This hour of the Limbaugh Wire brought to you by the “un-American” Waxman-Markey bill
By Simon Maloy

There was something Rush brought up on Friday that -- given the markedly inflexible time constraints of the Limbaugh Wire -- we weren't able to delve into, but we've gone back and done the requisite snooping and want to address it now, since it will probably come up again. Specifically, Rush echoed the Competitive Enterprise Institute's claim that internal emails from the Environmental Protection Agency show that the agency “put under wraps and concealed” an “internal critique” of the EPA's endangerment finding on carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases. CEI is saying that the Obama administration subordinated science to politics -- a serious charge on its own, but particularly so given that President Obama said of this specific issue that "[r]igid ideology has overruled sound science." Well, as you might expect, the details show that there's a whole lot less to this than Rush and CEI would have you believe.

To begin with, the author of the “internal critique” is an economist, not a climate scientist, whose research was submitted for inclusion in the endangerment report and, according to the EPA, “reviewed by his peers and agency scientists, and information from that report was submitted by his manager to those responsible for developing the proposed endangerment finding.” Why was it rejected? Well, we're not climate scientists either, but Gavin Schmidt of the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies is, and he has an idea why it got the axe: “So in summary, what we have is a ragbag collection of un-peer reviewed web pages, an unhealthy dose of sunstroke, a dash of astrology and more cherries than you can poke a cocktail stick at. Seriously, if that's the best they can do, the EPA's ruling is on pretty safe ground.” In short, the research appears not to have passed scientific muster, but it is politically appealing to the right, so they're raising a stink over it. Therefore, we're left in the amusing situation where a political document that was likely rejected for scientific reasons is alleged to have been suppressed for political reasons and without regard to science.

Speaking of climate change, Rush got things rolling today by noting that Bernie Madoff was sentenced to 150 years in prison this morning, adding: “While Bernie Madoff gets 150 years, Waxman and Markey weren't even cited in their scheme, their rip-off, this climate bill is even -- do you realize there was not even a bill?” This gets back to Rush's astute observation from last week that Waxman-Markey should really be called the Waxman-Markey-Madoff bill because it is a “con game.” Then Rush explained for us why several of the Republican congressmen who voted for its passage were from New Jersey -- this thing is called cap and trade, said Rush, but where do trades take place? Would anyone be surprised, he asked, if Goldman Sachs and Wall Street did the trading? These New Jersey Republicans are tied to New York and Wall Street, said Rush, that's why they voted for it. The irony here, said Rush, is that this climate bill is actually a “sop to Wall Street.” Rush said he was therefore conflicted, because he's a huge capitalist, but something seems rigged here in this “awful” bill.

After a quick attack on the media for their coverage of Michael Jackson's death, Rush said: “Get this. Yeah, we'll get to Sotomayor in a minute, the court found that she was indeed a racist, but there's -- there are things about this that -- well, they did.” Rush later clarified that this wasn't actually the finding of the court, but rather his analysis of its ruling. But he remained adamant in his refusal to stay focused on a single topic, switching quickly to the appointment of Lynn Rosenthal as White House adviser on violence against women. Rush asked why the White House needed an adviser on this -- to say it's justified in some cases? Rush said the real reason for this apparently useless adviser is to establish more executive power.

Zigging once again, Rush moved on to the “chickification of news,” noting that Time reported on research that “shows that within a few short years of getting hitched, married individuals are twice as likely to become obese as are people who are merely dating.” The latest from “the chicks in the state-run media,” said Rush, is that Gov. Mark Sanford of South Carolina apparently loved his mistress, so he's not that bad for cheating on his wife.

After the break, Rush said that Justice Samuel Alito, in the Ricci opinion, wrote on Sotomayor's “failure of impartiality.” This gets to the whole point of Sotomayor, said Rush -- we don't need justices with “empathy.” And in the dissent, Rush said, Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg wrote that the firefighters' situation was unfortunate and they earned the court's “sympathy.” “Sympathy” is not what people who go before courts want, said Rush -- they want access to the law and justice. What happened here is that the majority decided this strictly on statutory grounds, and since it could be decided by statute, they didn't have to delve into constitutional issues.

Another break and Rush was back crowing that Obama is at zero today in Rasmussen's presidential approval index. If you look at the table we linked to, Obama's actually at +1 today. Anyway, Rush wanted to play for us a montage of media types circling the wagons around Sotomayor, but, first, he wanted us to “remember” a few things: “Sonia Sotomayor was following her basic instincts. She is racist, in her own words. ... She ruled on the basis of just the -- you know, a racist belief that minorities should always be found in favor of simply because they're minorities, pure and simple, regardless the merits of any particular case. That's who Obama's nominated.” Rush then said she didn't actually get four justices to agree with her. If you get into the dissent by Justice Ginsburg, said Rush, what she said is that it was a mistake for the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals to grant summary judgment. So, Rush said, you might say this was a 5-4 decision, but it was really a “slam dunk.”

Then Rush noted that Dan Rather was on MSNBC this morning saying that Sotomayor could become an aggressive and outspoken counterpart to Justice Antonin Scalia. Rush responded: “Now that's just hilarious. I mean, if you're Dan Rather, you might want to sit there and, you know, try to curry favor with women by talking about this Sotomayor, some sort of intellectual giant. But let me just tell you, folks, in a contest of intellects between Sotomayor and Scalia, they would cancel the game before it began, or they'd have to spot her 50 or 75 IQ points.”

Rush's first caller of the afternoon said that with regard to the Sanford case, it's not OK for Sanford to cheat even if he loved the other woman. Rush said the women in the state-run media are reporting all these absurd things about Sanford, and he guessed that the caller doesn't have a future in the media because she's being awfully cold in comparison to the “chicks” in the media. Rush's next caller wanted to talk about the Time article on obese married couples. Rush said that even though there's so much news going on, he knew that his simple mention of the “chickification” of the news would dominate the calls today. It's amazing how often that prediction comes true when you have complete control over which callers you want to talk to. Anyway, Rush said the whole point of that story is that the husbands make the wives fat. Rush said he has a friend who got married, then ballooned up, but that the wife didn't care because she knew he'd be less attractive to other women.

One more break and Rush was back saying that with all this Sotomayor news, he was reminded of when she said that her test scores before she got into law school were not as good as her colleagues because the tests were culturally biased. Rush said she's a “racist at heart,” and “it is what it is.”

Then Rush named the eight “traitorous” Republicans who voted for cap and trade. Rush's next comments still puzzle us. There was no bill to vote on, said Rush, and this is an outrage because there's a requirement that the bill be in the well of the House before it's voted on, but it wasn't there because it wasn't even written. Perhaps we're not as up on our right-wing smears as we should be, but it's also equally as likely that Rush is just talking nonsense. If the bill ever goes into effect, said Rush, it will be a disaster, and the irony is that this climate bill is actually a “big bone to business.” There were 30 Dems who voted no, and these Republicans made this happen. This is such a travesty, said Rush, adding: “I think anybody who voted for this thing has -- should -- you want to talk about Sanford violating an oath and a trust? This is such a travesty. This whole bill, this nonexistent bill, is so un-American. Everybody who voted for it, from Pelosi on down, needs to be jacked out of there in the next election. That's how bad this is.”

Closing out the hour, Rush aired audio of NBC's Andrea Mitchell saying that the bill was a tribute to Pelosi. Rush opined: “That's what it's all about. It's a tribute to Pelosi, a tribute to a bunch of leftists, extreme leftist radicals -- from Obama, to Pelosi, to Rahm Emanuel, to whoever the hell else. ... So somebody wanted to go on the record as being all for this in the House, but it's just an abomination. This is one of the most outrageous things an elective body in a representative republic, a free country, has ever come up with.”

Greg Lewis and Zachary Pleat contributed to this edition of the Limbaugh Wire.

Highlights from Hour 1

Outrageous comments

LIMBAUGH: While Bernie Madoff gets 150 years, Waxman and Markey weren't even cited in their scheme, their rip-off, this climate bill is even -- do you realize there was not even a bill?

[...]

LIMBAUGH: Get this. Yeah, we'll get to Sotomayor in a minute, the court found that she was indeed a racist, but there's -- there are things about this that -- well, they did.

[...]

LIMBAUGH: And the reason for this is -- I go back to what I said at the beginning, and I stand by this: Sonia Sotomayor was following her basic instincts. She is racist, in her own words. Remember, she's out there and said a number of times that a Latina woman would bring a much richer and diverse experience to the court than a white male would. That's racist, pure and simple.

And she had sympathy -- and so did the dissenting opinion in the Supreme Court -- sympathy for the white firefighters, but that sympathy wasn't enough. She ruled on the basis of just the -- you know, a racist belief that minorities should always be found in favor of simply because they're minorities, pure and simple, regardless the merits of any particular case. That's who Obama's nominated.

[...]

LIMBAUGH: Now that's just hilarious. I mean, if you're Dan Rather, you might want to sit there and, you know, try to curry favor with women by talking about this Sotomayor, some sort of intellectual giant. But let me just tell you, folks, in a contest of intellects between Sotomayor and Scalia, they would cancel the game before it began, or they'd have to spot her 50 or 75 IQ points.

[...]

LIMBAUGH: I think anybody who voted for this thing has -- should -- you want to talk about Sanford violating an oath and a trust? This is such a travesty. This whole bill, this nonexistent bill, is so un-American. Everybody who voted for it, from Pelosi on down, needs to be jacked out of there in the next election. That's how bad this is.

[...]

LIMBAUGH: That's what it's all about. It's a tribute to Pelosi, a tribute to a bunch of leftists, extreme leftist radicals -- from Obama, to Pelosi, to Rahm Emanuel, to whoever the hell else. And that makes it a wonderful thing. Whoa, look what they did. Harry Reid, here it is again. It isn't going to go anywhere in the Senate, not even going to bring it up there.

So somebody wanted to go on the record as being all for this in the House, but it's just an abomination. This is one of the most outrageous things an elective body in a representative republic, a free country, has ever come up with.

Ladies' man

LIMBAUGH: I'll tell you, the news today is filled with examples of what's gone wrong with the media, given the chickification of news.