RUSH: This is Neil in Evansville, Indiana. Nice to have you on the program.
CALLER: Rush, great to talk to you. Mega dittos.
RUSH: Thank you.
CALLER: I’d just like to say, I think it’s pretty poor that the media has gone to Alito’s mother and tried to basically take advantage of her and kind of pump her for information. It kind of reminds me of when they were trying to dig up information on Roberts’ adopted children, and I think it’s just pretty disgusting the levels they reach to to try to gain information, when they don’t really have any credible evidence.
RUSH: That’s true. But, see, let ’em keep doing it. Your reaction is the same that every dignified, sensible person in the country is having. You know, sure, they tried to prove in Roberts’ case, they tried to establish doubt about his adoption procedure, because his two adopted kids are from, where, South America somewhere? Why are they so white, the media wondered. And they wanted to get to his adoption records to find out how, because everybody wants to adopt white kids and he went down there where people are dark-skinned and he got white kids. How did he do that? They wanted to drum up some kind of controversy. Of course, we’re never supposed to even touch on Chelsea Clinton. “Leave her alone! Her parents are doing a fabulous job of raising her away from the spotlight. Leave her alone. We’re not supposed to talking about Hillary Clinton’s mom.” You’re never supposed to go bother her. Dorothy or whatever her name was, we’re not supposed to do any of that. Oh, no, no, no, but we can go get Alito’s mom. What does she say? “Of course he’s opposed to abortion.” What is she going to say? She’s 90 years old; she’s honest. Perhaps this was the greatest one. Connie Chung, we have audio here from my television show back in 1995. Connie had a segment or a show called Eye-to-Eye with Connie Chung. Remember she went out and talked to Newt’s mom. Remember this?
MOTHER GINGRICH: And I can’t tell you what he said about Hillary.
CHUNG: You can’t?
MOTHER GINGRICH: I can’t.
CHUNG: Why don’t you just whisper it to me, just between you and me.
MOTHER GINGRICH: She’s a bitch. That’s the only thing he ever said about her. I think they had a town meeting and, you know, she takes over.
CHUNG: She does?
MOTHER GINGRICH: Oh, yeah. Yeah. But with (unintelligible) there, she can’t.
RUSH: “She’s a bitch.” Everybody was denying it, and we pointed this out. But how about this, how about Connie Chung? You got cameras; you got lights, everything. “Come on, just whisper it. Just between you and me.” It’s a common practice. I mean, this is in the Democrats playbook as well, and look it, folks, it says far more about who they are than whatever they supposedly learn from these invasive interviews. Yesterday on CNN, Wolf Blitzer, the Situation Room, Ted Kennedy the guest, the Wolfster says, “You put out a statement expressing your disappointment in Judge Alito. Does that mean automatically you’re going to vote against him?”
THE SWIMMER: No, it doesn’t, but it means that we’re going to have a full and complete and a fair hearing. My concern is that this nomination was more out of weakness rather than strength. We know that it was sort of the extreme right wing of the president’s own party that sank the previous nominee.
RUSH: Where have I heard that before, this is a nomination of weakness? I think Senator Kennedy stole that from me, ladies and gentlemen, that was my reaction to the nomination of Harriet Miers. Now, listen to how wrong the liberals continue to get it. Last night on The NewsHour with Jim Lehrer on PBS, he was talking to Mark “Maxi” Shields, who hasn’t been on TV much since CNN canceled him. “Capitol Gang” was the name of that show, and Jim Lehrer says, “Mark, how do you read this? This is being couched today as the conservatives are saying it’s more to it than that, but others are saying it’s a simple case of conservatives saying, ‘Hey, if Roe vs. Wade comes before the court and Alito is on the court he’ll vote to overrule it.'”
MAXI SHIELDS: I think that’s absolutely true, Jim. I think with both sides — they couldn’t say that with Harriet Miers — but with both sides what you have is the equivalent in popular conversation of saying it’s not the money, it’s the principle. It’s the money. They say it’s not a litmus test. It’s a litmus test. It’s a litmus test on both sides. It’s a litmus test for the liberals and it’s a litmus test for the conservatives.
RUSH: Yeah, but, notice how he just so casually swats away this notion there might be some principle involved here. Here’s a guy with a 15-year judicial record. Senator Kennedy voted for him twice, by the way. He has to have voted for him twice because Alito got a hundred votes both times, one of those times the Democrats ran the Senate by a 12-vote majority, 56-44. So you now got Shields here talking, ah, it’s about abortion, that’s all it’s about. That could have been true about Harriet Miers. But it is not true in this case. This is a nomination about the future direction of the court and the Constitution, and abortion is one small part of that, no question about it. But to the left, it is all about abortion, pure and simple, because if they get somebody who will uphold Roe vs. Wade, they are confident they’ll get somebody who will continue to legislate from the bench. Lehrer then follows it up, says, “So where does that leave the Democrats on this, Mark?”
MAXI SHIELDS: The Democrats who — strategy was to rope-a-dope, go mute when Harriet Miers was there, now realize they have to come out swinging, and so they came out today and realized that the only way they’re going to raise any questions about this man is on substance.
RUSH: And they don’t dare go there. They don’t dare go into substance. The Democrats don’t go to substance. They can’t afford to go to substance. They lose on it every time. All they can do, let me tell you what they’re doing right now. They’re holding their fire. Their research teams are working on this guy — and, by the way, Schumer and these guys say, “We need long time. We can’t get this done before Christmas. We need not rush to judgment. Why, we need time; lifetime appointments to the Supreme Court, why, we need to take our time,” blah, blah, blah. Well, the fact is they’ve got briefing books already prepared on this guy because his name has been on the list for how many months now? They know everything there is to know about this guy and what they do know is there’s not enough to oppose him on substance. So what they’re doing, one of the reasons they want the delay, is they don’t want to give up their post-Thanksgiving recess, and the second reason is, they’re hoping against hope that there’s something out there, that this guy had sex with an insect or something out there, something out there that they can find that will disqualify him. They want to take all the time necessary to dig up something or to fabricate a charge. Remember, when the Democrats and Supreme Court nominations are concerned — you can ask Clarence Thomas — it’s not the “nature of the evidence” that is important; it’s “the seriousness of the charge.” They have no desire whatsoever to get anywhere near substance on this. Here is Beverly in Cincinnati. Hi. You’re nice to call. Welcome to the program.
CALLER: Hi, Rush. I just love you so much. You are my best friend.
RUSH: Thank you so much. I appreciate that.
CALLER: And I wanted to let you know about the DeWine about-face. Do you remember last August when we had the election to get Jeannie Schmidt in for Rob Portman?
CALLER: The guy that ran across from her, that Paul Hackett —
RUSH: Oh, ho-ho-ho-ho. We remember Paul Hackett and he knows us.
CALLER: The bottom-feeder. I heard last week on the local news here that he’s thinking challenging DeWine for his seat, and I think that could have been a giant dope-slap for DeWine. A lot of his conservative base would not vote for Hackett but just possibly not vote at all, because if you look, Hackett did not win [sic–lose] by that much.
RUSH: Hackett did not — but Hackett lost.
CALLER: Oh, that’s right, I’m sorry.
CALLER: He didn’t lose by that much.
RUSH: Well, but there’s a reason for that. He ran in a Republican district. This Hackett guy — and he can say whatever he wants to say about me. I can take it. I’m a public figure. I’ve been a public figure a long time. Words don’t bother me a bit. He can say whatever he wants. The fact of the matter is this guy ran two campaigns. When he was outside the district raising money, he was the biggest anti-war dove kook you had ever met. When he was in the district campaigning and running commercials, he ran as the best friend George Bush ever had. The Democrats tried to put another anti-war activist in a military uniform and have him run and get elected. You’d thought they’d learn a lesson after trying with Kerry. He ran commercials that aligned himself with Bush, and the people in Ohio that weren’t paying attention to this district easily could have gotten the impression that Hackett was a Republican — and the Democrats said, “This sent a message nationwide. We can win back the House!” No, it didn’t, because you had to run as a Republican to even get as close as you did with Hackett. Had Hackett run in that district as the Democrat liberal he is, it would have been a slam-dunk, landslide defeat, fini, over with.