Let’s See Liberals Choke on Defeat

RUSH: Eric in Nebraska City, you’re next on the EIB Network. Hello.
CALLER: Hi, Rush, how you doing?
RUSH: Fine, sir. Never better. Thank you.
CALLER: Great. Hey, didn’t we just teach the liberals on the proper way of dissent?
RUSH: Uhhh, they’re not teachable. But what do you think we showed them?
CALLER: Well, we exercised our constitutional right to free speech, told our senators, told the president that we didn’t like this nominee, and guess what happened?
RUSH: Well, you can look at it that way. The lesson that I want to teach the left is defeat. You know, I don’t care if they learn how to dissent or not. I don’t think they’re ever going to. They’re not going to change the way they dissent. They’re going to try to still blow up buildings and shut down progress and, you know, tear things up and so forth because they can’t win like we do going to the people. They’ve proven it, folks. Don’t you understand? Cindy Sheehan bombed out. Bill Burkett bombed out. George Bush is still in the White House. You understand what their whole purpose has been since 2001? It has been to get rid of George W. Bush, and everything they’ve tried — everything they’ve tried — has failed. Now this CIA leak, and I’m going to tell you again I have this dreaded fear that this whole CIA thing is actually a coup hatched by the CIA to take Bush out at worst, and at best to discredit the whole policy of the war on terror and the war on Iraq. I really do. I think that if you look at it carefully, you’ll find that why was Joe Wilson sent over there and how did that happen, who was he, and what was the purpose? And you look at all the lying and misstatements he had coming back. Now we’ve got all these indictments coming down, politicizing a policy dispute? I mean, Rove and Libby had every right to try to discredit Joe Wilson.
He’s out there trying to destroy the presidency. What the hell are they supposed to, sit around? Is he infallible? Whatever Joe Wilson says, you’ve got to bend over grab the ankles and take it? Sorry. Now we’re gonna criminalize this if indeed that’s what happens? The left has been — this is what they’ve been shooting for ever since Bush was inaugurated, folks, and they have failed. They’ve failed at doing it. Now they’re going back to their tried-and-true method, and that’s using the legal system. Same as they’ve done with DeLay, same as they did with Nixon, same as they’re trying — they tried it constantly, and this is the one fallback that they have. They fail when they try to change the minds and hearts of the American people. So what I want to teach the left is defeat. I want them to taste it. I want them to choke on it. I want them to throw up defeat. I want them to get so stuffed on defeat that they need Pepto-Bismol to deal with it — and then I want them in the bathroom 24/7 getting rid of defeat. I want them tasting it so much that they don’t want any more part of it ever again. I want to just flood the zone with defeat. That’s what I want to teach them. I couldn’t care less how they dissent. David in Oklahoma City, welcome to the program. Nice to have you with us.

CALLER: Hello, Rush. It’s a pleasure speaking with you today. I want to give you a father of ten conservative Christian dittos.
RUSH: Thank you, sir.
CALLER: I think this is a home run, not just for conservatives, for Christian conservatives as well. I think we’re going to start seeing conservative ideals and principles continue to win the day and to win the argument, just like the other day with Tom Coburn and his proposing of the spending cuts and more reasonable spending. I think we’re going to start seeing these ideas like the flat tax and the spending cuts and responsibility in government come to the forefront again.
RUSH: All right! I like this. I like this. Now some of you are saying, “Oh, come on! Get real out there, David.” Unn-uh. I like this optimism. This is the exact kind of thinking that we need. This is the energy that we need to propel this kind of thing, and you can’t do it when you’re not unified, and when the Miers nomination came along and caused this little split, exactly as I said was going to happen: “Conservatives started debating things, advancing principles,” and look what happens! Today: unification, energy, optimism, bring it on. It’s exactly what I knew was going to happen.
BREAK TRANSCRIPT
RUSH: Dave in New York City, hello, sir. Welcome to the EIB Network.
CALLER: Hi, Rush, how are you?
RUSH: Good, thank you.
CALLER: Good, question for you. I wonder if there’s a lesson that we’ve learned here in terms of nominating someone who’s not a judge. As you recall, Chief Justice Rehnquist said it was valuable to have experience outside the judiciary.
RUSH: Yeah.
CALLER: But is it a wild card like someone without a track record and will that foul up the nomination process?
RUSH: Well, you know, I think this whole business of nominating a non-judge, the most recent utterance of this brilliant philosophy came from Dingy Harry. Harry Reid told President Bush, “I think it’s time for a non-judge. We need to get rid of these judges.” Let me say at the outset: I’ve got nothing against non-judges and their qualifications, but I think in this case, going to the non-judge is a setup and it is a misdirection trap play, because we are at a stage here… This battle for regaining control of the court, stocking it with originalists, has been waged for 40 years, and really intensely in the last 25 or 30 — and we’ve gone out; we’ve won elections and we’ve educated people, and that’s why we’ve won elections, and here we are. We’ve got a Republican president, Republican Senate (and a Republican House although that’s irrelevant for these nominations, the confirmation process). So we have a Republican Senate, Republican president. This is not time to play games. We have got judges, appellate judges and circuit judges whose opinions are widely known. They have been written. They have ruled. These people have been practicing the law as lawyers and judges. They have written opinions. There’s no question who they are. The stakes at this point are pretty important. It’s not necessary to go out and blaze a new trail of a non-judge right now, if you don’t know what the philosophy of that non-judge is. It’s all about knowing somebody’s philosophy — and not only that, because we’ve been stung on that.
After you know somebody’s philosophy, how long have they stuck with it, and how many attacks have they endured, and how many attempts for them to moderate and change have been made, and yet they have stood tall and they’ve took the slings and the arrows and they’ve blood, and yet they’ve hung tough? I think at this point there’s no reason to play games. There’s no reason to try to be too smart by half. There’s a great qualified list of people out there who fit the criteria for exactly what is called for now — as we, the majority, see it. We won the election. It’s our progressive to do this. Well, the president’s progressive. He won the election, but his supporters are the ones that cast the ballots, and so I think here that you’ve got any number of candidates. Look at any of these judges that withstood the filibuster. Bill Pryor, Janice Rogers Brown, Priscilla Owen. I’ll guarantee you this: Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Stephen Breyer are not going to get hold of those people and change their minds, and Michael Luttig is not going to have his mind changed once he gets to the Supreme Court when the libs on the Supreme Court try to gang up on him, and these people are not going to have their minds changed and their core philosophy changed because of what the Washington Post or New York Times editorial page might say — and they’re certainly not going to have their opinions watered down because they’re not invited to the right cocktail parties. I mean, this is fundamental, folks.

There’s a reason why you look to somebody’s past and their work output to determine what their philosophy is and how rock-solid it is, and this pick and the one after it, are crucial. I don’t care whether you’re a conservative Christian and care only about abortion or whether you’re just a mainstream population member, you’re worried about the Kelo decision or whatever. The judicial philosophy of the nominee has to be known; it has to be understood and it has to have been tested, and there are so many people that are qualified based on all that, that it would be silly to look elsewhere just to say, “Hey, you know what? We need to shake up the court. Uh, we need a non-judge.” Now, I realize what you’re saying here: Is it wise to pick a non-judge given what we’ve learned. In this case, no. It’s not wise to pick a non-judge in this case. Let the libs put the non-judge next time they win the presidency, after we’ve already got control of the court. Let them go out and experiment. Let them play around. Let them do what they’re telling us to do. Dingy Harry, next time you win the White House, you go pick the non-judge. You know, keep your ideas to yourself. We don’t believe that you have the slightest desire to help us out. When Dingy Harry or these Democrats go up and talk to the president and give him their ideas, not one person on my side of the aisle believes they’re trying to be helpful. Go ahead and have them up there if you want and go ahead and listen to what they say, but when they leave laugh at them at they’re on the way out, but don’t listen to what they say, because it’s just like when I hear all these journalists or liberals talk about, “Oh, I’m so worried about the conservative movement! What is it doing?” They’re not worried. They’d be happy for us to implode. They’d be happy if we didn’t exist just like we’d be happy if they didn’t, as a major political force. This idea that people, you know, “I really want to help the president. I want to help him do the right thing.” BS! These people want to do one thing, and that is destroy this president — and perhaps now he’ll stop helping them. Who’s next on this show? Peter in Long Island. Glad to have you with us. Hello.
CALLER: Hey. Mega dittos from Long Island, Rush.
RUSH: Thank you, sir.
CALLER: Hey listened, the best way for the Democrats to taste defeat is to let the indictments come, whether it’s Scooter Libby, Karl Rove, what have you, but stand by them and say, “This is all Joe Wilson’s doing; this is all the CIA’s doing, and I’m not going to let them resign,” and then watch the Democrats fall into a complete meltdown.
RUSH: That would be cool, except the president’s already pretty much laid the groundwork that they’ll have to quit.
CALLER: He can say he changed his mind.
RUSH: The same thing is going to happen. Let me tell you what’s going to happen. Short of the president keeping them on board and saying, “Okay, try this, Democrats,” what’s going to happen is if those two guys are indicted. If you think you have seen conservative anger at the American left to date, you don’t know what anger is. There will be hell to pay on this, because the American people are not going to sit by and watch the Democrats try to take out another administration on something as baseless and phony as this is, and it’s going to be well documented how baseless and phony this whole thing is. This ain’t Watergate anymore where Dan Rather and Walter Cronkite and whoever else, can define the news every day and that be the end of it. It ain’t those days anymore, so if they’re indicted, the president may have to get rid of them, but it’s not going to be easy for those who want to get rid of Rove and Libby or the president. Mark my words.
END TRANSCRIPT

Rush Limbaugh’s Wall Street Journal Op-Ed…
*Note: Links to content outside RushLimbaugh.com usually become inactive over time.
<a target=new href=”/home/eibessential/rush_op_eds/a_crackdown_over_miers.member.html#0001″>(A Crackdown Over Miers, Not a “Crackup”)</a>
<*ICON*> <font color=”CC0000″><b>Rush’s Supreme Court Stack of Stuff …</b></font>
<a target=new href=”//home/eibessential/judicial_activism.member.html”>(The Battle for the Judiciary)</a>
<B>Joe Wilson’s Uranium-Not?Sought-in-Africa Lie…</B>
(Joe Wilson’s Stack of Lies)