Posted on 10/20/2005 3:06:59 PM PDT by Conservative Coulter Fan
BEGIN TRANSCRIPT
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 RUSH: How about Robert Novak's column? George W. Bush's "agents..." This is how he starts: President Bush's "agents have convinced conservative Republican senators heartsick over his nomination of Harriet Miers to the Supreme Court that they must support her to save his presidency. But that does not guarantee her confirmation. Ahead are hearings of unspeakable ugliness that can be prevented only if Democratic senators exercise unaccustomed restraint." You want me to translate this for you? You really want me to translate this? Let me read the next 'graph: "Will the Judiciary Committee Democrats insist on putting under oath two Texas judges who are alleged to have guaranteed during a conference call of Christian conservatives that Miers would vote to overturn Roe vs. Wade? Will the Democrats dig into Miers' alleged interference nine years ago as Texas Lottery Commission chairman intended to save then-Gov. Bush from political embarrassment? Officials charged with winning Miers' confirmation told me neither of these issues is troublesome, but in fact they suggest incompetence and neglect by the White House. To permit a conference call with scores of participants hearing close associates of the nominee predict her vote on abortion is incompetent. To nominate somebody implicated in a state lottery dispute in the past without carefully considering the consequences goes beyond incompetence to arrogant neglect. "Bush was not prepared for the negative reaction from the GOP base when he nominated White House Counsel Miers," his long-time personal lawyer. "Former Republican National Chairman Ed Gillespie, leading the confirmation campaign, over two weeks convinced skeptics that Miers is conservative enough. Whatever her qualifications, after hearing from Gillespie, dubious GOP senators decided they could not deny his chosen court nominee to a president on the ropes. Bush has solidified Republican support not because he is strong but because he looks weak," and they need to rally around him. That's Novak's theme. "Miers remains so shaky, however, that she may not be able to survive confirmation hearings that go beyond sparring over how much of her judicial philosophy she will reveal. That is why John Fund's column in Monday's Wall Street Journal chilled the president's backers. He reported a conference call with religious conservatives Oct. 3, the day the [Miers] nomination was announced. Fund wrote that Texas Supreme Court Justice Nathan Hecht and U.S. District Judge Ed Kinkeade, on the call, flatly predicted that their friend Miers would rule against Roe vs. Wade. Although the two jurists deny that, I [Robert Novak] checked with two sources on the conference call," one of them Valerie Plame. Just kidding! Ah, ah, ah, ah! Gotcha! "who confirmed Fund's version. That raises the possibility of bringing two judges under oath before the Senate committee" to grill them on what they said and what Miers told them. All right, that's the basic thrust of the Novak piece. Let me go back to this first paragraph: George W. Bush's "agents have convinced conservative Republican senators heartsick over his nomination of Harriet Miers to the Supreme Court that they must support her to save his presidency. But that does not guarantee her confirmation. Ahead are hearings of unspeakable ugliness that can be prevented only if Democratic senators exercise unaccustomed restraint." The unaccustomed restraint: Don't call Nathan Hecht; don't call anybody having to do with that conference call. Let it go. (laughs) Can you believe Democrats are going to do that? The second thing about "unspeakable ugliness," and this relates to the questionnaire that she filled out. Some of the Democrats who have read it, and, you know, there's our old buddy Specter who is out there. Any time anybody criticizes Harriet Miers our old buddy Senator Specter stands up, "You have no right. You need to leave this poor woman alone! This is not your job. I think she's a fine person." He can attack her all he wants sitting right next to Patrick Leahy at the same time -- and he did, and Leahy did. The Democrats looked at her questionnaire. I can tell. I can read their body language, folks. I mean, the Democrats are vicious. They are mean-spirited and extreme, but not even they will kick the cat around. (sigh) I mean, they said that the questionnaire was incompetent; they said that it was embarrassing. They said that it was insulting. What do they mean by this? What do they mean by "it's insulting"? What do you think it means, Mr. Snerdley, when they say it's insulting? What? (interruption) No. (sigh) What they're saying is that... What they're saying is that... (sigh) Oh, folks, I hate this! I just hate this! A-hem. Some of it's confirming my instincts on this whole dreaded thing. It's such a pity. It needn't have happened. When they say it is insulting... (sigh) Take a break. BREAK TRANSCRIPT |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| RUSH: Again, folks, the senators who have looked at her questionnaire, some of them, the kindest way to see this is they've been unimpressed, and when you go back to Novak's first paragraph here, "Democratic senators exercise unaccustomed restraint," I think what he also means here is, "Hold your fire, because it isn't necessary." In fact, I once, two weeks ago, gave some advice to the Democrats on that committee how they could best handle themselves during this upcoming hearing, and if you want me to repeat it, I will. I know it's going to upset some of you. I know this is a very tense and touchy subject for a lot of you out there because I've heard from you, but it just doesn't appear that... Let's put it this way. Her questionnaire was not impressive. Now, that would be the best way to say this. So Bush was asked about this today during his press conference with the Palestinian leader Mahmoud Abbas. Reuters reporter, Steve Holland -- that'd be Al Reuters reporter, Steve Holland -- said Senator Specter called the rollout of the Miers nomination chaotic. Is that a fair criticism? Are you satisfied with the way the nomination has been handled? Would you be willing to release any more documents about her if it would help? BREAK TRANSCRIPT RUSH: Here's what the president said in response to the question. He said, "One thing the questionnaire does show, if people look at it carefully, is Miers' judicial philosophy, and it's the main reason I picked her from the bench, if confirmed, and that means she isn't going to legislate from the bench. She will strictly interpret the Constitution. I said that when I ran for president. I said, 'If you elect me I'll name people that will have that judicial philosophy.' I've now had two chances: John Roberts and now Harriet Miers, and they share the same judicial philosophy. That's what the questionnaire says. So Harriet will answer all the questions asked but out of this will come a clear picture of a competent strong capable woman who shares the same judicial philosophy that I share." All right, now, I understand Democrats can look at this questionnaire and they can say whatever they want about it, and they can try to imply that she just doesn't have... (sigh) Oh, folks, I can't do this. You know, I'm sitting here. I'm trying as best I can to be as diplomatic and polite as I can be, but I don't know what they mean by insulting had her answers. They're pretty straightforward.  They're trying to create the impression that she's a lightweight, are they not? They're trying to create the impression that she's a lightweight, that she doesn't measure up academically and this sort of thing, and Specter is out there. He's kind of giving the impression, too, that he's not all that impressed with this -- and of course this partisan battle that's going on in Washington, you have to understand these people are going to say vicious things, mean-spirited things. Have you seen the questionnaire? I haven't spent time reading it. You agree that it's vacant, Mr. Snerdley? Nothing unusual? Snerdley, what law school did you graduate from? (laughing) Snerdley is a graduate of the Limbaugh Institute legal wing, and he says it looked good to him. Really I haven't read it. Here's the second Bush sound bite. This question from al-AP. The reporter, Terrence Hunt. "Mr. President, there are a lot of distractions for your White House, CIA leak investigation, conservative uproar, congressional criticism over the Miers nomination and even investigations of top Republican leaders in Congress. How preoccupied is the White House by these problems, and how are you dealing with them?" THE PRESIDENT: I've got a job to do. Part of my job is to work with others to passion a world that will be peaceful for future generations, and I've got a job to do to make sure this economy continues to grow. I got a job to make sure that there's a plausible reconstruction plan for the cities affected by Katrina. I got a job to make sure this hurricane headed toward Florida is -- federal response is prepared for it. So to answer your question: there's some background noise here, a lot chatter, a lot of speculation, and opining, but the American people expect me to do my job, and I'm going to. RUSH: Well, he got piled on again yesterday. Apparently the man who was the chief of staff for Colin Powell went over to something called the -- now, I want to get this right -- some new liberal think tank, and I didn't know it was a liberal think tank 'til I looked it up last night when I saw this. Darn it, I can't find it. The New American something or other. Let me get the name of this. It should be right here in the first paragraph of this story. The New America Foundation, there it is. This guy, when you read his comments (summary), "Look, Dick Cheney came and took over the whole foreign policy operation, stole it from underneath everybody. Cheney and Matalin and Rumsfeld, they turned it into a cabal and they hijacked foreign policy and that's why this country is in bad shape." Colin Powell's chief of staff made this speech. BREAK TRANSCRIPT |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| RUSH: Rita in Tucson, Arizona. Let me grab this phone call real quickly. Thank you for calling and welcome to the EIB Network, the one and only. CALLER: Rush? RUSH: Yes. CALLER: Hi, Rush. This is Rita. RUSH: Yes. CALLER: I can't believe I'm sitting here, in bed, with my husband. He's a big fan of yours. I got you on everything in my house because of him. I said, "I have to eat, sleep, and breathe Rush Limbaugh." I'm sitting here thinking, come on, Rush, who are you kidding? Spit it out what you feel about Judge Mier [sic]. This is not like you to hedge and say, "I can't do it! I can't do it!" RUSH: (stifling laughter) CALLER: Well, either you can't do it because it's what you think, or, come ooooon. You know, I can't believe you pull this on us. RUSH: It is sort of unique. CALLER: Yes. RUSH: The audience goading me into speaking. First, Rita, a question. You're in Tucson. By my calculations, that makes it about 10:30, 10:34, 10:35 out there? CALLER: It's 9:30 right now. RUSH: 9:30, sorry. So what you are still doing in bed? CALLER: Yeah, well, you know, I'm retired, live in Saddlebrook, and I'm just -- RUSH: Okay. That's a good enough answer. CALLER: Yes. I take my time. (laughing) RUSH: Well, I don't blame you. One little bit. (laughing) Plus you're a woman. CALLER: But it's a gorgeous, gorgeous day. RUSH: And I hope you get to experience the fullness of it, too. CALLER: Yes. RUSH: What I'm afraid of, Rita -- you want me to spit it out -- what Novak says here, "the unspeakable ugliness" that can be prevented, I think there's two things here. One is subpoenaing these two guys that participated in the conference call with the religious leaders and guaranteed them a vote by Harriet Miers on Roe vs. Wade. That would be pretty ugly. I think the second ugly thing that could possibly happen is (laughing). I can't say it. CALLER: Why not? I mean, ugly is what the liberals spit out. I mean, you know, I've read Ann Coulter's write-up on this, and, boy, she didn't hold back at all. I'm disappointed. I'm really disappointed. RUSH: What are you disappointed in? CALLER: Well, I'm not a legal expert at all. All you do, I tell my kids -- we've got two kids that are liberals and two kids that are Republicans, and, you know, but I kind of go with the flow. With my husband I don't have much choice, but he's got me believing in you. But the thing is, this really disappoints us all because, I mean, there's going to be a fight anyway. Why not have it a really good fight over somebody who all the --  RUSH: No, I understand that, and I have uttered the same desire and I've expressed my reasons which I really don't want to rehash here. The reason I'm holding back is because I don't know the woman and what I'm afraid of is that all this is leading up to the fact that she's not the brightest bulb in the room and it's going to be on display for the whole country to see and it's going to be embarrassing. I hope I'm wrong about that, but I think that's what some of the people who have read her résumé -- or not her résumé, her questionnaire -- are alluding to, and you have to factor in... Folks, one thing you have to factor in here is -- since it's out there; it's been put out there by two of her well-known friends and supporters -- that she is ardently pro-life and is guaranteed to vote to overturn Roe vs. Wade. I mean, you talk about jet fuel for a hurricane? That's jet fuel for liberal Democrats to gin up the typical "We can't support this nominee" and do whatever they're going to do to destroy her, and part of the destroying process, the destruction process, may be this attempt to put it out there that she's a dim bulb based on her questionnaire, which, if they succeed with that, might fire up the conservatives who are upset with this already and make them even angrier, and all of that leads to "unspeakable ugliness" because it's all going to take place in public. It could be the public embarrassment of a woman who's done nothing wrong; it could be the public humiliation of a woman who's been nominated for something that she's really not qualified to do, and if that's what everybody is talking about, it would be ugly. There's no reason to put anybody through that. There are others who say, "Nah, the questionnaire is not that bad. It's still a bunch of gamesmanship that's going on out there," but whatever. Whether it's unspeakable ugliness or something else, I'm telling you that it's going to be fireworks. These hearings are going to burn brightly. It's going to be fascinating to watch the way both sides do this, and now with these Republican senators having been approached by people from the White House saying, "You've got to support this nomination. This is the presidency we're talking about saving here, the impression," and, by the way, "Rush, do you believe that?" Well, I'm looking at some senators whose initial reaction looks like mine, and now they're turning into supporters, and they have a far more party loyalty requirement than somebody like me would have, and they would be open to such appeals. BREAK TRANSCRIPT |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| RUSH: When Ruth Bader Ginsburg went up there, she wouldn't answer the question, and I don't recall Clinton saying he was going to appoint people that supported Roe vs. Wade. Well, he used those words. He made it a litmus test? He did make it (paraphrase). "I'm never going to put somebody up there that will vote to overturn Roe vs. Wade." She got, ninety, what, two or 95 votes or something like that, the Republicans didn't oppose her; same thing with Breyer. We all know in point of fact that that's what the Democrats do. We all know they go out and find pro-choice, pro-Roe judges and nominate them and give them hand-glove treatment, kid-glove treatment during the hearings and so forth. The problem with this is that the president, George W. Bush, has said he has no litmus test. George Bush has not said the opposite of what Clinton has said. George W. Bush has said, "I've not talked about abortion with her." George W. Bush said, "I don't know what she's going to do. We didn't discuss it." Whether you believe it or not, that's what he said. Then you have these two guys convening this conference call with the religious leaders assuring them that they know that Harriet's going to vote "the right way" on Roe vs. Wade, which means that the White House has lost control of the process. If there are people out there doing private conference calls with religious leaders, contradicting what the president has said, you've got a problem, and then if those people end up being subpoenaed, one of them is the Supreme Court justice of Texas, state Supreme Court justice, Nathan Hecht. If these guys end up being subpoenaed up there, all hell is going to break loose, and that's the "unspeakable ugliness" that Novak is talking about. (generic blow-hard senator impression) "How do you know she's going to vote for Roe vs. Wade? How do you know? She told you about personal beliefs, or is it a matter of law?" All kinds of hell would break out over this. It might be fun to watch, and it might actually tip the balance here. It might, in its own way, serve to have this little debate that some of us want to have, but when the Republican side officially is saying, "Look, we've got in litmus test here. We're originalists. We're looking for original intent. We're looking for constitutionalists: and then to go out and pitch the nominee to religious leaders on the basis of one issue? It doesn't seem to be that there's any coordination going on here. I don't think it's a matter that, you know, we can't do it and the Democrats can. But I will tell you this. I do think, Snerdley, I do think you have a point, because I, frankly, am getting worn out with a lot of people on our side afraid to be public about what they believe. If they're against abortion, then say it! If they think Roe vs. Wade is bad law, then say it! Let us know where you stand on this! I don't know why it is not said. I don't know why it is. It's sort of one of the things that angers me about this: why it is we have to keep acting stealth, why it is we cannot act like we're leading a movement, why it is we have to pretend that we're not conservative -- and I'm not talking about me -- why it is we have to pretend that we've gotta bring the left into our camp to get them to go along with us before we can get anywhere. It all offends me. We're winning elections. We're the ones out there creating majorities on the basis of what we believe. Then after we win these elections, we sort of power down and start acting like, "Well, you know, we just had to say that to get our votes, but don't think I'm one of those crazed right-wingers. I'm actually a mainstream, moderate-thinking kind of person." Well, the hell with that! The idea there's something to be ashamed of here, even on abortion, is infuriating, and so if that's what she happens -- why should it disqualify her if she is pro-life? Why should that be an automatic DQ, folks? The only reason it's an automatic DQ is we're still letting the left define terms here, letting the mainstream press define terms. Why don't we turn it around saying, "Pro-life is the default position for a reasonable person," or at least it's a position that does not have to be explained? You don't have to be sent to an insane asylum in a little white coat before you can start answering why you're for it. So in that sense it is a bit frustrating. The only thing about this that is frustrating to me is the White House saying something totally opposite what was going on in this conference call -- and if I know the Democrats they're not going to do what Novak suggests and play this close to the vest. They're going to try to blow this up to smithereens and it may result in the debate we want, at least over one thing. END TRANSCRIPT |
|
*sigh*. Good God, Harriet-- do the right thing and back out of the nomination. Your country will thank you.
Then nominate someone worth going to the mat for.
He provides no sourcing for this claim, and to my ears, it sounds like paranoia coming from someone who realizes he jumped the shark. Unless a Senator admits this happened, it's hearsay.
Exactly...Bush needed to look no further than the Federalist Society.
The drama queen screeches on FR are going to break glasses the day Ms. Miers is confirmed.
I agree. This sounds like something that would come from Clinton's White House, not W's.
Uh Leonard Leo of the Federalist Society has endorsed Ms. Miers.
Wishful thinking, and nothing more, IMHO.
The media is having a field day lately with making up the news.
Touche'
Novak Predicts "Unspeakable Ugliness"
What does Helen Thomas have to do with this?
Appointing the personal counsel to a President is a very messy affair, because his lawyer will have been involved in every messy controversy the President was involved in during their entire attorney-client relationship. It's a field day for them.
Wishful thinking, and nothing more, IMHO.
Senate Whip McConnell said he was certain of 55 votes for Miers the first weekend on the Sunday screaming headshow.
No R Senators were ever in danger of defecting.
Yes, and Robert Bork has called it a disaster.
GW Bush pays attention to none of this stuff. It is actually hilarious to think he reads any of these columns. The man took all the heat and pressure of going to the UN about 6 times pre-Iraq, didn't get what he wanted to hear, and pulled the trigger anyway.
Talk about misunderestimating . . . if the FR extremists think GW Bush is wishy washy, they have been living in a different world for 5 years now. OTOH, that may be largely true and they have. But . . . that won't change what is going to happen.
This president is a brick wall.
It's quite ironic that Bork is lining up with someone who "borked" him. Arlen Specter.
lol
"IT ALL OFFENDS ME"
Ditto that Rush...I'm offended as well.
I feel the same way you do, but rather than descend into apathy...revolt! There are plenty of alternatives.
We should beliee Robert Bork...who got borked cause he couldn't keep his own trap shut?
Robert Bork isn't "borking" and Arlen Specter hasn't come out in opposition. Last I heard, Arlen Specter said that Harriet Miers told him Griswald v. Connecticut was "rightly decided" and of course it doesn't take Robert Bork to know that's the legal underpinning of Roe v. Wade with the so-called "right to privacy."
Uh yes Bork is borking, oh and BTW, specter was corrected of what Ms. Miers said, by the conservative former Senator Coates.
Amazing how specter has become your and Bork's instant ally.
Just checking for the obligatory Helen Thomas photo.
Just as some of us predicted. When the rubber meets the road, Rush will support Miers. He ALWAYS backs Bush during the crunch and this will be no exception. More proof that Rush's claim to "independence" is much ado about nothing.
I rarely listen to Limbaugh but he seems to have the same reaction I did, to the use of the word "insulting," by a member of the Judiciary Committee.
In a word, it's ominous.
Much ado 'bout diddly.
Sounds like you're much more afraid of the Democrats than Bush is. I was against Miers at first, but the more panicky posts I read here about possible Democrat attacks on Miers, the more I'm beginning to admire both her's and Bush's courage and conviction. I don't think the President is prone to panic attacks about liberal attacks, like some FReepers seem to be.
As for Spector, maybe he can find an illuminating section of Scottish law to determine how this nomination will proceed.
They are simply delusional, as always. Bush has more steel in his spine than 99 of these little midget terrier ankle nippers put together. Notice how everyone is losing their mind, getting shrill and hysterical... that is everyone but George W. Bush!!!
There. I fixed that for you.
Do some research. Leo is on the White House payroll. The rest of the Federalist Society is nearly unanimously opposed.
IMO, it started when the USSR fell, leaving the USA as the lone superpower. With no common competitive enemy, we began to devour each other instead.
L
He does not watch a lot of TV, he has a paid staff for that, and paper and magazine readers too. A local politico has a kid assigned to do a lot of FOX NEWS watching, he refused to watch CNN.
The man took all the heat and pressure of going to the UN about 6 times pre-Iraq, didn't get what he wanted to hear, and pulled the trigger anyway
Thank goodness for that.
Talk about misunderestimating . . . if the FR extremists think GW Bush is wishy washy, they have been living in a different world for 5 years now. OTOH, that may be largely true and they have. But . . . that won't change what is going to happen.
I have to agree
This president is a brick wall.
Again, thank goodness.
This is pure BS!
I will give up 1 three year 'lame-duck' Presidency, for 1 rock-solid conservative SCOTUS seat anytime, anyway, anywhere. PERIOD!
What a stupid statement. So let me get this straight...you are suggesting that because Bork was honest and forthright during his nomination hearings (and shot down because of it), we shouldn't trust what he has to say? You would rather believe somebody that is evasive and weasely in their responses to questions?
Let's get real
This is the first time Miers has filled out a questionnaire for a judicial position.
Roberts had already filled out such questionnaires by the time he was the nominee for CJ of the Supreme Court.
It's highly likely that Roberts was able to transfer many of his answers from previous questionnaires onto his most recent questionnaire.
I'd worry if Harriet Miers's questionnaire was too detailed or glib. That would show she was planning, a long time ago, on being nominated.
And that's just the nominee.
(Yes I know, totally inappropriate, but sometimes I just can't help myself!)
You need to read "Treason" by Ann Coulter. She will thoroughly disabuse you of the notion that the Democrats were on our side through the Cold War.
The USSR began to fall in 1987. In December 1991, the fall was completed. The disintegration of "comity" in USA politics followed closely.
The poster I was responding to said it started in 1992 when Clinton came in.
In point of fact, though, politics has alweays been nasty, going back into the early 1800s and late 1700s.
There. I fixed that for you.
Do some research. Leo is on the White House payroll. The rest of the Federalist Society is nearly unanimously opposed.
That's gonna leave a mark...lol.
A curious comment given your tagline...
VictoryGal (Never give up, never surrender!)
I say we shouldn't trust what he has to say because he wasn't smart enough to get the votes.
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.