RUSH: Did any of you guys see the Marco Rubio interview with Hannity on Friday night? Marco Rubio and his wife did the full hour. They did it Friday night at nine o’clock, and the Sandusky ruling came down right in the middle of it. And the last half his wife appeared, so they reran it at midnight and throughout the weekend. He’s really good. Rubio is really good. There are a lot of people who predict great things for Rubio. He was on Meet the Depressed yesterday. David Gregory, they were talking about the Arizona immigration law, and yesterday we didn’t know what the ruling was gonna be. David Gregory said, “If the Supreme Court upholds that law, does that make you uncomfortable?”
RUBIO: What I’ve said repeatedly is I believe Arizona has a right to pass that bill. I understand why they did it, but I don’t think it’s a national model, and I don’t think other states should follow suit. For example, I don’t want to see a law like that in Florida. Immigration is not a black or white issue. It’s not a yes or no issue. It is complicated because it has a deep human element. These are human beings who find themselves here undocumented, but for the vast majority of them, they’re here in search of a better life and opportunities for their children.
RUSH: Now, Scalia, again, just to repeat, Antonin Scalia dissented from the decision today. He basically said if the state of Arizona has no control over… if securing its territory is not within the power of Arizona, we should cease referring to it as a sovereign state, I dissent. Now, he was obviously in the minority. Rubio has his own immigration reform law that he was looking to introduce that contained a provision, the DREAM Act, that Obama’s already implemented. And it’s kind of headed Rubio off at the pass for now. After that answer, David Gregory said, “What the president did, you didn’t like the way he did it. You wanted legislation, but substantively you agree with what the president did?”
RUBIO: It’s a short-term fix for a long-term problem. And, in fact, what it does is it injects election-year politics into an issue that will never be solved as long as it’s a political one. I am convinced, after a year-and-a-half here in Washington and in the Senate, that for some people — I wouldn’t say many or all, but for many, I would just say too many people, this issue is more valuable unresolved.
RUSH: That reminds me of something Wayne LaPierre said on This Week with David Brinkley. And it was This Week with David Brinkley. And it was back in the nineties during the Clinton administration. Wayne LaPierre, the National Rifle Association, said — and this is a stunning thing to say. He said that he thought the president was comfortable with a certain level of violence because it promoted the need for gun control. And Rubio is saying here that some people like this issue unresolved, just like the race-baiters like the fact that there’s never going to be a solution to racism in the country. Look at all the people who would be out of business if there were ever a day where it were proclaimed over.
That’s why affirmative action is unending. There is no end to affirmative action. When affirmative action was started, I remember — this is in the seventies. I’m talking to people, in the seventies, “Well, okay, when is enough reverse discrimination going to be said to have leveled the playing field? At what point will we have fixed and made amends for all the prior discrimination?” Never. It’s unending. It was never intended to end. Affirmative action was never intended to end. The whole concept of racism in America as an original sin, never intended to be over. And Rubio is saying this about immigration. Some don’t want it solved. It’s too valuable of an issue. Wayne LaPierre, exact quote: ” I’ve come to believe [Bill Clinton] needs a certain level of violence in this country. He’s willing to accept a certain level of killing to further his political agenda.”
The vice president, too. How else can you explain the dishonesty we get out of this administration? I could carry this forward to Fast and Furious. It’s the same thing. It’s the same thing. They wanted the violence. It’s what Wayne LaPierre was saying about Clinton. Even back in the nineties, despite what you might think, the gun control issue has… it’s like abortion. It’s never been an 80/20 issue on the split, public opinion-wise. It’s never been the case that most people wanted to get rid of the Second Amendment, for example. It’s never been the case that a majority wanted much tighter gun laws along the lines the way the left proposed them. Never been the case.
Now, the media, the Democrats, always portrayed these things as issues in which they held a vast majority of support, but they never did. See, even back in the nineties, Wayne LaPierre was accusing Clinton of wanting, needing a certain level of violence and killing in order to further the political agenda. Rubio is saying we need the immigration situation currently roiled, always roiled because it’s valuable to the Democrats, is what he was saying. It’s a way to rally Hispanic support. We ever solve immigration, if we ever get a handle on closing the border… and he’s right. The political issue is too valuable. The left doesn’t want solutions. Bureaucrats, State Department, they don’t want solutions. There’s nothing to do if they solve problems. If a problem gets solved, there’s nothing for a bureaucrat to do, to lord over.
And so Fast and Furious is the same way. You want the violence. You want those guns. And, by the way, this was done without the knowledge of the Mexican government. Fast and Furious was without the knowledge of the federal government. The Wide Receiver program of Bush was done in conjunction with the federal government, Mr. Milbank. There was no comparison. So it’s the same thing. The left, I think it’s safe to say in a pretty much blanket way, don’t want solutions. They want the issues. They want the country constantly roiled. Whatever the issue they want people arguing and fighting as a way of furthering their electoral aims. Dana Milbank, talking about Fast and Furious, said it’s not a good scandal. It’s not ideological. Media would love a good scandal. But Fast and Furious isn’t a scandal.
I don’t think the media would love a good scandal. I’d almost offer a reward to Milbank if he could explain to me what Watergate was. I mean, that’s the big scandal. If he could really tell me what it was, I’m tempted to offer a reward. Anybody in the media who could tell me exactly what it was, what was the scandal, and then let me tell ’em what Fast and Furious was and ask them to judge the two. But I checked, as I always do during the break, I checked e-mails, and I had some people, “Rush, what do you mean, the media doesn’t want a scandal? Lewinsky.” Lewinsky wasn’t a scandal.
Folks, Clinton needed a rescue party during Lewinsky, and that’s what the media was. They were the rescue party. They joined in the effort to impugn the reputation of Ken Starr, the investigator in the case. There was no scandal. Everybody lies. There was no scandal. It was just sex. There was no scandal. It didn’t affect the way he did his job. There was no scandal. As far as the media was concerned, Lewinsky was not a scandal. It was something Clinton had to be rescued from. It was something to circle the wagons around. Now, in the process, they loved the salacious details, but they were never, ever focused on having anybody pay a price for the scandal. The media fought it. Newsweek spiked the story. That’s how we got the Drudge Report. It wasn’t a scandal. There are no Democrat scandals, is the point. There are only rescue missions.