Rush Limbaugh: Reality Just Setting in for Democrats

RUSH: I want you to go back. We got two bites from Durbin, April 26 and April 27, both of them on the floor of the US Senate.

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 the 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 that are essential not to be endangered. 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: Reid said the Democrats would block all committee hearings, the debates. They've shut down the committees. Now, the Republicans. Actually what they did-- (talking to program observer) What was the two-hour thing, Snerdley? What did the Democrats say? Yeah. Okay, yeah, basically the Democrats said we're not going to show up at any committee hearings. That essentially shuts down the flow of legislation because that's where all legislation gets started. It gets debated in committee and comes out and goes to the floor and all that. So they're shutting that down and the Republicans say, "You know what, we'll play your game." The Republicans scheduled a committee hearing on Iran and its nuclear arsenal for two hours after the Senate session ends today, and the Democrats said, "Whoa, gee! We just said we're going to shut down the Senate!" So the Democrats -- you talk about caving? -- the Democrats caved and have decided to attend the Iran hearing, and so the temporary government shutdown has been averted, because this is about national security. The Democrats want no part of being perceived in shutting down the Senate on a debate about national security, but can I tell you the truth? The truth is they care more about the judges than they care about Iran. They care more about the judges than they do national security. They care far more about it. This business of the courts, it is central to them. I'll tell you why. Even if they continue to lose elections, if they can keep the court predominantly liberal, the appellate courts and the district courts, if they can keep those courts predominantly liberal, they will have insurance against losing elections.

They will, and they know it, because that's where liberalism -- I keep saying this -- being institutionalized, taking it out of the arena of ideas, and so I wouldn't be surprised if these people actually say it might (interruption). What? Okay. All right. The compromise meetings have broken up without a deal. You know, Snerdley is now as happy as he can be. He's waving in arms in there. I haven't seen him this expressive and happy. So the compromise talks blew up. I coulda told you they're going to blow up. Frist isn't going to make any deal. They're not going to do that. They're not going to make any deal that sells out or anything of the sort. What all this shows is how desperate the Democrats are. It's the Democrats offering the deals. It's either Ben Nelson or Ken Salazar who offered a deal. They're desperate. They know they're losing this, folks. They know they're going to lose Bolton. There are three to four Democrats going to vote for Bolton versus one Republican who's going to vote against him, and that's Voinovich, the maverick-in-waiting. So, at any rate, I'm just telling you that I think the Democrats have strategized, "If we lose some seats in the Senate, and we can make sure that Bush doesn't get any judges, then that's a gain for us." That's how important the judges are to them; it's how important the courts are. The courts may be more important to them at this juncture than having a majority of Senate Democrats in control, given the prospects of the future. That's, I think, a good way of illustrating to you just how crucial this is. So their attempt to shut down the Senate, even though Durbin said he wouldn't -- by the way, he said it again the next day, said it on April 27th. Listen to this.

DURBIN: Some have said on the floor, "Well, certainly at that point the Democrats are going to shut down the Senate and shut down the government." Trust me, that isn't going to happen. We saw that tactic once. Remember the name Newt Gingrich, Contract with America? He was so emboldened by Rush Limbaugh, he said, "You know, if we shut down the federal government, no one will notice." [sic] Well, we noticed in a hurry, and it hurt the Republican Party when they did it. We're not going to make that mistake.

RUSH: I love these guys mentioning my name in debate on the floor of the US Senate. So I guess I'm the one responsible for the government shutdown in '95. If it hadn't have been for me Newt wouldn't have done it. But nevertheless, so they tried this and that backfired because Republicans said, "Okay, we're going to schedule a committee hearing on Iran and nukes and national security." Democrats first threatened to boycott that one, and then somebody somewhere said, "Wait a minute, you guys! You don't want to do this." So anyway that's the scoop. There are so many deals floating around but I do have details on one rumored deal, and I'll pass that along after I take a quick time-out here. Welcome to the program, folks. The telephone number is 800-282-2882 if you'd like to join us. We'll be back here in just a moment. And yes, Yellowstone National Park, Jellystone still open, and the sleigh ride concession out there so far unharmed and unaffected by the Democrats' shutdown of the Senate.

RUSH: All right, here are the details of the rumor that was going around regarding a potential deal between Republicans and Democrats to stop all this going on with the judicial filibusters. The word on the street was that Colorado Democrat Ken Salazar proposed a compromise in which the Democrats would allow votes on all currently filibustered appellate nominees and then would agree to self-restraint except under extreme circumstances. The problem there then becomes defining extreme. I understand that the next part of the deal was they're going to change the word extreme to extraordinary, and then they had to sit down and define extraordinary circumstances. But nevertheless the whole thing appears to have blown up and I'm not even sure this is the whole deal that was discussed. This is just one of the rumors that's on the street. I also think the Republicans are starting to figure out, I think they're starting to believe the Democrats may not have the votes to pull off one of these filibusters anyway, certainly not on a Supreme Court nominee -- and of course the deal allows for -- well, one deal allows for the filibuster of Supreme Court nominees; one doesn't, depending on these extraordinary, extreme circumstances, but, at any rate, all these proposals are coming from Democrats. You've got Ben Nelson trying to put one together. You've got Salazar. I don't know what this means for the leadership of Dingy Harry. I don't know if Dingy Harry is authorizing these deals to be proposed and made or if these are being made by renegade Democrats, Democrats that are upset about what's going on, but I can tell you, folks -- Snerdley and I were talking about this today as I was going through my first cup of coffee, and I have three cups a day.

I was on the first cup of coffee and we were talking about this incredible sight yesterday of Barbara Boxer lecturing Judge Janice Rogers Brown. Here's this white, wealthy, elitist liberal from San Francisco -- I think she's actually from Marin -- lecturing a black daughter of sharecroppers who has risen on her own to become a member of the California Supreme Court, Janice Rogers Brown. Now, I want you to go back 15 years, and I want you to ask yourself, "Can you ever imagine that happening?" Maybe you say, "Well, Clarence Thomas," but it's not just Clarence Thomas anymore. You know it's one thing for the Democrats back in the Clarence Thomas-Anita Hill era to say, "This guy? Sexual harassment! This guy is horrible. We can't put this guy on the court." But every minority nominee that has come up for the appellate court under George W. Bush has received the same treatment as Clarence Thomas got, and it's gotten to the point where you just know -- as our caller yesterday from Virginia who's a friend of Janice Rogers Brown's noted -- you just know that this is being picked up by a bunch of people in the black population of this country. To have a wealthy white elitist liberal woman from the Bay Area lecture a black daughter of sharecroppers? Then you have all of these, if you go back in time, you have all of these racist cartoons of Condoleezza Rice. Now, I am here to tell you that this means the left is unhinged.

This is the kind of thing they always accused us of doing. We never did this. It's always been the Robert Byrds of the world who tried to stop desegregation, the J. William Fulbrights, the Strom Thurmonds back in his day, the forties and fifties. The Democrats have always done it. Yet somehow there has been this transformation that the Democrats are the best friend of minorities in this country. Well, you see, if you're a minority member, black population member of this country, you see now. You see what happens to you if you stray off the liberal plantation. Your color, your race, your minority status, your little-guy status, your story of self-reliance doesn't impress them. In fact, it threatens them. The second thing that I think is becoming really paramount. It dovetails with what I just told you, I actually think, and I'm not just saying this to make a point although it's a great way to say something to make a point, and something I usually do but nevertheless may be accurate as well. I think that the Democrats so rely on the courts to have their view of things insinuated on this culture and society that it's more important to them to make sure originalists and constructionists of the Constitution do not end up on this court, maybe more important in the near term than them winning elections.

They may actually look at it in a strategic way and say, "You know what? If we can save the courts, if we can keep Bush from appointing Supreme Court nominees, if we can keep Bush from putting all these new constructionists and originalists on the appellate court, it may be worth the loss of a couple seats in the Senate, or three." Tom Daschle may have paid one of the greatest prices ever in loyalty to his party, and Dingy Harry may pay the next because his poll numbers in Nevada are not good. The people of Nevada are not happy with Dingy Harry over this. The people around the country, the people paying attention to this, but I'm just telling you that's how important it is, consequently. I got a question yesterday on this program from a guy who said, "Rush if they keep losing, do you expect them to get violent?" I said, "Well, they're already throwing pies. At least Zarqawi, you know, he loses any car bombs. I don't think the Democrats will result to car bombing if they keep losing," but I think, folks, that the reality that they've lost it. You know, they've been in denial. I don't think that the reality that they have lost all these elections and this power has really set in. I think it's just now starting to. You know, their allies in the mainstream press are able to create this image that those guys still run Washington and still run the country, still run the show, "minority rights," all this gobbledygook and all this literally insane stuff these people are saying that we chronicled yesterday. This is impossible to keep up with in the same fashion. If they lose this filibuster business and if these nominees get on the court, I think it is going to be one of the most profound delayed reactions in all of civilization, because I think they're just now on the verge and precipice of admitting that they're actually losing, that after all these years, these losses are not a mirage. They're not temporary. They're not just quirks in the political system. They're not because slick Republican marketing and packaging -- and if they go down the tubes in this filibuster fight of theirs, which I think they're going to go down the tubes on, you're going to see... I'm not qualified to accurately describe the psychological state they will be in, but people who have been avoiding reality and in utter denial for this long who finally wake up to it overnight, it's not going to be pretty, and they are going to lash out and become even more extreme wacko and kooky. Mark my words: Everything is wrapped up in this filibuster business, and to a certain extent even Bolton.

RUSH: You know, in the first half hour of the program I'm sitting here talking about how the Democrats have been in delusion and avoiding reality. I think they've just really failed to come to grips with the fact that they're losing, and this judge fight may be the final slap in the face that wakes them up. "You know, we're really, really losing," and I think something that buttresses this, a story here by Jesse Holland in the Associated Press: Senate Democratic leader Harry Dingy Reid, "said Thursday that President Bush and Republican senators are trying to 'rewrite the Constitution and reinvent reality.'" Folks, do I know these people, or do I know these people? The Republicans are trying to reinvent reality? What he means is the Republicans are acting like they won. The Republicans are acting like they actually have a majority of senators here. They're trying to "reinvent reality," Bush and these Senators are, according to Dingy Harry, trying to reinvent reality. By the way, for those of you who are etymologists, you study words, could somebody tell me the brilliance, the absolute IQ necessary to come up with the phrase reinvent reality? Would somebody help me here? This is supposedly the smartest guy the Democrats had to run their show over there. Reinvent reality?

My nominee for worst president was Buchanan, who allowed his Secretary of War (Floyd) to ship weapons to the south where they would be stolen for use against the Union he was sworn to protect and defend.

Rebel Cavalry was initially far more effective than Union Cavalry, in part because they were mostly equipped with Sharps Carbines made at Harpers Ferry arsenal and stolen by the Rebels.

In Vickburg, Grant allowed his soldiers to trade their European import rifled muskets for the US made Springfield muskets that the South turned in as part of their surrender. It was acknowledged by all the the Springfield muskets were superior to the foreign pattern rifled muskets.

Some revisionist historians have used the number of imported muskets turned in in Vicksburg to question the effectiveness of the blockade. After all, all those imported muskets must have been smuggled past the blockade, right? Grant's memoirs has to be a primary source on the conflict. I don't blame him for using the phrase "fell off a horse" on the few occasions when he got drunk. He wrote his book when many people familiar with the situation were still alive, and knew they would explain his phrase.

The Dem's have squandered an awful lot of political capital over what amounts to a fairly marginal issue of some federal judges. I don't really get it.

Because every major victory they had on social issues that shape our society for the last sixty years has through the courts not from the floor of Congress.

Unlimited Abortion, federal control of our schools,prayer in schools,ten commandments,voting laws,immigration, search and seizure, States Rights, property rights, euthanasia, Gay rights etc. etc.

Look at all the referendums that have passed by huge majorities in the states in the last twenty years that have been tossed out not by constitutional law but, by the political views of one man.

My God man, we came within a hair's breath of having a couple of liberal justices of the State of Florida, the same ones who said a judge had a right to starve a American citizen to death without any concrete prove of her wishes, say who our president would be.

Fairly Marginal?

No matter how you look at it we had to wait for the Supreme Court, or Judaical branch of our government to tell us who would be the head of the Executive branch of our government.

That's too damn much power in one man's hand's. It happened because of liberal activist judges on the Florida Supreme Court. We where lucky they where one short on the Federal one.

These activist unelected, unaccountable, black robed tyrants have hi-jacked the written compass of our country,and have been steering toward the abyss of social elitism for the last half century.

If we don't do something now to reign in these out of control courts, then whoever is in the other two branches won't matter.

Now is the time.

agreed. We are far from the freedom are ancestors enjoyed. When there was no income tax nor a massive standing army. When Washington D.C did not and could not because of the Constitution have their little fingers into every faucet of our lives. When State rights meant something and local control meant that people lived the way God intented too FREE. But what I meant is the doorstep of Victory over Liberalism as a state sponsored form of religion.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.