RUSH: As America's piñata, I'm getting a little tired of getting whacked by everybody out there and it's just time to respond to some of it. I don't often do it 'cause that's all I would do. Today is an exception. What we're going to do here at the beginning of this hour is we're going to go back in time. We're going to go back to our archives and we're going to listen to how Democrats tried to destroy -- with the help of CNN -- Samuel Alito. I want you to keep in mind as you listen to these sound bites that it is people like Ted Kennedy and Chuck Schumer and Howard Dean that these precious "moderates" will run to at the first sign of bluntness expressed from a Republican.
That is a sham our side is buying hook, line, and sinker. It makes no sense. But, again, the Republican Party is all out of whack. It's just messed up. It's trying to appease its critics. It's trying to make its critics happy. It's trying to make its critics like them, and, as such, it doesn't stay anything anymore. It stands for absolutely nothing. It's just totally obedient to the left. Before we get to the sound bites, I want to remind you of Janice Rogers Brown with the help of Jan LaRue from the AmericanThinker.com: If they can stomach it, Republicans should prep[are] themselves for Sotomayor's confirmation hearing by reviewing tapes or reading transcripts of Judge Janice Rogers Brown's hearing. Brown was President George W. Bush's African-American nominee to the DC Circuit Court of Appeals.
"Democrats weren't so smitten with her compelling life story that they were incapable of asking her tough questions." They bored down into her. They didn't care about her compelling life story. If they were being honest with themselves and true to what they say they believe in then they "should have championed Judge Brown's confirmation, not because of her compelling life story, but because of her record as an exemplary judge committed to the rule of law, equality for all Americans, and her limited role as a judge.
"Instead, privileged, wealthy, white Democrats attacked Brown as an 'extreme right-wing' judge who didn't care about 'civil rights' or the 'down-trodden.' They were unconstrained by accusations of racism and sexism." Janice Rogers Brown, remember, is an African-American. "When the Democrats ended their nearly two-year delay, including a filibuster of Brown's re-nomination in 2005, their attacks continued." They accused her of racism; they accused her of sexism, and it did not hurt them with the black vote, did it? "They claimed their opposition wasn't racist or sexist: Sen. Ted Kennedy (D-Mass.) ridiculed Bush nominees, including Brown, as 'Neanderthals.' He attacked Brown as 'another extreme right-wing candidate ... a judicial activist who will roll back basic rights.'
"Sen. Pat Leahy (D-Vt.) said: 'I oppose giving Justice Brown this lifetime promotion to the second highest court in our land because the American people deserve judges who will interpret the law fairly and objectively. Janice Rogers Brown is a committed judicial activist who has a consistent record of using her position as a member of the court to put her views above the law and above the interests of working men and women and families across the Nation.'" Exactly what Sonia Sotomayor is, Janice Rogers Brown is not. They were lying about her. See, for those of you who think I should shut up and other critics ought to shut up, the difference is, we tell the truth. The Democrats lie about our nominees, and you never tell them to shut up! You never tell me them to go to the back of the bus. You never tell them to go easy and stay above the fray. You never lecture them about decorum.
"Sen. Dick Durbin (D-Ill.) said: 'Janice Rogers Brown is one of President Bush's most ideological and extreme judicial nominees.' Schumer said: Judge Brown 'is the least deserving of all of President Bush's appeal court nominees.' Many political pundits apparently share Democrats' low opinion of Hispanic voters. All we've heard thus far is, 'Republicans don't dare go after Sotomayor,' or they'll lose the Hispanic voting bloc. Democrats are counting on Hispanics forgetting that it was Democrats who blocked Honduran immigrant Miguel Estrada's nomination to the DC Circuit Court of Appeals solely because they couldn't abide the prospect that President Bush might elevate the first Hispanic to the Supreme Court." They wanted to be the ones. That's why they opposed the Medicare Part B entitlement. They do entitlements, not us.
"Hispanics should be insulted by the race-baiting. They know the difference between addressing an issue and attacking a person." But attacking a person is "what Democrats do when a woman or a minority won't tow the Party line as a judge. Americans don't expect or want Republicans to behave like Democrats." That's not what we're saying. Do not confuse what I'm saying today with, "We gotta act just like the Democrats." The big difference is, we tell the truth. They make it up. They lie. I don't... We're not out to destroy Sonia Sotomayor, her life, her reputation, her character, her job, her future. Democrats try that with every one of our nominees.
As Jan LaRue writes: "A Latina woman can take it, especially a former prosecutor who grew up in the South Bronx. Besides, she's probably looking forward to the chance to prove she's smarter than white guys." Jan LaRue talking about Sotomayor. Now, did that offend you? I'll bet it offended some people. I'll bet people who thought I was saying those words myself rather than reading Jan LaRue's words -- "She just wants to prove she's smarter than the white guy -- "Ooh, Limbaugh is so racist!" You know people reacted to it that way. Yet she is the one who said she's smarter and better than white guys. To the audio sound bites. Ted Kennedy, January 9th, 2006, his opening remarks on Samuel Alito.
KENNEDY: To put it plainly, average Americans have had a hard time getting a fair shake in his courtroom. In an era when America is still too divided by race and riches, Judge Al-ee-o-toe (sic) has not written one single opinion on the merits in favor a person of color alleging race discrimination on the job.
RUSH: That's rich.
KENNEDY: In 15 years on the bench, not one. And when I look at that record in light of the 1985 job application to the Reagan Justice Department, it's even more troubling. That document lays out an ideological agenda that highlights his pride and belonging to an alumni group at Princeton, that opposed the admission of women and proposed to curb the admission of racial minorities.
RUSH: All that's made up. But Janice Rogers Brown creamed, also, for being divisive and a racist. And yet, it's really rich to listen to Senator Kennedy say that Judge Alito has not written one single opinion on the merits in favor a person of color alleging race discrimination. Yet he will no doubt support a judge who's been nominated, who has made an overtly racist statement. Chuck Schumer, January 31st, 2006, on the Senate floor, before the vote on Samuel Alito.
SCHUMER: While some may rejoice at Judge Alito's success, millions of Americans will come to know that the lasting legacy of this day will be ever more power for the president and less autonomy for the individual. While some may exult at the packing of the court with yet another reliable extreme voice in the mold of Scalia and Thomas, millions of Americans will be at risk of losing their day in court when they suffer the yoke of discrimination.
RUSH: Samuel Alito has been on the Supreme Court since 2006. Not one charge or allegation that he is unfair or discriminates has been made. "Reliable extreme voice." Now, the Democrats are allowed to speak this way when they're lying. We, on the other hand, are not supposed to tell the truth about their nominees. Here's Howard Dean suggesting Alito might be in the mafia.
DEAN: I didn't put it out but somebody did so let's... So I'll be responsible for it.
MATTHEWS: It was put out by the Democrats, but go ahead.
DEAN: All right. Um, eh, eh, eh -- the, uh, president put out a sheet this morning, Republican talking points. One of the things he said was that, uhh, was that Judge Alito was a spectacular prosecutor. Well, it turns out he wasn't quite so -- so speculator and he lost some important cases and one is which those guys all got off, 20 of them, uh, without even putting up a defense witness so at least in that particular case, uh, uh, that's an example.
RUSH: That was October 31, 2005, on Hardball I should have given you the question that Matthews asked. It's this. "Somebody in the Democrat Party putting out an attack sheet on this new justice nominee for the Supreme Court, Sam Alito, and the first attack is that he was lenient on the mob back in a 1988 case. He let the Lucchese family get off. It says he was an embarrassment to the government, and here's a guy who's been tough on crime. Why start off on that issue?" And Dean said, "I didn't put it out but somebody did... so I'll be responsible for it." Matthews says it was put out by Democrats, and then Howard Dean goes, Oh yeah, something suspicious here. How about 20 guys, 20 guys being...Howard Dean, same show, Matthews says, "What about Genovese case that years later, when he won the conviction, put three big guys away, including a top guy in New Jersey?"
DEAN: I think it's great. All I'm trying to say is, you know, this guy is not the best prosecutor since sliced bread. Look, here's the --
MATTHEWS: You don't sense a little ethnic aspect to this, the fact he's Italian-American that he nailed this?
DEAN: (scoffing) No, I don't.
MATTHEWS: The number-one issue against this guy is the mob, that he's weak on the mob? You don't see that, huh?
DEAN: No. I don't.
MATTHEWS: You don't see it? I think everybody else does.
DEAN: I'll tell you what the number-one issue is.
MATTHEWS: I see it.
RUSH: Yeah, well, I didn't hear anybody on our side saying, "Stop it. You need to be above the fray, Howard," and further more, I didn't hear any Democrats telling Howard Dean to shut up. I didn't hear any Democrats telling Chuck Schumer to stop lying about Alito. I didn't hear any Democrats or columnists telling Ted Kennedy to stop lying about Alito. They tried to destroy him. Now, listen to this: January 9th, 2006, CNN, Situation Room with Wolf Blitzer. This is Bill Schneider, and in this bite you will hear how CNN with a poll advises Democrats to turn Alito's poll numbers negative.
SCHNEIDER: They said they were "inclined to support" the Senate confirmation of Judge Alito, 49% just shy of a majority. Why are they inclined to support him? Because a majority of Americans, 52%, believe that Judge Alito's views are in the mainstream. What would it take to convince Americans that he's too extreme? People were asked, "Suppose you're convinced that after his confirmation hearings, Judge Alito would vote to overturn Roe v. Wade?" Then, in that case, a majority said that they would not support his confirmation, 56% say no -- and I just checked, in a poll just released by Washington Post and the ABC News poll, Americans said, "If Judge Alito is confirmed, do you think he would vote to overturn Roe v. Wade?" Only 18% of Americans, right now, said they think he would vote to overturn. That's a very low number. That number might change. That's what we're looking for during these confirmation hearings.
RUSH: Of course you were, Bill, because you just gave the Democrats the direction to go. Now, Roe v. Wade is a court case. These guys, nobody comments on it at the hearings. So they're going to have to go out there. He was trying to advise Democrats, "Look, this guy is going to get in there if you do something, and the way to kill him is to make everybody believe he's going to overturn Roe v. Wade." That's the role CNN played. Their media helps them destroy Republicans! We, for some reason, want to appease the Bill Schneiders of the world and make them like us and not say mean things about us. It's mystifying to me. Once again, Sotomayor is going to be confirmed.
There's no stopping it unless there's some magic thing that we don't know about that's going to disqualify her but I think that's already happened, and that is her racist and bigoted comment about her being a better judge than a white guy simply because she's a Latina. That very fact alone, that "richness" of her life because she is Latina better judge than a white guy. She sees things better, different, than a white guy. Now, you want to enshrine racism on the US Supreme Court? It's a setback for civil rights. Dr. King said, "Judge a person by the content of their character, not the color of their skin." Seems all of his proponents have forgotten his number-one goal, ambition, admonition. The point is, ladies and gentlemen, that -- Oh! Oh. One more before we go to the break. November of 1994, PBS, To the Contrary, the all-female McLaughlin Group show, syndicated columnist Julianne Malveaux discussing Clarence Thomas.
MALVEAUX: I frankly, personally, the man is on the court, you know, I hope his wife feeds him lots of eggs and butter and he dies early like many black men do of heart disease.
RUSH: And all the chicks on the show laughed. I remember. I watched it. I saw this show. It was a lost cause. It's still on the air, and you probably don't even know it. But again, I'm not saying we have to emulate this, but this is who these people are. This is what we are up against. And the way to fight this is to not shut up. We can be above the fray. We can be people who use decorum. We can be sophisticated. We can be enlightened. We have the truth on our side. We have the best interests of the country on our side. We have the best interests of every citizen on our side. We want the best for everybody, and we don't look at people based on race, sex, sex orientation, gender. And we don't group people. We don't victimize them.