Democrats on the Run, Fear Backlash

RushLimbaugh.com ^ | April 26, 2005 | Rush Limbaugh

[Milhous]

BEGIN TRANSCRIPT

I happen to have the latest story on all of this. This is about the judges and the deal and compromise. The New York Times, let's look at them first today: "Senators May Compromise to End Impasse on Judges." Stand by for brilliant commentary and analysis of this, things you haven't heard anywhere else, folks. I'm serious. Anybody can read the news to you. It's what you do with it that counts. "Senators May Compromise to End Impasse on Judges." There is an interesting line here. This is by Carl Hulse at the New York Times. We need an investigation of Carl Hulse. Someone needs to find out who he is, where he went to school, if he flunked out, what kind of grades he got, if he's ever been drunk, did he get anybody knocked up in high school? Someone needs to do an expose of Carl Hulse, just for the hell of it. Just so he can find out what it's like. "At the same time, Democrats, fearing a backlash, suddenly abandoned talk of using the chamber's arcane rules to bring the Senate to a standstill in the fight over judges." A backlash? The New York Times actually wrote of the Democrats fearing a backlash? Why, I thought the mainstream press was portraying these guys as being in total control of this situation. Democrats fear a backlash shutting down the Senate, huh? Let's go to audio sound bite number one. We're going to take you to the senate floor. This was yesterday, Dick Durbin from Illinois.

DICK DURBIN: We are not going to set out to close down the Senate or to close down the government. Senator Reid, our Democratic leader and all members of the Senate feel as I do, that shutting down of the government was the hapless tactic of the Gingrich revolution. It was a terrible idea. Rush Limbaugh was the only American applauding it every day, but the American people knew better. They want our government to continue. They want government services. They are essential not to be in danger. And so, we have prepared to use the Senate rules to make certain that the defense of our nation and the defense of our armed forces will be paramount. The passing key appropriation bills will occur. The government will go about its business.

RUSH: These guys are on the run. They are on the run, folks. Even the New York Times here has to write that, "The Democrats, fearing a backlash, suddenly abandoned talk of using the chamber's arcane rules to bring the Senate to a standstill--" I want to thank Senator Durbin for getting my attitude on government shutdowns accurate, by the way. So often when my name is invoked on the Senate floor it often comes under the smirching tones and content, but he was exactly right. I was applauding the government shutdown in '95 and I still wish it was shut down. It is amazing how they can get it right about me when they want to. When they want to get it right about me, they can. He got it right. I don't deny this. I'm always honored to be in the congressional record, folks. I'm always very honored to have my name mentioned in the midst of national debates on the floor of the Senate. Thank you Senator Durbin.

All right. So senators may compromise to end, now, I know when you saw this today, heard about it, "Oh, gosh, the Republicans are going to cave. Here we go again." Then the other story about this is an AP story: "Frist, Reid Work on Judge-Approval Deal. In private talks with Majority Leader Bill Frist, the Senate's top Democrat has indicated a willingness to allow confirmation of two--" By the way, Dingy Harry had to correct Biden. Biden said that they would pass five of the seven on TV Sunday. Dingy Harry said he got his math wrong. They're only talking passing two of them. They only let two of them get through and they will reject five. That is the nature of the compromise. So, Senators May Compromise to End Impasse on Judges, that's the New York Times. AP: Frist, Reid Work on Judge-Approval Deal. Now let's go to a latest AP story on this by Jesse Holland: "Frist Says He's Not Interested in Deals. Reacting to a Democratic offer in the fight over filibusters, Republican leader Bill Frist said Tuesday he isn't interested in any deal that fails to ensure that the Senate votes on confirmation for all of President Bush's judicial nominees. Senate Democratic leader Harry Reid had been quietly talking with Frist about confirming at least two of Bush's blocked nominees from Michigan in exchange for withdrawing a third nominee. This would have been part of a compromise that would have the GOP back away from a showdown over changing Senate rules to prevent Democrats from using the filibuster to block Bush's nominees." Yes, I am going to get to the Washington Post poll in a minute. It is an absolute joke. The Washington Post poll is typical of how the news media is acting today. They're causing them to lose profound respect. I'll set that straight here in the next segment, but the bottom line here is that Frist is not negotiating a settlement. I mean, he may have listened to dingy Harry when dingy Harry called. Dingy Harry is so old he still has a rotary dial in his Senate office.

BREAK TRANSCRIPT

Just to reiterate here. "Reacting to a Democratic offer in the fight over filibusters, Republican leader Bill Frist said Tuesday he isn't interested in any deal that fails to ensure that the Senate votes on confirmation for all of President Bush's judicial nominees." So the Democrats are the first to talk about compromise, David Broder and Biden on television Sunday, and now we are getting the story that they are pulling back, threatening the shutdown of the Senate and talking about now compromising if Frist will go along with it, and Frist, "No, we're not interested in any deal." Now, let me tell you why, folks. This is, as I said moments ago, anybody can read you the news. It's what you do with it that counts. Here's what's behind this compromise. I thought about this long and hard, my friends. And, what the Senate Democrats understand is that by putting moderate Republican types on the bench, that such judges will uphold activist precedent because a moderate Republican is closer to an originalist than say a liberal judge, a liberal judge is not an originalist at all. A moderate judge is not a total originalist, but a moderate Republican judge will respect precedent. And remember the left is concerned about institutionalizing liberalism and thus insulating it from the Democratic process and that is why their judges are so important to them. That is why originalists judges frighten them so. Originalists justices will have no problem, such as, "Will the big topic Roe versus Wade will be overturned?" A moderate Republican judge will not go against precedent of the court.

This is just something that is well understood, but an originalist like a Clarence Thomas or Antonin Scalia will be more likely to overturn if they think that the court has overstepped its bounds in terms of the Constitution. So you have several Republican appointees to the Supreme Court that uphold activism at every turn in the form of precedent. They may not be activists themselves but have respect for the previous work of previous courts, those will uphold precedent. They become the defenders of prior activist decisions and courts because of their respect for precedence. Now, if we don't beat back the filibuster, this is what will happen, compromise candidates who have to be acceptable to the leftist in the senate. That is what dingy Harry and the rest are talking. "Okay, we'll give you some of these Republicans, but they better not be too extreme." They'll be happy to go along, and there is another reason for this by the way. I'll give you some examples: Souter, Kennedy, Stevens, O'Connor. Moderate Republicans but they never overturn precedent. They just won't do it. So, if you get a Republican judge of that stripe the Democrats will say, "Okay, fine," because their institutionalized liberalism from previous decisions will be upheld. That is why they are so deathly afraid of the nominees that Bush has put forward. But there is a second reason for this, and that is that the Democrats know full well that of this current crop of circuit Court of Appeal nominees, that Bush may well choose one of them to be his first or second Supreme Court nominee. Here's the reason why. A, he likes the people. B, after they succeed Senate confirmation at the appeals court level, rejecting them out of hand when a Supreme Court nomination comes up would be a little tough. So they're trying to make sure that none of the Supreme Court farm team finds its way to the Circuit Court of Appeal. That is why the filibuster, that is why they are so deathly afraid of the so-called extremist judges.

They are by no means extremists. They are simply originalists. And they will overturn precedent if it is precedent that they think overstep the bounds of the Constitution. Or if they think it's something that the courts had no decision involving themselves in the first place. And that is what's really at stake here. Supreme Court nominations down the line, which might come from a farm team, if you will, of judges that the president nominates for the various Circuit Courts of Appeal out there. You know, they are basically saying, "We'll confirm all of the Anthony Kennedy types you send up there. Just send people like that and we'll have no problem with them." The liberals, including the media, they talk about party labels in describing these nominees rather than approaches to adjudicating cases. (Doing impression) "Seven of the nine judges are Republicans." Who cares? Three of them are originalists and that's what matters. The party label here is irrelevant when you're applying a Republican label to them. A Democrat, you pretty much know what we're going to get. (Doing impression) "These precious Republican moderates," and then we have the originalists. And so, seven of the nine are Republicans. That misses the boat. Party labels matters in politics, but it doesn't matter in judges. Ideological approaches to interpreting the law is what matters in judges, not their party label, their ideology. That is what the press seldom, if ever, points out to us.

"Karl Rove rejected a compromise with Senate Democrats Monday on long-stalled nominations for the federal judiciary and strongly defended President Bush's choice of John Bolton to be ambassador to the United Nations. In an hour-long interview with USA TODAY and Gannett News Service reporters and editors, Rove, deputy White House chief of staff, dismissed suggestions from Democrats that they might drop threats to use filibusters to prevent votes on Bush's judicial nominees if the president would withdraw a few of the most controversial names." Meaning, get rid of the originalists and we'll talk. "'I think that would be a worthwhile compromise,' Sen. Robert Byrd, D-W.Va., said Monday. 'We're willing to talk about a way of ending this impasse,' said Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev." Yeah, only on your terms. Frist is not interested and now Rove is not interested. And Rove is right. They started this fight. So now let's end it. The Democrats started this in the Senate. They are the ones that got all of this started. It is time to end this and on our terms. You know, their compromise is not a compromise as I have just explained to you and their threat now to shut down the Senate, that has now been withdrawn because they fear a backlash. So, there is no reason to deal with them because they're not coming from a position of strength on this despite what the best efforts of the mainstream press and their allies there are trying to make it look like. Let's go back to the audio sound bites.

This is from Inside Politics yesterday on CNN. Judy Woodruff had Dingy Harry on as her guest. Judy said, "Let me ask you about what we saw in the Washington Post yesterday. Long time political reporter and columnist David Broder saying there needs to be a compromise." Now, can I just point something out? I mentioned this to you yesterday. I said it's awfully coincidental here that we have a Broder column in the Post on Sunday and there is Biden out there, even if he got his math wrong, talking a compromise. All of a sudden a compromise is the rage of Washington. This compromise talk is the rage of Washington. So, is it safe to assume that David Broder started this? Are the Democrats reacting to a David Broder column? I'm simply asking the question. David Broder writes a column in the Washington Post and all of a sudden that's the subject of discussion on the Democrat side? That is basically Judy's question here. She says, "Broder says the Democrats should make the first move. The Democrats should step back on this both for principle reasons and for reasons of politics." This is what Dingy Harry said.

HARRY: My first ten minutes of being the leader, I told all of the press there assembled that I would rather dance than fight. I still believe that. I want to do everything I can to avoid this. I have talked to Senator Frist on a number of occasions about what I think would resolve this. Those are private negotiations but I think that we need to move forward and get away from all the harangue. I think the situation, where they say we are filibustering against people of faith --

RUSH: It's working isn't it Dingy?

HARRY: -- someone's religion as a prerequisite to their taking any office. This is all something to do with nothing.

RUSH: Why you so upset about it then? You know, you get upset about a charge, there is something to it. Ever since this thing happened -- before this, what was it called? The rally for what? Even last week, when the talk of this began, the Democrats started having conniption fits. When it actually happened they started having conniption fits and then they started talking how inappropriate it was for this kind of thing to go on in church. Then everyone dragged out all of the Democrats that had spoken in church and given sermons in church and raised money in church. It just hammered them back and they had to back down. Clearly, I told you last week, this is what this is all about. These people are trying to stop originalists from being appointed and they are people of faith. Janice Rogers Brown a classic example, Charles Pickering another classic example, that is why they have to be opposed. Simply accuse them of what they are doing. Don't respond it them on their premise. You can see they are running for the tall grass trying to protect themselves on this whole notion. (Doing impression) "I think this situation where they say we are filibustering against people of faith, why, the Constitution prevents us from making someone's religion a prerequisite." Well, you can do it if you don't say it, and people have to surmise what you are doing and that is being done and dingy Harry sounds awfully defensive about it. Her next question was this, "Well, your colleague, Senator Joe Biden, the father of great speech writer Bo Biden is saying, for example, that the Democrats ought to let five of the seven judicial nominees go through, just deny two of them."

HARRY: Senator Biden, I talked to him at some length yesterday. His numbers are a little -- not quite right. But I'm happy to look at some of these numbers. We are doing that. We are looking at a number of different things that can be done to change the procedures, but this is a negotiation I'm going to do privately not publicly. I've talked to Senator Biden by the way at great length and he's totally in support of what I am trying to do.

RUSH: So Biden apparently went off the reservation on TV Sunday and they had to bring him back. Five of seven. It was two, Democrats are talking two from Michigan and Biden is out there pledging five. So they had a little private talk, they are not going to do this publicly. Keep in mind folks what this is really all about. As I say, the Democrats are trying to prevent the president from getting some of the appeals court judges confirmed because that is his Supreme Court justice farm team. Once they have been confirmed at the appellate court level, how do you throw the book at them. The Democrats will do it, but it would be tough. Plus he likes these people. That is why he has nominated. So Rove said it. Frist said it. We are not stopping here until we get these people confirmed. We're not dealing that away.

BREAK TRANSCRIPT

RUSH: What's that old saw out there? "It is time to reveal the source." It's time it reveal the source. The old cry, "David Broder, reveal the source." Who planted this compromise story with you? This is a typical little circular thing that happens here with the Democrats. X drops a story to Broder. Broder runs a column. Biden flacks the column. Judy asks Dingy Reid, and we wonder did that close the loop? Did Reid plant this? Or is Reid the last to know? Who is really running this party? Who is making these decisions in the Senate? Is it David Broder? Is it Joe Biden? Or is it Dingy Harry who is the last guy to talk about this, be asked about this, in the whole cycle about how the story of the compromise came to life. I mean, the first I heard about it was David Broder's piece and I saw it late Saturday night when the Post updated their site for Sunday. Then there is Biden on TV with his own version. I mean, his compromise is pretty much what Broder's was other than he mentioned the judges, but got the number wrong. The number they would agree to confirm, it was two and not the five that he said.

So somebody dropped the story to Broder. Broder runs the story. Biden flacks the story on TV. Judy dutifully asks dingy Reid did he read about it? This is what I mean about how news is packaged folks. This is a great example, a great illustration of what I mean about how the news is put together, how it is planned. Her show yesterday (Doing impression) "Looky here folks what we at Inside Politics have learned. There is a compromise that has been floated and we have the leader of the Democrats in the Senate because we are better than any news organization because we got the big cheese." When in fact this is all part of some scheme and Republicans do it too, don't misunderstand. They just don't have the same luck as the Democrats do in pulling these schemes off. Don't mean to be partisan about it, but if the republicans tried to pull off a move like this, the media would run a story about how the Republicans are trying to scheme the media. When the Democrats do this, it appears as though, why this happened? And that happened? And that happened? And then that happened? And it was all natural. So one of two things is true. Either David Broder is running the Senate Democrats, or somebody planted the idea with Broder to coordinate on the very day Frisk was going on TV on Justice Sunday. Come on, folks! I might have been born on a turnip truck, I don't know, but I didn't fall off the damn thing.

END TRANSCRIPT

Read the Articles...

(NY Times: Senators May Compromise to End Impasse on Judges)
(AP: Frist, Reid Work on Judge-Approval Deal)
(Washington Post: A Judicious Compromise - David Broder)

[Milhous]

Rush correctly, IMHO, surmises that the constitutional option is a battle over appointing originalists to the SC. He also delivers a brilliant forensic analysis of manufacturing Leftist agenda.

[PhiKapMom]

And I choose Hillary as the one behind all of this -- it is Clinton tactics all the way!

[river rat]

There is still time for the "Stupid Party" (GOP) to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory...

If Frist rolls on this issue --- I stay home next election...
Might as well hurry the inevitable - give the leftists control, so I can join in the fight during CWII.

Semper Fi

[The Spirit Of Allegiance]

excellent analysis!

[ClancyJ]

Love Rush's analysis. So glad we have him to interpret the dem actions for us.

[ducks1944]

I WROTE GOP AND TOLD THEM NO MORE MONEY NO MORE VOTES TILL REPUBLICAN STAND UP TO DEMCRATES. IT DOES NOT HURT TO EMAIL THOSE IN STATES YOU DO NOT LIVE IN ALSO AND TELL THEM WE SUPPORT ANYONE WHO RUNS AGAINST THEM THEY WAY WE DID SWIFT BOAT VETS. AND WILL USE INTERNET AND PEOPLE WE KNOW IN THERE STAES TO FIGHT AGAINST THEM. AND THEN WE NEED TO BACK UP OUR WORDS. NO MORE MONEY NO MORE VOTES. IF THEY ARE GOING TO LET DEMOCRATS RUN THING THEN WHAT HAVE WE LOST???

[longtermmemmory]

now we need to deal with the BS union push polling to stop SS reform.

Why are unions opposed to private accounts on SS? probably because they fear their pension fraud business will be exposed.

I have only met one person who is opposed to SS private accounts. Their reason? Because the religious zealouts are in control of Bush. (nutty democrat need I say more.)

[Jaysun]

So pathetic. We have them by the balls and they say, "Tell ya what, why don't you grab me by the shoulders instead, and I'll stop crying." HAHA! Fat chance fruitcakes!

[EGPWS]

He also delivers a brilliant forensic analysis of manufacturing Leftist agenda.

Yes he does and if we had less manufacturing of political agenda and more of doing the work of the people many of the issues we are confronted with in these times wouldn't exist.

Oh, and yes this IS a an excellent analysis which IMO will bring thought to many as to the workings in Washington and how much time is spent on the playing field in fighting to win against the opposition and the lack of time spent doing the peoples work.

It's bad enough tolerating the political fight but when it gets to the point of manufacturing political agenda then we are supporting a welfare program for the lawmakers via taxation and this is not only intolerable but is disgusting.

Sorry, rant over....

[EQAndyBuzz]

"I WROTE GOP AND TOLD THEM NO MORE MONEY NO MORE VOTES TILL REPUBLICAN STAND UP TO DEMCRATES."

I got my donation letter in the mail yesterday, called them up and said the same thing. Too bad, if they want my money and support they better start growing a spine.

[PGalt]

OUTSTANDING, OUTSTANDING analysis by Rush!

Thanks so much for taking the time to post this!

OUTSTANDING!

[ridensm]

"and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. "

Your attitude sounds familiar to me. If we're going to end up a totalitarian semi-dictatorship anyway...and we are, might as well get there as quickly as possible with the demonrats so the healing may begin.

[conservativecorner]

MEGA DITTO BUMP!!

[moose2004]

I have a feeling that Frist and Reid will strike a compromise. I have no idea what it will be, and I reserve judgement until I see it, but if Frist agrees to confirming only 2 of 7 judges I will not even consider supporting him for president in 08. One more point, why doesn't President Bush wait until summer break and recess appoint all 7? Can you imagine the hysterical screaming from the demonrats and the MSM if Bush did that?

[Deo et Patria]

"I have a feeling that Frist and Reid will strike a compromise. "

Yeah, maybe Frist wants to complete political suicide after coming all this way. Even now, he's starting to hear the cheers from our side as he shows that he's not going to back down. If he pushes this through, he IMMEDIATELY becomes the prohibitive front runner for the 2008 GOP nomination for president, with the strong support of the religious conservative base. If he backs off, he is out of politics once his term ends, but the NY Times and MSM will hail him as "courageous". Which way do you think he wants to go?

[river rat]

"....get there as quickly as possible with the demonrats so the healing may begin."

Actually, I believe that if we could QUICKLY permit the Democrats to reveal their TRUE core plan for the nation -- there are enough of us old timers still alive to mount a resistance and bury the bastards....

I fear if the "confrontation" is delayed too long - that the "government skooled" output would be too brain dead to resist the destruction of the Constitution and our Republic.

I have no interest in "healing" the wounds with the Democrats --- it's terminal, for them or us - as they're presently led..

Semper Fi

[mowkeka]

Bump.

[moose2004]

As to Frist's future presidential ambitions, with or without this issue, I don't care for him, I support George Allen. As to the judges issue, I think he's going to try to leak a possible "win-win" deal with the dems to the press, and then try to gauge what the response is from the voters. I support the "Constitutional response," and I hope it's not necessary, but if the dems refuse to act in good faith, then so be it.

[Deo et Patria]

While Frist would be the prohibitive favorite should he pull this off, I agree with you in that I'd support George Allen against Frist. Allen is much more genuine and passionate about these hot-button issues like judges. How certain is it that Allen will run?

[moose2004]

I'm orginally from Va, and key people around George Allen have been talking about him running for the White House since his days as Governor. I think he'll announce his intentions to run for President around June/July of 07 (after he hopefully, and should, win re-election to the Senate in 06), and I think he'll make a great President of the United States. He has a very honest, sincere, and disarming personality, a good conservative libs would have a very difficult time labeling an extremist. He's the only guest I've ever seen on Crossfire that truly intimidates James Carville, and he does it with a smile.