Posted on 05/01/2009 7:46:53 PM PDT by GOP_Lady
|
||||
|
|
|
|
|
On Today's Show... |
|||||
|
|||||
|
Terms of Use | Privacy Statement | Copyright & Trademark Notice | Unsubscribe
The Rush Limbaugh Show® Premiere Radio Networks © All Rights Reserved, 2009. Premiere Radio Networks, Inc. 15260 Ventura Blvd. Sherman Oaks, CA 91403
|
To be added or removed from the "Rush In A Hurry" Ping List, FReepmail GOP_Lady.
BEGIN TRANSCRIPT
RUSH: I guess about 45 minutes ago I'm sitting here minding my own business, bothering nobody in the process of doing show prep and I get an e-mail from a Drive-By Media guy that I like, Chris Cillizza, who writes the blog The Fix at the Washington Post. And he says, "I'm doing a story here on Souter and the Supreme Court nomination that Obama's got coming up here, and I want know if you think that the Republicans will be making a mistake by really opposing this or should they not do anything?" I'm paraphrasing the question. I wrote him back and I said, "I look at all of this from a different template than you guys do." I said, "The fun for me is going to be watching all the nutcases on the left go wacko trying to convince Obama to pick one of their own. The Republicans, you know, any time they seriously contrast themselves with Obama, I think it's a win-win for them." But I said, "You're focused on what the Republicans are going to do. When did it change that you don't focus on the people who have power? I mean, you continue to look at the Republicans here, but the Democrats are the ones that have power, and the real fun for me is going to be watching all these wacko fringe nutcases from the blogs and everything else start pressuring Obama to pick somebody like Ward Churchill." (laughing)
Now, we've got some great audio sound bites of what Obama thinks of the court anyway. That's coming up on the program today. I also told Chris, I said, "I'm also going to keep a sharp eye to see if his nominee has a tax problem because that seems to be standard operating procedure for Obama cabinet picks, and now we'll see if it holds for Supreme Court nomination." The search will be on for a Supreme Court nominee who has a tax problem. Supreme Court justice David Souter leaving the Supreme Court in June so all the liberal eyes now turn to Obama for a replacement. A name, his first appointment destined to be reported. By the way, whoever he picks, just like Gibbs is the greatest PR guy, the greatest spokesman ever, whoever he picks, we're going to hear it's the smartest, the best, nobody could have ever found a person this good and this qualified to be on the Supreme Court. We all know the nominee is going to be a liberal. I mean, that's a given. Will it be an African-American liberal? Will it be a female liberal? Will it be an African-American female liberal? Or will it be an African-American female liberal from Chicago? Or will it be a Latina, a Hispanic woman?
Now, the early betting right now is on Sonia Sotomayor, who is Hispanic, and it's a little early to go on that stuff. As I say, whatever names surface there are going to be some leftists unhappy about it. Now, you have to understand, too, that when liberals start choosing nominees to the Supreme Court, they don't necessarily go find people who have any knowledge of the law. Obama looks at the Supreme Court -- you'll hear this coming up in the sound bites -- Obama looks at the court and he wants people who have the proper feelings. He wants people who empathize with the downtrodden. If they know the law, so much the better. But do you know a Supreme Court justice does not have to be a lawyer? A Supreme Court justice does not have to have ever argued a case in court.
BREAK TRANSCRIPT
Let's go to the audio sound bites, and let's listen to what the Drive-Bys are saying as regards the Supreme Court opening created by the announced retirement of David Souter. We have a montage here today: Robin Roberts of ABC, George "Stephy" Stephanopoulos of ABC, Chuck Todd from NBC, and Chris Wallace of the Fox News Channel talking about who Obama might pick.
ROBERTS: It's widely expected that this selection will be a woman.
STEPHANOPOULOS: President Obama has said that he wants to add another woman to the court. I would say the leading candidate is Judge Sonia Sotomayor. She would be not only a woman but the first Hispanic.
TODD: ...the pressure to appoint a woman. But the Hispanic community really would like to see the first ever Hispanic Supreme Court justice.
WALLACE: A lot of pressure to appoint a woman, lot of pressure to appoint a Hispanic, the first Hispanic. How about a twofer: Sonia Sotomayor, uhhh, you know, an appeals court judge and Hispanic woman. You heard it here first.
RUSH: Well, the pressure already being brought to bear, according to the Drive-Bys, for an Hispanic woman. The pressure, it must be unbearable for Obama. The pressure being brought to... By the way, somebody sent me a note during the break saying I mispronounced Sonia Sotomayor's name, that her name is actually pronounced Sonia So-to-my-or, not as in "mayor." It's spelled S-o-t-o-m-a-y-o-r. These guys all pronounce it Soto-mayor, as I did, but I'm told it's pronounced So-to-my-or. Regardless, we're covering our bases. Who is she? She is a judge now on the court of appeals. I'm not sure which circuit she's on, but she's one of these judges that allows her personal views to be a factor in the way she decides cases. She gave a speech at Berkeley in 2002.
She said "she believes it is appropriate for a judge to consider their 'experiences as women and people of color' in their decision making, which she believes should 'affect our decisions as judges,'" and that's right up Obama's alley. That's, as you will hear in the program today, exactly the kind of judge Obama wants. In recent case, Ricci v. DeStefano, Judge Sotomayor was chastised by fellow Clinton-appointee Jose Cabranes for going to extraordinary lengths to dispense with claims of unfair treatment raised by firefighters. Judge Sotomayor's panel [of judges] heard a case raising important questions under Title VII and equal protection law, but attempted to dispose of the firefighter's arguments in a summary order, until called out by Judge Cabranes. The Supreme Court has agreed to review the case."
Anyway, that's the big name. There are other names on the list, too. You're looking women: Elena Kagan, Diane Wood. We'll see, but it's not going to change the balance of anything, folks. I mean, Souter for the most part votes with the libs. Whoever Obama picks is going to be a lib (probably with a tax problem) and so the balance won't be upset. It's just that we gotta get a younger lib. But we all knew this. I mean, this is the exact kind of thing that was going to happen on Supreme Court nominations, what with Obama winning the presidency.
BREAK TRANSCRIPT
RUSH: Let's go to sound bite number four. Show you that the -- as the way the libs look at judges, Supreme Court or otherwise, it's all about identity politics. On the Today Show today, Matt Lauer talking to Chuck Todd. "Why don't we take these two things and combine them; the pressure to appoint a woman, the pressure to appoint an Hispanic. We look at somebody like Sonia Sotomayor, who is a Hispanic woman, a federal appeals judge. What are her chances" old Chuck?
TODD: Well, I think a lot of people look at them and they -- they seem to be pretty good. She's, uh, both... Uh, checks a lot of boxes on the academic front. She's, uh, been on the federal bench quite a bit, so she certainly has the qualifications. Uh, the background is very important. We heard President Obama as Candidate Obama talk about somebody who didn't necessarily grow up of privilege or grow up in the academic world, and so she does check all the correct boxes.
RUSH: So you see, it is exactly as I said at the top of the program: Judicial qualifications are not the primary concern. Empathy, feelings, identity politics. You gotta go get a woman, gotta go get a Hispanic woman. Now, this is the media speculation here. The media is attempting obviously to shape this, and we don't know to what extent the Obama White House has leaked, if anybody, Sonia Sotomayor's name. But you can see that clearly there's a steamroller effect here gathering for her nomination. And nobody's talking about her legal qualifications. That side's not. They're talking about the things that you notice about her when you look at her. She's a woman and she's an Hispanic, and somehow that's all you need to be qualified.
BREAK TRANSCRIPT
RUSH: Okay. So according now to the Obama administration, folks, we are now profiling candidates for the Supreme Court. They have to "check all the right boxes." That's what Chucker Todd said at NBC. That Sonia Sotomayor, why, she checks all the right boxes! We're seeking out certain races and sexes. Profiling is bad for law enforcement, but good for judicial selection. Maybe Chucker Todd can tell us when it's appropriate to use race and gender and when it's not. I guess it's perfectly fine for liberal Democrats to use race and gender, "make sure they check all the right boxes," in other words: profile. So profiling. This is what I meant. This is what I meant when I said, "The fun for me is going to be watching all these liberal groups go nuts advocating for the people they want Obama to pick."
And they're gonna go nuts on the basis of identity politics and profiling and all that. Remember when George W. Bush appointed Alberto Gonzales for attorney general, the first Hispanic ever. Alberto Gonzales was attacked. Bush got no credit for the appointment with the media. When Bush's father appointed the second black to the court, it was the same thing. It wasn't a real Hispanic, and Clarence Thomas wasn't an authentic black guy. So both Clarence Thomas and Alberto Gonzales were under attack from day one. But now, the Obama administration is profiling for Supreme Court nominations. Let's see what kind of scrutiny Obama's nominee gets. I can tell you, there won't be any scrutiny. What we're going to get is, "Why, this is the smartest woman," or smartest Hispanic, or smartest whatever they pick.
"Ever! This is the most qualified judge ever! Oliver Wendell Holmes is on third base compared to this person." It's just going to be the same hype that we got about Robert Gibbs, about how there's never, ever been a better press spokesman, press secretary than that idiot. It's going to be the same thing. There won't be any scrutiny. To give you an illustration, this happened today on Scarborough's show on PMSNBC. He was talking to Tavis Smiley. He's on PBS. He "checks all the boxes," too. Tavis Smiley is male, he's black, he's minority, and he works at PBS. So Tavis Smiley is a perfect guess for NBC. He checks all the boxes.
And Scarborough said to Tavis Smiley, Tavis, "Let's talk about identity politics. Thurgood Marshall replaced on the court by Clarence Thomas. Do you think that African-Americans deserve to have a justice on the court that represents the majority of their....?" Joe! Joe, please, say you didn't ask that, Joe. Joe, Joe, Joe, Joe. I don't care who the guest is. What are you doing? I love Joe Scarborough. Asking Tavis Smiley, "Do you think that African-Americans deserve to have a justice on the court that represents the majority of their...?" Joe, you've got a book coming out on conservatism, and you ask that? Anyway, here's what Tavis Smiley, which, again, perfect guest for MSNBC, he "checks all the boxes." He's black, he's minority, and works at PBS. Here's his answer.
SMILEY: I think that every president ought to consider how the court ought to be balanced. As an African-American I will sit and tell you that I do not agree with... There's almost nothing that Clarence Thomas has ruled on. I could think of one case where he ruled on in a cross-burning case which shocked the heck... I mean I almost went into full cardiac arrest when he came down on the right side of this cross-burning case.
SCARBOROUGH: (cackling)
SMILEY: But it was in fact a cross-burning case, and my thing is if you can't get that right, Justice Thomas. Having said that there is an African-American on the court and if identity politics go into play here this is not a Hispanic on the court. And I don't think you ought to, you know, pick and choose based upon ethnicity. But I think it is true, though, that we live now, Joe, in the most multicultural --
SCARBOROUGH: Right!
SMILEY: -- multiracial, multiethnic America ever, and that everybody in this great country deserves to see himself or herself represented --
SCARBOROUGH: Right!
SMILEY: -- in the court system.
RUSH: (laughing) That is just stupid. That is a perfect illustration of what the hell is wrong with the whole culture and the whole country. Tavis, your Clarence Thomas' remarks are just embarrassingly naive and ignorant. Asians don't have anybody in the court. I don't hear them complaining. Even beyond that, though, he says here, "I don't think we ought to do identity politics," and then goes on to lay out how we need to have virtually every... Folks, we've got so many mutts in this country now. There's been so much... I don't know how you do this. We're not just Asians anymore or white Americans. Everybody is something. We've all got so much... Whatever happened to the concept: We're all just Americans?
What about finding people with the best qualifications? This is, after all, the Supreme Court! Anybody ever found a logical reason to go out and find the best judge, the best candidate, the best American you can find? Now we're being told that it is not only okay, it is required that we profile, and in this opening, "We gotta get the female Hispanic on there. We gotta get the female." To listen to this stuff is just... I sit here and laugh about it, but it's a great illustration of what the left has done to our entire culture. Merit doesn't matter. Pandering to minorities is everything. Here's Obama. Now, this is July 18th, 2007. This is in Washington during the annual Planned Parenthood conference. Obama said this about the Supreme Court.
OBAMA JULY 2007: We need somebody who's got the empathy to recognize what it's like to be uh, a -- a -- a young teenaged mom. Uh, the empathy to understand what it's like to be poor, or African-American, or gay, or disabled.
RUSH: Well, this is two years ago, a year-and-a-half ago now. That's President Obama, before Planned Parenthood. We need somebody with empathy, that knows what it's like... This has nothing to do with legal cases. (interruption) Well, I'm sure we could find one, Snerdley. No, here's what we need. We need a teenaged single mother who is gay, who's a lesbian; who's dirt poor; African-American; and disabled. Or, if we can't find that person, we need a bigger Supreme Court. So... (sigh) I'm sure we can find in any blue city a poor minority teenaged mother who can barely get around. Disabled, lesbian, had the kid with surrogacy or artificial insemination. I'm sure you can find it. You know they're all over the place. You can find one. Whether they're qualified to be on the court doesn't matter. Because their qualifications, Obama just said what they are. Now, here he is again in Las Vegas. This is November 2007. And it's presidential -- Democrat presidential debate. Barack Obama and the moderator Wolf Blitzer have this exchange about the Supreme Court.
OBAMA NOVEMBER: Sometimes we're only looking at academics or people who have been in the courts. If we can find people who have life experience and they understand what it means to be on the outside, what it means to have the system not work for them, that's the kind of person I want --
BLITZER: Thank you.
OBAMA: -- on the Supreme Court.
BLITZER: Thank you.
RUSH: Fine. That means we can be get criminals, too. Obviously if you're a criminal, the system hasn't worked for you. (laughs) So we need to get lawbreakers. We need to add lawbreakers to the other lists of identities. Who's going to vet these people? You know, I'll tell you where we're going to get the next nominee, if it's not Sonia. I mean, Sonia Sotomayor may be good, but she doesn't fit all this stuff. She is sadly lacking in the qualifications Obama himself has laid out. It seems to me that to find the next Supreme Court justice or nominee, we're going to have to go to the Jerry Springer Show, and he's the guy that's going to vet them.
BREAK TRANSCRIPT
RUSH: What sound bite did I leave off with? We're up to number eight? So I left off with number seven. Play number seven again. Here's Barack Obama November 15th, 2007, Democrat debate, presidential debate, Wolf Blitzer and Obama have this exchange.
OBAMA NOVEMBER: Sometimes we're only looking at academics or people who have been in the courts. If we can find people who have life experience and they understand what it means to be on the outside, what it means to have the system not work for them, that's the kind of person I want --
BLITZER: Thank you.
OBAMA: -- on the Supreme Court.
BLITZER: Thank you.
RUSH: And he also said he wants them to be poor. Clarence Thomas grew up poor, Mr. President, just to throw that in. By the way, Sonia Sotomayor is Puerto Rican. This is going to make the Mexicans and the Cubans angry. There will not be unity here on the Hispanic side. Sonia Sotomayor is Puerto Rican, and that's ignoring the Mexicans, and that's ignoring the Cubans. And, by the way, folks, since Obama says "what it means to be on the outside, what it means to have system not work for you," we gotta get an illegal alien on the Supreme Court. We need an illegal immigrant on the Supreme Court. They fit the definition of what it means to be on the outside, what it means to have the system not work for them. The court is looking at foreign law more and more. Shouldn't we have a representative from the United Nations on the Supreme Court? I find it curious, folks, I find it very, very curious that nobody has mentioned a Muslim or an Islamist. I mean, they live here, too. And they suffer, as we all know, vast discrimination. So what Obama's really looking for here, folks, what he really means with all these comments, he's looking for a radical who is a minority, who will use the court to advance Obama's political agenda. This is what it all boils down to.
If he's looking for a criminal, talk about a guy who checks all the boxes, Alcee Hastings. Black, former judge, impeached as a judge, now a member of Congress, he's a confirmed criminal. And criminals, you know, the system's not worked for them. We need a criminal. We need an illegal immigrant. We need a Muslim, Islamist; we need a single mother who is gay, very poor. I mean, these are the qualifications Obama is throwing out there. It's looking worse and worse for poor old Sonia Sotomayor as the day goes on here. She simply doesn't check enough boxes. Chuck Todd says she checks all the boxes, but as we listened to Obama describe his own qualifications, Sonia Sotomayor is a piker. Here. Let's go to May 11th, last year, CNN's Late Edition, Wolf Blitzer interviewing Obama, and Blitzer says, "Are there members or justices right now upon whom you would model, you would look at? Who do you do like?"
OBAMA: What I do want is a judge who is sympathetic enough to those who are on the outside, those who are vulnerable, those who are powerless, those who can't have access to political power, and as a consequence, can't protect themselves from being dealt with sometimes unfairly.
RUSH: He wants a judge sympathetic enough to those who are on the outside. Get Saul Alinsky. Just go resurrect Saul Alinsky. Exhume the body and nominate him because that's what this is, Rules for Radicals, put one of these clowns on the Supreme Court, and the more boxes you can check off on the identity politics side, the better. Now, I have a See, I Told You So here from my own program October 28th last year. This is what I said on this program about then-Senator Obama's philosophy of the Supreme Court.
RUSH ARCHIVE: You know legal justice is an entirely different thing than political and economic justice. And Obama wants the court to be concerned with economic justice. He wants legal cases that end up before federal courts, including the Supreme Court, he wants judges on those courts to look at economic and political aspects of the case, not the legal definition of justice, because the legal definition of justice is not what he's interested in -- economic justice, punishing achievers, labeling them guilty when they haven't done anything.
RUSH: Returning the nation's wealth to its, quote, unquote, rightful owners, and wherever he can advance that agenda, Supreme Court's a great place, these people end up for life there. So let's go back to 2001, Chicago FM radio station, the host interviewing state Senator Obama. And her question, "We're joined here by Barack Obama, Illinois state senator from the 13th District, senior lecturer in the law school, University of Chicago." And this is what Obama said about the redistribution of wealth.
OBAMA: If you look at the victories and failures of the civil rights movement and its litigation strategy in the court, I think where it succeeded was to invest formal rights in previously dispossessed peoples so that I would now have the right to vote, I would now be able to sit at the lunch counter and -- and order and, as long as I could pay for it, I'd be okay, but the Supreme Court never ventured into the issues of redistribution of wealth and sort of more basic issues of political and economic justice in the society.
RUSH: There you have it. That's Barack Obama eight years ago in Chicago on an FM radio station, redistribution of wealth, economic justice. That's the court. That's what it's to be used for. In this next bite he's very upset, the Warren Court was not radical enough.
OBAMA: As radical as I think people tried to characterize the Warren Court, it wasn't that radical. It didn't break free from the essential constraints that were placed by the Founding Fathers in the Constitution, at least as it's been interpreted, and Warren Court interpreted it in the same way that generally the Constitution is a charter of negative liberties, says what the states can't do to you, says what the federal government can't do to you, but it doesn't say what the federal government or the state government must do on your behalf, and that hasn't shifted, and one of the tragedies of the civil rights movement was because the civil rights movement became so court focused, I think that there was a tendency to lose track of the political and community organizing and activities on the ground that are able to put together the actual coalitions of power through which you bring about redistributive change. And in some ways we still suffer from that.
RUSH: So there you have it, his own words, and he's not changed. Redistribution of wealth, returning the wealth of the nation to its rightful owners, that's the purpose of judges, that's the purpose of courts. And here again, he talks about Al-Qaeda is not constrained by Constitution. Here he explains what that means. He feels constrained by a Constitution, series of negative rights. It says what the government can't do, what the government can't do, but the Constitution doesn't say what the government can do, and he wants to change that and he wants to have judges on the Supreme Court that are going to facilitate and implement his radical social agenda. It has nothing to do, per se, with justice, legal justice, or the law.
END TRANSCRIPT
And on most subjects, it appears to be true. However, Specter's defection may actually end up giving Republicans the ability to filibuster judicial nominees at the Judiciary Committee level so that the nominees never get out of committee. Now, these are big IFs, but it's possible. Here's the explanation from Professor Michael Dorf of Cornell Law School on his blog Dorf on Law. And this was written two days before Souter announced he was quitting. "Does Arlen Specter's defection from R to D strengthen the President's hand in Congress? Perhaps overall but not on judicial appointments because breaking (the equivalent of) a filibuster in the Senate Judiciary Committee requires the consent of at least one member of the minority," in this case the Republicans.
"Before today, Specter was likely to be that one Republican" who would vote to break a filibuster on the Republican side, but he's gone. Here's the Senate Judiciary Committee rule, "Bringing a Matter to a Vote: The Chairman shall entertain a non-debatable motion to bring a matter before the Committee to a vote. If there is objection to bring the matter to a vote without further debate, a roll call vote of the Committee shall be taken, and debate shall be terminated if the motion to bring the matter to a vote without further debate passes with ten votes in the affirmative, one of which must be cast by the minority."
Now, this is interesting. Specter... Specter could allow a nominee out of could if Specter was a member of the Republican minority, but as part of the majority he's just another Democrat vote. Now, here are the other Republicans on the Judiciary Committee: Orrin Hatch, Charles Grassley, Jon Kyl, Jeff Sessions, Lindsey Graham[nesty], John Cornyn, and Tom Coburn. The weak link, obviously, is Lindsey Graham[nesty], who is a member of the Gang of 14. But if Lindsey Graham[nesty] chose to stay the course and vote with the Republicans, they may not be able to stop runaway spending or any of that, but they may be able to stop judicial nominations. Specter may have ended up handing the Republicans a gift in this regard.
Now, folks, admittedly this is a bit of a long shot because this is going to require that the Republicans have the fortitude to even do this, to even try it; 'cause if they did -- if they essentially filibustered the vote in the Judiciary Committee -- the media is going to be all over these things. I mean, it's going to be like Dunkirk. It's going to be like Hiroshima. It's going to be like Nagasaki. I mean, nuclear ammo is gonna rain down on these guys if they try it. But it's possible. They could do it, and if so... Now, you might be saying, "Well, they'll just change the rules." Well, how likely is it that they'll change the rules? They adopt the rules at the start of a congressional year. They can be amended, but it's a tough thing to do.
And Dingy Harry, he's already cooked his goose there with his insistence on rules regarding the seating of Roland Burris, the renegade replacement for Obama in the Senate as nominated by Blago, Rod Blagojevich. It's so fascinating to watch and learn all the possibilities here in the process here of stonewalling any particular judicial nominee that the Republicans choose to filibuster or stop.
END TRANSCRIPT
| Read the Background Material... |
| • NYDN: First Lady Michelle Obama Steps Out in Lanvin Sneakers and They're Only $540! |
CALLER: Captain, my captain! It's actually Gil, not Bill, but mega-consulting dittos from Philadelphia. I just wanted to see that as a consulting engineer, I have a small firm and when I get the system to work for me, I call that "success," and when the system fails me, I call that "failure." So by Barack Obama looking for somebody that the system has failed, isn't he in that sense looking for someone who's a failure?
RUSH: For a Supreme Court nominee?
CALLER: Yes, sir.
RUSH: Yeah! He's looking for a failure. He's looking for somebody who's been on the wrong side of the law, somebody... Yeah, he's looking for somebody who does not know success because those people... See, in his worldview the only reason those people are on the wrong side of the law or haven't had any success is because the achievers and those who have accomplished things are stealing from them and denying them opportunity, and that's what he's gonna change and he's hell-bent on it and he's making it clear every time he opens his mouth.
CALLER: Being Open Line Friday, can I go off topic just for a moment?
RUSH: There are no topics on Open Line Friday, so go for it. Just make it good.
CALLER: Well, you know, concerning the banking failures, in 1992, when Bill Clinton came to office, there were about 12,000 banks in the United States.
RUSH: Mmm-hmm.
CALLER: It was Clinton's policy and the policy of the Federal Reserve that they wanted fewer but larger banks. And when he left office, I believe there were about 8,000 banks. And essentially, what this meant was, America lost its diversity in the banking industry. So when we have failures, they're bigger and much worse -- and this is a topic that I think is being largely ignored.
RUSH: It's an excellent point out there, Gil. I'm glad you went off topic.
CALLER: Thank you, Rush. I'm glad I didn't let you down, buddy!
RUSH: He didn't let me down, Gil. And I'm sorry for mispronouncing you name. It was Snerdley's mistake.
CALLER: Oh, I knew that. I've never heard you make a mistake, Rush.
RUSH: That's right. I don't. When I make mistake it's other people and I usually cover for them. (laughs)
CALLER: Thanks for covering for all of us, Rush. We love you and we appreciate it.
RUSH: Thank you, too, Gil, thanks very much for the call buddy.
END TRANSCRIPT
CALLER: (giggling)
RUSH: Now, are you in Carmel Valley or you in Carmel by the Sea?
CALLER: No, I'm Carmel by the Sea.
RUSH: Ah! Because Doris Day, who is a friend of mine, lives in Carmel Valley.
CALLER: I go to her place every Tuesday and Friday night with my standard poodle Bocelli.
RUSH: Yeah, she's practically got a zoo there. I know.
CALLER: Yeah, she's a wonderful lady. Well, I'm a first-time caller, Rush. I'm so excited to be on your program. I wanted to tell you that Karl Rove is coming to the Monterey Conference Center along with a fellow by the name of David Plouffe, who is a Barry man.
RUSH: Wait, wait, wait, David who? What's the last name?
CALLER: I don't know if I'm pronouncing it right. David P-loof. He was former --
RUSH: Oh, it's "fluff". Yeah, David Plouffe, one of Obama's campaign guys.
CALLER: Okay. So anyway, they have a conference going, and the topic is, "Can the partisan divide ever end?" and what I want to say is, in the papers -- and I want to name names. This CNN correspondent, Frank Sesno, he goes, "We trust our (garbled) readers will refrain from throwing shoes or pies at the worthy Mr. Rove." Now, now, you know, if we're going to end some sort of divide like they're saying, what a ridiculous comment to make.
RUSH: I think Mr. Sesno was trying to be funny, but this is typical of liberal humor. The premise, you know, the belief here is that Karl Rove is going to be targeted. They just think, "Rove? Oh, my God, Rove's coming out!" So he said, "We trust people won't throw pies our shoes at Karl Rove." It's just... I don't know. It doesn't have a whole lot of class to it. But I just think these guys are trying to be funny. I think that's an example of their sense of humor. They're not funny, but don't worry. Even if somebody throws a pie or a shoe at Karl Rove, he'll dive in the audience after 'em. Karl Rove doesn't take this from anybody. He'll be fine. Everything's cool. Look... (sigh) It's just what it is. I'm glad that you saw that. That's who they are. Now, Snerdley thinks that Sesno is sending out a signal to throw shoes and pies at Rove, and that could be. Maybe they want that picture. Maybe they want that kind of thing to happen. If they want that kind of thing to happen, do this in Santa Cruz. (laughing) Go up the road to UC Santa Cruz and it will happen without anybody saying a word.
END TRANSCRIPT
| Read the Background Material... |
| • Wall Street Journal: Obama Outsources His Presidency - Karl Rove |
I really admire what this gentleman did. He proved that we have good people in this country who are ethical.
BEGIN TRANSCRIPT
RUSH: In the previous hour, we were discussing the hapless and comical -- I'm still amazed that late night comics can't find anything to laugh about or make jokes about in this administration. This whole Supreme Court nomination thing is one giant joke! As they've gotta find all the check boxes here, some candidate that fills out every requirement Obama has, and the last requirement on the list is they know anything about the law. They gotta be female, they gotta be pregnant, they gotta be single mother, gotta be poor, gotta be disadvantaged, gotta be Hispanic, gotta be Muslim, gotta be Asian, gotta be whatever. We played a sound bite in the last hour of Tavis Smiley being interviewed by Joe Scarborough, who is a friend of mine. I like Scarborough. But he asked a question, he said to Smiley, "Don't you think that African-Americans would like to have somebody on the court that reflects the majority view in the black community?" Why don't we ever ask the question, "Should maybe we get rid of Ruth "Buzzi" Ginsburg? Don't you think Christians need a woman on the court to reflect their views?" Why don't we ever get that question? You know, a lot of Italians don't like Scalia. We maybe need to get somebody like Tony Soprano on there who is more like some Italians.
The way these people look at things is just incredible. They would never ask the question about Ruth "Buzzi" Ginsburg, but they ask it about Clarence Thomas. So I'm sure George Stephanopoulos has told Obama who he supports in one of those conference calls that he participates in every morning with Rahm Emanuel, The Skull, Paul Begala, and James Carville, Serpent Head. I'm sure they've made their picks known. We don't know what they are, but we'll find out at some point. Now, it's interesting here, ladies and gentlemen, that the same process that Obama is using to fill nominees on the basic level of court systems, the circuit courts and Supreme Court, it's not about judges who know the law; it's about judges who feel. If you look at the Chrysler bankruptcy that was literally crammed down everybody's throat yesterday by President Obama, you find perhaps the same philosophy. Let's not do what's best for Chrysler. Let's do what's best for those who are disadvantaged at Chrysler and who's that, that's the unions! Now, I'll tell you, there are people, even the New York Times today, the lenders Obama decided to blame. I mean this has caused a lot of people to have rancorous objection and reaction to what Obama did yesterday.
For example, "Peter A. Weinberg and Joseph R. Perella are part of a band of Wall Street renegades -- 'a small group of speculators,' President Obama called them Thursday -- who helped bankrupt Chrysler. That, anyway, is the Washington line. ... But now the two men, along with a handful of other financiers, are being blamed for precipitating the bankruptcy of an American icon. As Chrysler's fate hung in the balance Wednesday night, this group refused to bend to the Obama administration and accept steep losses on their investments while more junior investors, including the United Automobile Workers union, were offered favorable terms." I told you, explained all this yesterday. This is like how it's done in Argentina. The bondholders get the shaft, the banks get the shaft, and the union owns the company. "In a rare flash of anger, the president scolded the group Thursday as Chrysler, its options exhausted, filed for bankruptcy protection. 'I don't stand with those who held out when everyone else is making sacrifices,' Mr. Obama said. Chastened, and under intense pressure from the White House, the investment firm run by Mr. Weinberg and Mr. Perella, Perella Weinberg Partners, abruptly reversed course. In a terse statement issued shortly before 6 p.m. Thursday, Perella Weinberg Partners announced it would accept the government's terms."
Now, listen to this next passage in the New York Times. "Whatever the outcome, this bit of brinkmanship," on the part of these two guys, the hedge fund as they were called who wanted to hold out, they were being told to cash out at 20 cents on the dollar. Now, these people hold investments of average people. It's not these two guys single-handedly putting their own money into Chrysler and extending debt to Chrysler. It is people who invested with them. So it's not just these two guys that are going to lose; it's everybody who invested with them, and yet they are portrayed as the villains! "But whatever the outcome, this bit of brinkmanship -- which many characterized as a game of chicken with Washington -- has become yet another public relations disaster for Wall Street." How about a PR disaster for Chrysler? A public relations disaster for Wall Street. The only reason it's a PR disaster for Wall Street is because that's what President Obama wanted the perception to be by singling them out, tarring and feathering them publicly yesterday was unnecessary. He did not have to do it. President Obama had his little hissy fit.
Now, let me explain this, you get into finance and it gets convoluted, but it was clear that Obama favored the UAW at the expense of the bondholders. There's no question, 'cause they got 55% of the company, folks. He insisted that the bondholders settle for pennies on the dollar. The bondholders are the private sector here. Many of the bondholders, not all, but many of them were the big banks and these hedge funds, these Perella Weinberg Partners here that you've heard besmirched. The big banks went along with what Obama demanded, but the small majority of hedge funds did not. The bond holders committee representatives from Citigroup, Goldman Sachs, JP Morgan Chase, Morgan Stanley, Oppenheimer Funds, Perella Weinberg Partners, Zeron Funds, so forth and so on, the big banks went long, the hedge funds held out. And Obama accused them of holding out for a bailout. They were not holding out for a bailout, they were holding out for a proper return because they were carrying Chrysler debt.
So here's the money question. Did the big banks decide out of the goodness of their hearts to go along with Obama and settle for pennies on the dollar, or did they do it -- there's three possible reasons. They did it out of the goodness of their hearts; they did it because TARP money was sent to them under the table to cover their losses. We'll never know if that's the case, but it's a good bet. Maybe they didn't suffer losses. Maybe the big banks didn't really -- remember, those guys all voted for Obama. Public assumption is everybody took a bath and that's what makes the deal fair. Everybody sacrificed, except the UAW, Obama's real friends. The third possibility to explain why the big banks rolled over is they're just scared to death because the Obama administration, Treasury department, has their future in his hands. So, of the three possibilities, goodness of their hearts, they got secret slush money under the table from TARP, or they're scared to death because the Treasury department holds the future right in their hands. I vote option three. I vote that the big banks rolled over 'cause they're scared to death because wherever I go, I don't care who I interact with, they're scared to death of this administration.
There is genuine fear of the government from average Americans buying up guns and ammunition like they never have before, to people on Wall Street, to big businesses, there is abject fear. So I vote for number three. We'll never really know. What we do know is that Obama got angry at the holdouts. What we have here is a new Fairness Doctrine, the Obama Fairness Doctrine. Didn't need Congress, didn't need the courts for this. It's not about radio, it's about everything. Here's the scenario. Obama listens to all sides, and all sides end up thinking Obama understands and agrees with them. Obama, after listening to all sides, then plays Solomon and pronounces what's fair. And if you don't accept his fairness -- he-he-he -- you are dispatched To Messiah Park, not Fort Marcy Park, you are dispatched to Messiah Park. Sure, of course the listing is just an exercise. He's got his mind made up. He brings these people in the room just to do a snow job on them to make them think they've got a chance at changing his mind. That's why he had dinner with the conservative columnists. It's all for show; it's all PR. This guy is a committed ideological, liberal leftist who's putting on a show for everybody.
I told you in December the UAW was going to get this company and return the nation's wealth to its rightful owners. And this is exactly what's happened. But there are also consequences to leftism, liberal, when you do things. Here's a story out of the St. Louis Post-Dispatch. It is a gold mine of information, actually pretty good reporting. It's by Angela Tablac. Angela, I don't want to ruin your career by praising you, I know that's a possibility here, but it's actually a good job of reporting. A quote from the story: "The thing Obama does not control yet is if the consumer buys their vehicles," meaning after all of this is done, the one thing that hasn't been taken into account in any of this, is there anybody who knows how to build a car now at Chrysler that people are gonna want to buy? And what we know is that the people Obama's put in charge here have never had that job, they've never had that responsibility from his car czar team to the union. But this story is about all of the unemployment that's going to happen in the St. Louis area as a result of the bankruptcy.
Obama's yesterday talking about all the jobs he saved. This story is about the plant closings in the St. Louis area and the jobs that are going to be lost. Chrysler plans to permanently close Fenton, Missouri's pickup assembly plant, there are two of them there, about a thousand people work there, and the mini-van plant. That was idle last year by the end of 2010 as a part of a broader plan to unload excess manufacturing facilities. For the second time in its 84-year history, Chrysler has hovered near bankruptcy. To help Chrysler, the federal government agreed to give it up to $8 billion in additional aid and to back its warranties. I'll tell you, that's something else. The bondholders, here's the government passing out $8 billion, and the bondholders, the ones that hold the legitimate debt, get none of it, they get the shaft 'cause they're Wall Street, and Obama loves the New York Times writing about this as another PR disaster for Wall Street. That's the nation's wealth.
The federal government in this deal also promised the UAW that it will protect workers, retiree health care benefits during the bankruptcy. The union gives up and sacrifices nothing, other than some of these jobs that are being lost, in St. Louis. They're not going to resolve the legacy costs. Nobody's intending to resolve the legacy costs. You mean the in perpetuity payment to people who have retired of health care benefits and pension? At some point it will be off-loaded and Obama will take it over at the federal government. But basically what you have here, the investment bankers stood up against a deal that shafts them royally. Obama went out and smeared them publicly, and they caved. And that's reported as a PR disaster for Wall Street. Now, since all of those who made out in the deal agree these guys are going to lose in court should they go. Even those involved in negotiations see little upside in fighting. There's a zero chance this group will be able to get anything more in bankruptcy court, given that 90% of the lenders are lined up against them, the hedge fund people.
Washington Post: "Obama Vows Swift Overhaul As Chrysler Enters Bankruptcy." Negotiations dominated by banks who are at the mercy of government. That's option three as to why the big banks rolled over. So who owns the company at the end of the day? Says it right here. "The new majority owner will be Chrysler's union retiree health fund, which would receive a 55 percent stake in the new company. Fiat would get a 20 percent stake, with its share potentially rising to 35 percent over time based on performance. The United States would take 8 percent, while the Canadian government, which is also providing financing, would receive 2 percent." But Chrysler's UAW union retiree health fund is the proud new owner of Chrysler when this is all over at 55%. "Those negotiations had been dominated by four large banks that own 70 percent of Chrysler's debt -- Goldman Sachs, Citigroup, J.P. Morgan and Morgan Stanley. Each has received government bailout loans through the Treasury's Troubled Assets Relief Program." They said they'd be glad to cave 'cause their future is in the hands of Tim Geithner, Treasury department, and Barack Obama.
BREAK TRANSCRIPT
RUSH: This is George. You're up first on Open Line Friday. It's great to have you here, sir. Hello.
CALLER: Hey Rush, Blagojevich for Supreme Court dittos. How's that? (laughs)
RUSH: (chuckles) Thank you, sir.
CALLER: Hey, you know what? This example of Obama and what he's doing with the Chrysler creditors is a perfect example of the cram-down that the senators just voted down. I mean, instead of having the court say to the banks, "You have to adjust the rates," now you have Obama basically saying, "I'm the judge and jury now. You creditors have to reduce the rates on Chrysler."
RUSH: Okay, wait.
CALLER: It's absolute ridiculous.
RUSH: Wait a minute. You're jumping the gun on something here. Let me tell people the story that you're talking about. The Senate yesterday "handed a victory to the banking industry on Thursday, defeating a Democratic proposal that would have given homeowners in financial trouble greater flexibility to renegotiate the terms of their mortgages." Essentially, the Senate yesterday refused to let judges fix mortgages in bankruptcy, which means that a contract is still a contract somewhere. Here's a quote from Senator Durbin of Illinois. Well, not a quote, but, "In recent weeks, major banks and bank trade associations worked closely with Senate Republicans to stop the measure. Twelve Democrats joined all the Republicans in voting against it." It was a cram-down-your throat policy that the Senate defeated. So your point about this again is what?
CALLER: Is that this is exactly what Obama was trying to do to the creditors like Oppenheimer of Chrysler. He was basically trying to force them, through fear, to reduce the debt on Chrysler -- which would have, like you said, brought the share up to 20 bucks.
RUSH: What do you mean? What do you mean "trying"? He did it.
CALLER: Well, exactly. And to your point about option number three, it's out of pure fear.
RUSH: Absolutely. Everybody's running in total fear of the guy.
CALLER: Yep.
RUSH: Folks, a lot of these banks want to give the TARP money back, remember? And he won't take it back. Obama won't take the TARP money back. He wants in. These guys voted for him. In a way, it's sweet justice, except that the American private sector gets shafted again.
BREAK TRANSCRIPT
RUSH: Rod in Detroit. Hey, Rod. I learned something today that I didn't know. Dave Bing, the former NBA great, is going to run for mayor there.
CALLER: That is correct. He is running, although I'm not -- well, at least he's a guy that's got a little bit of experience and gumption. We won't even go there with respect to the former mayor.
RUSH: Well, yeah, I can understand that. Kevin Johnson, who I knew when he played for the Phoenix Suns, now the mayor of Sacramento, is going out there to help Bing in his mayoral campaign. Anyway, you didn't call about that. What was it you called about?
CALLER: Well, first, mega locomotive engineer dittos to you. This is a second time call, and I'm most honored to speak to you. I wanted to talk to you, we have one American firm already making what I consider to be the world's highest quality, most fuel-efficient cars and trucks. My question to you, will the Chrysler bankruptcy, specifically Obama, the Obama administration's prop up and free transfer of this company to another loser company, Fiat, helped spur a sales line of Ford Motor Company products? I was just wondering how you think Americans will respond to this overt attempt on the part of the Obama administration to prop up Chrysler.
RUSH: It's all going to depend on whether Chrysler makes cars people want to buy. It won't matter to people if Chrysler survives, however they survive. I mean people are not going to be ideological when they go in there. You might have some people that refuse to simply 'cause they're Obama people. If they make cars people want to buy, that ought to be the sole determining factor, and with the United Auto Workers pension fund owning 55%, I don't know who the car guys are at the United Auto Workers. There may be some guys in there that know how to design cars that are frustrated. You can find talent everywhere. Wherever they find it, whoever can design and build cars that people want. Problem is that Chrysler is going to be forever under the direction of Obama, and the Sierra Club is probably going to be the ones designing Chryslers, which means you're going to be buying lawn mowers and all that with a couple seats on them. It's tough. It's going to be very tough. Rod, thanks for the call.
END TRANSCRIPT
BEGIN TRANSCRIPT
RUSH: Last night, Campbell Brown, No Bias, No Bull, she's on maternity leave, has some guest host in there. But this is a portion of a report by Jessica Yellin about the new effort by the National Council for a New America to jump-start the Republican Party.
YELLIN: Only one in five Americans actually calls themselves a Republican. That's down even since last November's election. One of the problems they're facing is that the press keeps focusing on polarizing leaders like Governor Sarah Palin, Rush Limbaugh, and Newt Gingrich. Now a group of congressional Republicans is trying to turn things around with a road show. And guess who they picked as the salesman for the new Republican Party? Some not so new faces. Senator John McCain, former governors Mitt Romney and Jeb Bush, Mississippi governor Haley Barbour, and the one newcomer, Governor Bobby Jindal. Now, they plan to hold town halls and get conversation going with folks who are independents and interested Democrats.
RUSH: Now, I don't care about this. They can do what they want but Newt's not going to be happy being left out of the group. Newt will not be happy being left out. I don't know about Sarah Palin, but the headliner of this road show, the new Republican Party, is McCain? Why didn't they go get Arlen Specter? I mean, the Democrats are out there saying we need to become more like them. Pelosi is saying we need to become more like Democrats if we want to survive as a party. So get Arlen Specter to lead this road show. Carville, Situation Room, CNN. Wolf Blitzer asked him about this National Council for a New America, which is the McCain-led road show. Question, "What do you think of this new effort by the former governor of Florida, Jeb Bush, trying to rebrand the Republicans right now, come up with a new image to counter this notion that the Republicans are the party of no?"
CARVILLE: Well, you know, look, they've tried a lot of things. They've tried the Sarah Palin thing. That blew up in their face. Rush and Michael Steele, the tea bagging. That hasn't worked out very well. Yeah, I kind of got a little bit of sympathy for them. They've got to try something. They just can't sit there and take the pounding that they're taking.
RUSH: I gave the recipe yesterday. This is such a golden opportunity. They tried the Rush thing, they tried the Sarah Palin thing, they tried the tea bag. (laughing) Hey, James, we don't have any tea baggers. They're all on CNN. They are. Tea baggers are at CNN. At any rate, what is this party of no business? Damn right we're the party of no. We do say no to all of this far, extreme radical leftism. What were the Democrats the past seven years? They were no to even victory in Iraq. These guys, they're going to make a mistake if they allow Democrat criticism to shape the way they do this road show.
END TRANSCRIPT
Wasn’t it piano comic Mark Russell, way back when, who sang that Dukakis’ perfect VP would be a “woman who’s a black, hispanic Jew”?
And it was British Countryside Restoration Trust chairman and columnist Robin Page who said at a rally against the Government’s anti-hunting laws in Gloucestershire in 2002: “If you are a black vegetarian Muslim asylum-seeking one-legged lesbian lorry driver, I want the same rights as you.”
Thank you GOP_lady!
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.
