man, the advantage of being white.
If you you either have those or you don't.
And if you don't, then there are certain challenges that you will face.
And you know what?
Completely true.
Totally true, and also 100% irrelevant.
Irrelevant to this, irrelevant to one's worthiness for the Supreme Court.
I am more than willing to be thrilled at the ascendancy of a Hispanic nominee.
I am perfectly fine with having uh, you know, another woman on the court.
But that woman or that Hispanic person or that black person or that who their head and heart have to be true to the Constitution first.
This can't be demographically driven.
And when that person steps forward, let's say as a political candidate, and says, look, I mean there are things you can examine.
Uh the people the the c whether they're White or black, whether they're male or female, conservative or liberal, this or that, gay or straight, you know, and that you can either like that or not like that, vote for that person or not vote for that person.
That is the wide open marketplace that is electoral choice.
But when it is your time to be a judge, when it is your time especially to be a Supreme Court justice, everything you are, you can appreciate it, be proud of it, as Sam Alito was, and he talked about that and how appreciative he was of the advantages that he had gotten as an Italian American, and people have used that against Sam Alito.
Sam Alito said the same thing.
Oh no, he did not.
At no point did Judge Alito say, you know, the Italian American vibe I've got going gives me some some insights and some superiority that certainly those Irish nominees aren't gonna have, or the black ones are the Hispanic ones or the Asian ones.
He never said that.
This nominee has said repeatedly that she would hope that a wise Latina would deliver better judgment than a white man.
That is the definition of racism.
The confirmation conversion in the hot seat of this week changes nothing.
And the only people willing to nod and say, Oh, she's okay now, are those who desperately want her on the court.
Moving to the Ricci case, the same thing.
My dog knows that ruling was bad.
You had white folks, Hispanic folks, and black folks take the test.
The white folks and Hispanic folks who passed need to be stripped of their promotions in the New Haven, Connecticut fire department because none of the black guys passed.
I hate that none of the black guys passed, by the way.
And that's a real, that's that's an oddity.
Usually you have a racially mixed group of people that pass and a racially mixed group of people that fail.
You take a look at it, and all the guys in one race failed, woo.
But to instantly go to and hearing Judge Sotomayora's testimony on this this week reveals how muddled our thinking has been.
Because she said that her thoughts on this were driven by the necessity of concluding that because you had all of the members of one race fail, that there must have been something wrong with the test.
What?
And I I've asked people all week on my local show, and I will ask you now, please give me an example of what there could be on a test that makes it impossible for the black guys to succeed.
What is there some odd, you know, invisible ink that made things clear to the whites and the Hispanics, but the black guys were blind too?
Was there some peculiar dust sprinkled on their test sheets that that clouded the minds of the black applicants?
Don't think so.
Out of a million tests given in a million cities for a million positions, some folks are gonna pass, some folks are gonna fail.
In this particular city, in this particular instance, none of the black guys passed.
You know why?
Because they didn't do well enough.
Either they didn't study hard enough, or they just weren't sharp enough to pass it.
And I would say that about white guys who failed, Hispanic guys who failed, Eskimos who failed.
But the muddled thinking in today's litigious society is that as soon as you get a test and all the people of one race fail, it ain't their fault, it's the test's fault.
Which is absurd on its face.
So here she was willing to strip uh the white folks like Frank Ricci, and ironically, the Hispanic folks who passed, uh on the altar of this muddled thinking.
The Supreme Court she seeks to occupy has now overturned that.
It was five to four, proving not only that not only is she unfit for the court, but so are four of its sitting members.
And when you have so here's all this evidence, man.
Here's all you need.
I'm not pretending that Charles Schumer will hear my words and say, wow, how wrong I've been.
I'm not pretending that Pat Leahy, you know, will uh will take to the microphones and grunt through a statement that suggests that I'm right and he's wrong.
I'm I'm not stupid.
But on the committee, you know, from uh Mr. Graham to to Mr. Grassley.
Yeah, and and I uh I wouldn't pretend to know who else is wavering here.
Maybe they all are.
Maybe they're all going to be steamrolled by this nominee and this president.
But any Republican or dare I dream Democrat looking for sufficient reason to properly and fairly vote no on her.
The reasons have come at you thick and fast.
The only question is, are you paying attention?
Excuse me, I misspoke.
The there are two questions.
Are you paying attention?
And if you are paying attention, do you then have the guts to vote correctly?
Tough qu there have been a lot of tough questions, man.
Jeff Session's a hero to me.
This this guy is is done spectacularly well.
John Kyle, nice job.
John Cornen, nice job.
All kinds of folks, really, really nice jobs in the questioning.
Lindsey Graham, nice job.
If I said those things, they'd have my head.
Some of your statements scare the hell out of people.
Some some nice home runs from Lindsey Graham.
The c tough questions are lovely, but they amount to precisely nothing.
Precisely nothing.
Unless they are accompanied by the spine to cast the tough vote.
So we'll see how that all plays out.
Okay.
Well, ate up that whole segment too.
Sorry about that.
1 800 282 2882.
It is time.
It is in fact past time for your calls, so let us bend in that direction and see what's on your mind.
In the fruited plane that is Rush listenership, and we're so so glad that you're here.
And Rush will be back on Monday.
I'm Mark Davis filling in from Dallas Fort Worth, 1-800-282-2882 on the phones with you next.
It is the Friday Rush Limbaugh Show, and let's go to your calls.
I'm Mark Davis filling in from Texas 1800-282-2882.
Let us head up to Buckeye Country to begin.
We are in Columbus, Ohio.
Ben, Mark Davis, you're on the Rush Limbaugh Show.
Welcome to you, sir.
Hey, man, it's great to talk to you, Go Buck.
Hi.
Um Yeah, I just had a comment about a kind of a passing comment you made at the top of the show about um a commitment to the purity of the words of the Constitution.
Right.
Um I guess I just want to I totally agree with the two categories you you brought up, by the way, of the liberal and conservative kind of like lamenting the other side's interpretation of the Constitution, but I don't really put myself in either of those categories because I my question for you is concerning that first comment, what I guess I'm unclear on what exactly a pure quote unquote interpretation.
What does that look like?
That that's that's a superb question.
Let me give you 60 seconds and I'll give the ball right back to you.
Um when I look for uh original intent, when I look for people to adhere to the words of the Constitution, I I know full well that those words sometimes invite disagreement.
For example, in the Fourth Amendment, it talks about unreasonable searches and seizures.
Well, people may differ as to what is and is not unreasonable.
The First Amendment refers to freedom of speech, giving us in this modern age a magnificent debate over what is and is not speech, is porn speech, is a dirty movie on Cinemax speech, is uh a weird art exhibit speech.
Those are those are debates that the founders have left to us to have.
But when you go to certain things that appear a little more cut and dried, uh th the the second amendment right to bear arms, you've really got to jump through some ridiculous logical hoops to say that that does not guarantee your right and mine uh to to own weaponry.
All weaponry, not necessarily.
That's something that could be fine-tuned legislatively as all basic rights can, and we can determine whether they've been fine-tuned too much, legislatively speaking.
Uh abortion.
W in 1973, w when the that court fashioned out of whole cloth, a right to terminate pregnancy.
It's not in there.
It's just not in there.
And so therein lies just a little essay from me on what might still be ripe for debate.
I'm not suggesting that everything is settled or that everybody has to see things my way, but just that when our first instinct, the first thing we seek to do is go to the actual words and see if what we're trying to decide here, see if what we want is actually in there or not, make that our first turnstile, and and just things would be much better.
Yeah, um Yeah, I I agree I agree with that.
I guess my um my question is I guess kind of philosophically speaking, how can we expect to engage those words that the founding fathers wrote coming out of their own context of, you know, kind of modern enlightenment thinking and at their own time in the 1700s, the way they think of things and interpret those words might be a lot different than the way we would interpret.
No doubt.
Not that the outcome would be different necessarily.
No, exactly right.
Absolutely right.
I I often imagine the founding fathers brought via time machine into the modern day.
The founding fathers who with the first amendment sought to say whatever you want to say, and I believe whatever you want to express, you can express.
Let people agree or disagree, like it or not like it, but you get to do it.
Take those founders who said those things, bring them to 2009, and sit them down for a screening of Sasha Baron Cohen's Bruno.
Wha th the the heads underneath their powdered wigs would explode with shock.
But once they achieved some clarity and maybe after some medication and counseling, those founders, I believe, would say, well, if if that's the way the field is striped in two thousand nine, then that's what we got, and that's what we meant.
Uh in no way, and it's a valuable point, in no way does anyone who suggests that we go with original intent or or stick with what the founders wrote, in no way does that mean that we need to see the world through late eighteenth century sensibilities.
We can only see the world through the eyes and ears and brains and hearts that we have right now.
But when we see those things, hear those things, and live these lives of ours, filtered through the document they gave us, which is not a living, breathing, changing organic document, it is what it is.
What lives and breeds and changes is us.
Our lives, our technology, our controversies.
That's what changes and and is fluid and and shifts like the wind.
The Constitution is there to help guide us to process our laws through those changing lives that we're all leading.
The Constitution is a constant.
Our lives change, but when we use the Constitution as a constant guide to examine what what government can and cannot do in our ever changing country, that's when we are wisest, not when we look to the Constitution to change on our whim.
1800-282-2882, Friday Rush Limbaugh Show.
Mark Avis filling in.
More of your calls are next.
Tone Lok, average white band, a particularly funky Friday on the Rush Limbaugh Show.
I'm Mark Davis filling in.
Let's do some phone action, getting up to the top of the hour, and then continue the Sotomayor slash healthcare slash other things we haven't gotten to uh gab fest.
Let us head to Atlanta, Georgia.
Ryan, Mark Davis in for Rush.
It's great to have you.
Hello.
Hey, I appreciate your uh filling in for them today.
You're doing a great job.
Thanks.
Thank you.
All right.
Uh you asked for a comment about what kind of test questions could be harder for somebody who was black to answer than somebody who was white in uh in testing.
Okay.
Well, I used to be a public school teacher, and the issue is uh they changed all the testing requirements back in the eighties because they found that some of the questions were racially uh there was discrepancy, like inner city kids wouldn't be able to answer a question about voting regardless because uh they, for example, wouldn't have ever taken place in one, so you know, they they had to modify and dumb down, if you will, all the tests so that everybody could could do them, and I made a comment that all government tests are or more or less benign, so everybody should be able to pass them.
And in short, even a high school education is equivalent to about an eighth grade degree, you know, overall when they have a lot of things.
Let's let's sp I I I remember that this is so weird about the sailing regatta anecdote.
I remember thinking at the time of if the question ultimately is about there are two boats in a sailing regatta, one is going thirty miles an hour for eight minutes and the other you know, it it doesn't change your ability to do the math.
We could insert nonsense words.
There are two glorks at the Glorkfest going thirty miles an hour.
You can still figure it out.
That struck me as stupid then.
It strikes me as stupid now.
There was an accompanying one.
I remember at one point someone said that the black kids were having trouble with a question because it might have contained the word sofa and they know it as a couch.
And I just thought, it that struck me as racist.
You know, it's like you're so you're telling me that a black kid is unable to figure out what a sofa is.
I I more on this more when we come back.
▲
Export Selection